• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

turk said:
veganism is less ethical because it cannot withstand the scrutiny of Kant's universalization.

Either I don't understand your argument, or you are misapplying Kant's categorical imperative. Could you please 'unpack' your underlying reasoning?

ebola
 
saying something makes no sense to as a rebuttal is an argument from personal incredulity. My argument is right now in our stage of technological development, its not a viable option for every human to quit killing. Populations of species would go unchecked and ruin the delicate balance of the ecosystem. Please show me how there are enough nuts and berries to support the entire world population. Fights would ensue over the limited resources, we would have to farm more, which is also harmful to the environment. Sometimes, attempts to save the world only makes more problems. Who are you to question tens of thousands of years of evolution? For some, they think its selfless to cower to their empathy in order to avoid feelings of guilt. They would rather cause greater harm to the whole, so they can feel better about themselves for protecting the lives of individuals. Its a god eat god world, its only sad when you focus on the individual perspective. Life eats life and life continues to manifest itself in countless ways because of this process.

To counter my argument, you would need to show there is enough non-meat food source to support the entire world population without additional farming. You would have to explain how we would keep ecosystems in check without its apex predator thinning out the numbers.

Like I said, veganism is a beautiful moral high horse. But, to say that we as humans should not eat meat is naive and short-sighted.
 
if I could chose society's methods, I tend to lean on the side of North American tribes who hold similar pantheistic beliefs as my own. I believe in achieving balance and harmony which can not be done by leaning too heavily on one side of the spectrum.
 
sustainable pasturing exists so it's just cherry-picking to focus on, say, the ops of fast food corporations and say that is representative of all meat consumption.
 
saying something makes no sense to as a rebuttal is an argument from personal incredulity. My argument is right now in our stage of technological development, its not a viable option for every human to quit killing. Populations of species would go unchecked and ruin the delicate balance of the ecosystem. Please show me how there are enough nuts and berries to support the entire world population. Fights would ensue over the limited resources, we would have to farm more, which is also harmful to the environment. Sometimes, attempts to save the world only makes more problems. Who are you to question tens of thousands of years of evolution? For some, they think its selfless to cower to their empathy in order to avoid feelings of guilt. They would rather cause greater harm to the whole, so they can feel better about themselves for protecting the lives of individuals. Its a god eat god world, its only sad when you focus on the individual perspective. Life eats life and life continues to manifest itself in countless ways because of this process.

To counter my argument, you would need to show there is enough non-meat food source to support the entire world population without additional farming. You would have to explain how we would keep ecosystems in check without its apex predator thinning out the numbers.

Like I said, veganism is a beautiful moral high horse. But, to say that we as humans should not eat meat is naive and short-sighted.
yes, there is enough non meat food source. and if theres not, we should do everything in our power to augment the production.


lets just focus on morality and ethicality. the practicality and how to make the food revolution is not part of the discussion and cannot be used as a argument to counter vegetarianism.

violence, killing, taking life of another sentient being is unacceptable especially when there other viable options.

One more thing, for most people, the food is dead when it gets to their plate. Few people actually kill their food.
how's that even a argument?
 
Last edited:
its not an argument, its an observation. You keep calling me a killer because I eat what's already dead. I am not the one saying you ought not be a vegan, in fact, I said it was a beautiful decision to make for yourself, but to push that belief on others without being in a position to know how humanity would become what you want it to be without disrupting balance. It seems u are quick to empathize with animals, but where is your empathy for the rest of the world? Where is you empathy for people who choose to believe its ok for them to be human and do what humans have done naturally for tens of thousands of years. I am not advocating the farming and cattle industry as its an unnatural process that does harm to the environment. I am also not saying veganism will never be a viable option for the whole world to choose. I would like to believe that, in time, we will develop the means and the motivation to become or create the ultimate protector of life. I, too, remain very hesitant about killing animals, especially other mammals because I value their life. When I was younger I stopped hunting and fishing altogether as I sympathized with the worm I would thread throw a hook. The problem with empathizing outside of our species is that we have a tendency to anthromorphize by projecting our own feelings and emotions into tje subject of our empathy when we can only assume to know what they are experiencing. If death is just a return to the source, maybe we are liberating animals from the pain of life's suffering. I don't have all the answers, but I can reason that neither do you. I am not telling you how you ought to live your life, so use thay empathy to put yourself in the shoes of the opposition and stop patronizing them.
 
