Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[turkalurk]

I am thinking of the conditions required to produce animals for food. In this sense, you are taking the argument out of context. But illustratively, I also think that hunting (for food!) is more ethical than buying food at the supermarket (on average).

ebola

i did not engage your arguments, you have engaged mine. It is irrelevant to apply my arguments to a context I have admitted is exthically unsound. For example, if I admit that assisted suicide is wrong, but make the case that suicide iitself can be justified, it is irrelevant to keep applying your arguments to assisted suicide.

 

[ebola?]

It is irrelevant to apply my arguments to a context I have admitted is exthically unsound.

So we essentially agree then? I also don't think that vegetarianism trumps other ethical issues. We all cause suffering in varied ways, we all have blood on our hands, and the vast majority of people try to reduce the suffering they cause in various ways.

ebola

 

[turkalurk]

So we essentially agree then? I also don't think that vegetarianism trumps other ethical issues. We all cause suffering in varied ways, we all have blood on our hands, and the vast majority of people try to reduce the suffering they cause in various ways.

ebola

yes, and this could have happened a long time ago, because I have admitted as much in my initial posts. Like nina said, apparently my approach needs work, as I am not making my views clear enough to be understood.

 

[turkalurk]

I just don't understand the point of saying things like it's more natural to emphatise with other humans so it's only reasonable to put humans first. Of course it is, that's a given, and the whole point of an alternative outlook on these things is to try to see it differently than what is most natural or common. I don't see how intellectualising the most natural, self-explanatory human impulses, like many try to, gives any validation to your argument either way.

My argument is that one's diet is usually not an intellectual choice, and ought not be used to weigh a person's moral fiber. That vegetarianisn is a respectable choice, but does not inherently place someone in a superior position of "rightness." It might mean the person could be attempting to exert more control over their life by attempting to form the world into what they think it ought to be, but that does not necessarily make someone better than the next person who shares a different code of ethics and moral outlook.

Isn't one's diet a "most natural, self explanatory impulse?" Doesn't it stand to reason that intellectualizing one's natural and common human diet does not give any validation to your argument?

 

[ForEverAfter]

If that's your argument, I'm not sure who you're arguing with.
I mean: did anybody say vegetarians are better?

I think contributing to the suffering of animals is wrong, but that doesn't translate to "I'm better than you" any more than you saying that you don't think contributing to the suffering of animals is wrong translates to "You're better than me"... Does it?

Should people not be able to say what they think is wrong or right, for fear of being labeled smug/elitist?

 

[turkalurk]

If that's your argument, I'm not sure who you're arguing with.
I mean: did anybody say vegetarians are better?

I think contributing to the suffering of animals is wrong, but that doesn't translate to "I'm better than you" any more than you saying that you don't think contributing to the suffering of animals is wrong translates to "You're better than me"... Does it?

Should people not be able to say what they think is wrong or right, for fear of being labeled smug/elitist?

yes, the claim has consistently been made the eating meat was inherently wrong, that there is no logic to justify it and that even contributing to killing by eating what has been killed by another is murder. Yes, telling someone that what they do is morally wrong, implies they are in a morally superior position. I can only assume its smug and say it seems smug to me, because it has not been justifiable to equate an opinion about what is moral as an absolute without a sufficient amount of reasonability. As I have consistently stated, my initial discussion was aimed specifically at these aspects of the conversation and directed at Murphy who made the absolutist claims.

I am not suggesting that people ought not discuss ethics, I am saying we can't really have a discussion about ethics if its solely based on a feeling of rightness or wrongness. I don't care if you come off smug or not, smugness doesn't bother me especially if it is subtle and disguised. I suggest everyone should focus on just being who they are and becoming the person they want to be. There is a place for everyone, even the evil ones. I might not appreciate every role specifically, and value some roles more than I do others as I am only human. But, I am grateful to have all roles to make Humanity what it is, a beautiful manifestation of Nature. There is strength in diversity, without which, we would not be who were are today.

 

[murphythecat]

yes, the claim has consistently been made the eating meat was inherently wrong, that there is no logic to justify it and that even contributing to killing by eating what has been killed by another is murder. Yes, telling someone that what they do is morally wrong, implies they are in a morally superior position. I can only assume its smug and say it seems smug to me, because it has not been justifiable to equate an opinion about what is moral as an absolute without a sufficient amount of reasonability. As I have consistently stated, my initial discussion was aimed specifically at these aspects of the conversation and directed at Murphy who made the absolutist claims.

I think its morally wrong to eat meat indeed and when people buy meat, they encourage that immoral activity. does that make them immoral as persons, no. thats a conclusion that you made, a assumption that you did honestly and im not sure why.

I think people buy meat without realizing their impact and the consequence of their actions, but do I see me superior as them, no. My opinion on that matter of the ethicality of meat is not yours to judge, insult and attack every chance you get.

My argument is that one's diet is usually not an intellectual choice, and ought not be used to weigh a person's moral fiber. That vegetarianisn is a respectable choice, but does not inherently place someone in a superior position of "rightness." It might mean the person could be attempting to exert more control over their life by attempting to form the world into what they think it ought to be, but that does not necessarily make someone better than the next person who shares a different code of ethics and moral outlook.

Isn't one's diet a "most natural, self explanatory impulse?" Doesn't it stand to reason that intellectualizing one's natural and common human diet does not give any validation to your argument?

I have to disagree with that. our diet is a choice and we decide what we eat. its our responsibility. the well being of other beings is also our responsibility. I think that eating meat is irresponsible but clearly, other dont see it that way. I dont care.. sorry if that offend the high opinion you have made of yourself. if you think its oral to eat meat, im very glad for you, but so far, nothing have convince me that its really acceptable to eat meat.

 

[ebola?]

Yes, telling someone that what they do is morally wrong, implies they are in a morally superior position.

Not necessarily. This assumption is unnecessarily uncharitable to the intent of the person making the moral claim. This is why I suggested we explore the assumptions underlying our moral frameworks. I believe that people's ethical perspectives tend to be sufficiently complex to lead to ambivalence about ethical claims (regardless of whether and how such ambivalence is expressed).

ebola

 

[turkalurk]

Not necessarily. This assumption is unnecessarily uncharitable to the intent of the person making the moral claim. This is why I suggested we explore the assumptions underlying our moral frameworks. I believe that people's ethical perspectives tend to be sufficiently complex to lead to ambivalence about ethical claims (regardless of whether and how such ambivalence is expressed).

ebola

out of context again. You see, i didn't imply all vegetarians are smug, I said that they can come off that way when they preach and impose their morality on others by making judgements and implying a moral absolute has been broken. As you see, my arguments are not meant to be absolute, but infered ontologically from the meaning of my words. I start from assumed premises and infer their implications. I never admit certainty, I take an agnostic approach to knowledge. I reason that if "A" happens, then "B" is likely to happen. If B group preaches to A group, about how A group lives their life, then it stands to reason that B group assumes they certainly know how everyone ought to live and thus will appear smug to A group. Whether B group is justified in holding their position or not is an entirely different question. However, justice usually involves at least a majority acceptance, if not a consensus.

 

[ebola?]

out of context again.

For whatever reason, I'm having trouble communicating with you. I'll have to take a break.

ebola

 

[turkalurk]

I think its morally wrong to eat meat indeed and when people buy meat, they encourage that immoral activity. does that make them immoral as persons, no. thats a conclusion that you made, a assumption that you did honestly and im not sure why.

I think people buy meat without realizing their impact and the consequence of their actions, but do I see me superior as them, no. My opinion on that matter of the ethicality of meat is not yours to judge, insult and attack every chance you get.


I have to disagree with that. our diet is a choice and we decide what we eat. its our responsibility. the well being of other beings is also our responsibility. I think that eating meat is irresponsible but clearly, other dont see it that way. I dont care.. sorry if that offend the high opinion you have made of yourself. if you think its oral to eat meat, im very glad for you, but so far, nothing have convince me that its really acceptable to eat meat.

I am not trying to convince you of what you eat, but sometimes I do mirror others behavior to try to impose empathy on them. To make them feel what I feel by their words. I don't always intend to do this, its just a part my behavior. I don't expect to convince anyone how to live and I wouldn't want that responsibility. I can only call things as I see them, so I certainly don't blame you for calling them how you see them. In fact, I appreciate that you do it as I often value idealistic intentions. I am just using my experiences to try to open your mind to other avenues of thought and see things from a wider angle. I don't claim superiority, in fact, I have consistenly claimed ethic inferiority. I have even admitted to a lack of integrity, laziness, other offensive assumptions about me because I am blatantly aware of my humanity.

I still think its odd how an mod involved in a conversation can issue warnings against his opposition. I think it shows bias that so many nasty attempts to harm my ego in substantial ways went completely unchecked but I got a warning about my implications of smugness? Seriously? If there was a delete account option I would have pressed it. I did ask Ebola to erase my account. Apparently, that is not an option so I will have to resist the urge to continue any existing conversations. I wish you all the best of luck, and I am grateful for you all for your expressions of humanity. You are all beautiful in your own ways, and I appreciate the glimpse that you gave me.