It's possible to come to an agreement if nobody is angry or has an agenda. This just happens to be one topic where somebody from one side likes to bash the other. What if we categorized life forms by the amount of self-awareness they seem to have? Based on the category, one could choose what to eat. Things like plants have none and would be ZERO while most humans would be a TEN. everything else would fall somewhere in between. Vegetarians would only eat level ZERO life forms while canibals would eat level TEN lifeforms.

We will never come to an agreement because we must first agree on the definition of certain things. For instance, we must come to an agreement on what "inhumane" treatment really is. Also, vegetarians and vegans have varying views on when it's acceptable to eat meat. Some say never, fucking eat grass and leaves. Others believe that it's acceptable if it's a matter of life and death.

That's the beauty of being human though. We don't have to agree on everything in order to get along. Some of my best friends are complete opposites of me politically and ethically. Junkies that lie and steal, something I personally abhor and don't condone, yet we still have the same bond we had when we were 7 years old.
 
turk said:
saying something makes no sense to as a rebuttal is an argument from personal incredulity.

Er, I was asking for clarification, not trying to rebut your argument. However, your argument that follows doesn't explain or bolster the Kantian point you were trying to make.

My argument is right now in our stage of technological development, its not a viable option for every human to quit killing. Populations of species would go unchecked and ruin the delicate balance of the ecosystem. Please show me how there are enough nuts and berries to support the entire world population. Fights would ensue over the limited resources, we would have to farm more, which is also harmful to the environment. Sometimes, attempts to save the world only makes more problems. Who are you to question tens of thousands of years of evolution? For some, they think its selfless to cower to their empathy in order to avoid feelings of guilt. They would rather cause greater harm to the whole, so they can feel better about themselves for protecting the lives of individuals. Its a god eat god world, its only sad when you focus on the individual perspective. Life eats life and life continues to manifest itself in countless ways because of this process.

Your argument rests on a couple of flawed assumptions. It's problematic that:
1. Farming plants directly tends to be a great deal more calorically efficient than animal husbandry, so rather than our depending on farming meat, its inefficiency tends to exacerbate hunger. Yes, I guess there are pasture lands that could not be effectively used otherwise (and I'm not saying that they should), but these are exceptional.
2. You speak as if we actually interact with ecosystems depending on apex predators; rather, we herd animals under highly controlled conditions, and thus without our upkeep, these populations would not exist. Eg, populations of cows would not swell if we discontinued farming them. Your argument would make more sense if most of us hunted.

ebola
 
You call my assumptions flawed but do not adequately address the issues presented. If we quit killing all the animals we eat, they will continue to survive and reproduce. Their populations will continue to grow as ours is. What will we do what we do about our competition for space? Just look at the deer population in the US after the decline of the grey wolf.

Your rebuttals are weak and baseless. Barely addresses the issues at large. There are billions of people eating meat. Do you honestly believe we could just up and start eating other foods without disrupting balance. I expected more quality debates. I lose interest when someone express too much ignorance for me to find it worthwhile to discuss things with them. If your response does nothing to adequately address the problems and unintended significant consequences of the universalization of such a principle, than it is of little interest to me.
 
What if we could use stem cells to grow animal parts without growing the entire animal? Would this make the vegans feel better?
 
Humans like to pretend we are excluded from Nature. We are nature, we play a significant role in nearly every ecosystem on this planet. Our effects our global.
 
just to be clear, I am far from attacking veganism. I am merely defending the choice to eat meat, and saying it can be done ethically. I think its funny how vagans feel the need to attack a person's choice to eat meat, while claiming moral superiority and an excess of compassion and empathy. How ironically smug...
 