I have an addicting personality, and expressing oneself to others can become obsessive. Has little to do with Ebola, but I do prefer less moderation and more impartiality. It has more to do with putting my time to more productive and constructive use as I feel it was mostly wasted on fighting misconceptiins and misinterpretations and battling with everyone's ego. It seems the very nature of a expressing your "personality" feeds one's ego. When you oppose ego, you only seem to reinforce it.

 

[turkalurk]

For whatever reason, I'm having trouble communicating with you. I'll have to take a break.

ebola

the question I would like to ask, is are you trying to genuinely communicate with me, or compete with me? You shouldn't feel the need to compete with someone who will readily admit ethical inferiority. Why take offense to someone's criticism of smugness, when they themselves have admited to their inferiority? My logic may be more consistent than most of what has been presented, but I have never claimed superior integrity? In fact, I have done nothing but praise vegetarians for their conviction and appreciated their compassion. Which is weird that I am seen as being so offensive to these people I have only claimed to cherish.

 

[ebola?]

You claimed that I took you "out of context" four times on the last page of discussion. We're obviously talking past each other in some sense. And smugness or implications thereof, of course, are not the issue (we, as in you and I, have not even been talking about that in this thread). Rather, it was use of multiple, persistent ad-hominems that dragged discussion astray.

And while I'm sure that I'm driven in part by unconscious competitive drives, I am, indeed, trying to communicate.

If there was a delete account option I would have pressed it.

And then you continued to post for a few hours. Give me a break, dude.

ebola

 

[Ninae]

So, how do you know somone who spends all their life in slavery really suffer? Considering it's all they've ever known. How do you even know those who spend their entire lives in sexual slavery are unhappy?

Because your knowledge of human nature and ability to emphasise. And the high-level mammals have much in common with us. Just think of our ability to emphatise with our pets and share in their happiness and unhappiness.

Or is there no limit to how inhumane a human being can be towards other creatures?

 

[swilow]

Why take offense to someone's criticism of smugness, when they themselves have admited to their inferiority?

I know you are not talking to me here but, FWIW, I haven't been offended by what you've said because much of the personal stuff was rubbish. I think that your technique of making broad assumptions about someone's ideals/morality/ego is misguided because you cannot really know anything about those things based on brief interaction on a forum. On the other hand, I know that I have criticised what you have written here. That I can do and that only because it is all I know of you. The basis of much of your fcomments about people here are based on your imagination. At least I have the vague solidity of your written word to base my criticism on.

You've consistently lumped all vegetarians/vegans together to make criticisms of. There is an inherent illogic in doing that, rendering a lot (not all) of your conclusions invalid. I personally don't agree with Murphy's take on this topic, nor do I agree with Ninae's idea's. That's 3 non-meat eaters who don't see eye-to-eye. Vegeterians/vegans are as diverse a group as any. Overlooking that fact would lead anyone to the mistaken views that you've come to.

My logic may be more consistent than most of what has been presented, but I have never claimed superior integrity? In fact, I have done nothing but praise vegetarians for their conviction and appreciated their compassion. Which is weird that I am seen as being so offensive to these people I have only claimed to cherish.

You haven't been logically consistent. Point in case, you did it above, claiming to have "done nothing but praise vegetarians". It follows that those in opposition to you have been unreasaonable and irrational in determining that you don't respect vegetarianism and you would then be correct in feeling like a victim of injustic. Yet your first post describes this diet as a 'high horse'. That doesn't sound at all like praise really. It sounds like veiled antagonism, which you've gone on to aptly demonstrate, so to act shocked or dismayed at this unwarranted opposition is disingenuous and illogical.

The generalisation that you did earlier is another example of a logical fallacy. (BTW, logic isn't totally infallible and there is room for illogic. But your claims to it need to be honestly examined).

I think you missed my point in my OP when I mentioned 'alternative lifestyle choices'. I wasn't talking about alternatives to meat eating, I was talking about other less mainstream lifestyle choices. The thread ended up being entirely about vegetarianism/veganism though.

I've never really considered the possibility of the entire human population giving up meat*. But if it was to happen, yes it would be disastrous if enacted immediately. The problems you've raised with it (ie. what to do with the huge population of now useless animals) is moot if this new diet was introduced globally over, say, a generation or 50 years. The land used to both house livestock and growing food for them could be gradually repurposed to grow food for humans.

*I would never ever support this. I am against the state trying to impose any lifestyle upon anyone, and I would really fight against imposed vegetarianism. Slippery slope IMO.

 

[ForEverAfter]

I know you are not talking to me here but, FWIW, I haven't been offended by what you've said because much of the personal stuff was rubbish.

Same.
I haven't found anything remotely offensive.
Slightly annoying, sure, but not offensive.