You call my assumptions flawed but do not adequately address the issues presented. If we quit killing all the animals we eat, they will continue to survive and reproduce. Their populations will continue to grow as ours is. What will we do what we do about our competition for space? Just look at the deer population in the US after the decline of the grey wolf.

Your rebuttals are weak and baseless. Barely addresses the issues at large. There are billions of people eating meat. Do you honestly believe we could just up and start eating other foods without disrupting balance. I expected more quality debates. I lose interest when someone express too much ignorance for me to find it worthwhile to discuss things with them. If your response does nothing to adequately address the problems and unintended significant consequences of the universalization of such a principle, than it is of little interest to me.
the animal we kill and eat are not from nature, but from farms. we make sure they reproduce in controlled environments. we dont kill animals to respect the balance of nature. actually, the way we fish has absolutely destroyed the balance of the oceans.
talking about deer here as nothing to do with the conversation and again, the way deer is overpopulated is again due to how we killed their predators. we human have absolutely destroyed the balance of nature, and one of the main reasons is by killing the animals.

do you think we respect the balance of nature with the farms we create? the meat you buy are not from the wild, beside some fish.

the meat farms has been showed to have terrible environmental impacts and thus not respecting at all the balance of nature and are much worse then vegetables farms.

just to be clear, I am far from attacking veganism. I am merely defending the choice to eat meat, and saying it can be done ethically. I think its funny how vagans feel the need to attack a person's choice to eat meat, while claiming moral superiority and an excess of compassion and empathy. How ironically smug...

and you have failed to give even one good arguments. AND your the one making the personal attacks.

Humans like to pretend we are excluded from Nature. We are nature, we play a significant role in nearly every ecosystem on this planet. Our effects our global.

We, humans, kill everyday millions of animals, we are part of the nature indeed, and what we do with it is absolutely terrible, inhuman and unacceptable. we are arguably the most violent and cruel animal on the planet and part of that comes from how we treat animal and from the diet we have been following.
 
Last edited:
don't underestimate my logic. I am the type that would rather let grass grow with so all plants can have a fair shot. What must we do when we farm certain foods? Clear land of all competing species of life. We pump out pesticides and alter the genetic make up of our foods in the same way we domesticate our animals. We rape the ground of the diversity of nutrients. Where will all these animals live when we keep clearing their lands to support farming for the world's food supply.
 
don't underestimate my logic. I am the type that would rather let grass grow with so all plants can have a fair shot. What must we do when we farm certain foods? Clear land of all competing species of life. We pump out pesticides and alter the genetic make up of our foods in the same way we domesticate our animals. We rape the ground of the diversity of nutrients. Where will all these animals live when we keep clearing their lands to support farming for the world's food supply.

if you think that clearing lands is worse then killing everyday millions of poor sentient beings that has lived terrible life in overpopulated farms, malnourished, in sickness and terrible health conditions, I fail to see your logic.
 
Murphy, just gathering some information... Do you make sure to buy all organic and non genetically modified foods?

And you underestimate the effect our mass agriculture has caused.
 
I have made know personal attacks. I have made observations on outlooks based on the discussion. I don't see people, i see ideas and opinions. Some of these are smug, ignorant, naive, compassionate, thoughtful, deep, superficial, etc but as I am human, my ideas and opinions can be all of the above. I appreciate when other humans call me on my egoism as well, as long as they do it contructively and not as a deflection.
 
Murphy, just gathering some information... Do you make sure to buy all organic and non genetically modified foods?

And you underestimate the effect our mass agriculture has caused.
this conversation is about the meat farms, not about organic food vs not organic food. this could be a interesting new thread to open though.

but if you insist
http://science.time.com/2013/12/16/...vironmental-impact-of-global-meat-production/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production
https://woods.stanford.edu/environm...ed-global-meat-consumption-global-environment
http://beyondfactoryfarming.org/get...oice/social-environmental-impacts-meat-eating
 
u fail to see my logic because of ypur own personal biases and short-sightedness. Farming kills far more animals from sheer pesticides alone. I don't mean ignorant as an insult I mean it as a lack of knowledge. Some people don't realize that insects are animals, too.
 
Top