 

[rickolasnice]

I've never really considered the possibility of the entire human population giving up meat*. But if it was to happen, yes it would be disastrous if enacted immediately. The problems you've raised with it (ie. what to do with the huge population of now useless animals) is moot if this new diet was introduced globally over, say, a generation or 50 years. The land used to both house livestock and growing food for them could be gradually repurposed to grow food for humans.

If people stopped breeding them there wouldn't be a huge population of worthless animals.. Cows are slaughtered before they're three years old.. i can't be bothered to look up what it is for other animals so I'll assume cows are one of the older ones..

Apparently dairy cows can live up to 20 but they're marked for beef at 4 (two different sources, but still..) Just leave em be.. maybe evolution would take them back where they started.

If it was the meat industry that stopped one step at a time, rather than the meat eating - there wouldn't be a problem

 

[Journyman16]

If we stopped looking after cattle there would be a problem, but probably not for long - short of slaughtering them all we'd ahve to let them roam, building up the predator stocks. Then of course, we would have a problem with those predators when they over ran the supply of new meat stocks. We might also have issues with disease from all the carcasses laying around the place.

It would be similar with other stock - slaughter them or deal with te consequences. Nature WILL balance things but it may take a while. We have vastly influenced natural ecosystems beyond normal balances.

But monculture vegetables and grains is almost as harmful - the Mallee and the Colorado dust bowl are two products of such things. We would be better I think in abandoning the vast megafarm ideas and go back to families producing their own - aquaponics offers a way for each family to at least live at sustainable levels in a few square metres and offers opportunity for small scale industry to come back to supply extras in life.

Such a way of life would immediately alter the balance of vegetable to meat we all consume - that would be a healthy thing I think. :D

Of course we'd have to overturn the 'Consume at all Costs' (I like puns :D) economy that is destroying the planet to benefit a few thousand people.

 

[turkalurk]

I know you are not talking to me here but, FWIW, I haven't been offended by what you've said because much of the personal stuff was rubbish. I think that your technique of making broad assumptions about someone's ideals/morality/ego is misguided because you cannot really know anything about those things based on brief interaction on a forum. On the other hand, I know that I have criticised what you have written here. That I can do and that only because it is all I know of you. The basis of much of your fcomments about people here are based on your imagination. At least I have the vague solidity of your written word to base my criticism on.
wow, hypocrisy is strong within this one, can't I say the same thing? Oh, wait, you have based your criticisms if my words even though you admitted to only reading selected portions of what I wrote and continue to ignore any clarifications.
You've consistently lumped all vegetarians/vegans together to make criticisms of. At this point, you are either lying, are delusional, or assume I am lying. So, I will no longer engage your childishness. How nice of you to continue to waste my time with empty rhetoric? I will no longer engage strawmen. There is an inherent illogic in doing that, rendering a lot (not all) of your conclusions invalid. I personally don't agree with Murphy's take on this topic, nor do I agree with Ninae's idea's. That's 3 non-meat eaters who don't see eye-to-eye. Vegeterians/vegans are as diverse a group as any. Overlooking that fact would lead anyone to the mistaken views that you've come to.



You haven't been logically consistent. Point in case, you did it above, claiming to have "done nothing but praise vegetarians". It follows that those in opposition to you have been unreasaonable and irrational in determining that you don't respect vegetarianism and you would then be correct in feeling like a victim of injustic. Yet your first post describes this diet as a 'high horse'. That doesn't sound at all like praise really. It sounds like veiled antagonism, which you've gone on to aptly demonstrate, so to act shocked or dismayed at this unwarranted opposition is disingenuous and illogical.

The generalisation that you did earlier is another example of a logical fallacy. (BTW, logic isn't totally infallible and there is room for illogic. But your claims to it need to be honestly examined).

I think you missed my point in my OP when I mentioned 'alternative lifestyle choices'. I wasn't talking about alternatives to meat eating, I was talking about other less mainstream lifestyle choices. The thread ended up being entirely about vegetarianism/veganism though.

I've never really considered the possibility of the entire human population giving up meat*. But if it was to happen, yes it would be disastrous if enacted immediately. The problems you've raised with it (ie. what to do with the huge population of now useless animals) is moot if this new diet was introduced globally over, say, a generation or 50 years. The land used to both house livestock and growing food for them could be gradually repurposed to grow food for humans.

*I would never ever support this. I am against the state trying to impose any lifestyle upon anyone, and I would really fight against imposed vegetarianism. Slippery slope IMO.

one more time I will walk you through this. I have absolutely nothing against vegetarians. Especially, the ones who don't preach about it. I still respect and appreciate the ones that do preach about it, but the more extreme one gets about pushing their agenda, the more that person is seens as smug. Having a good framework of morality is a great thing, unfortunately it sometimes leads to preaching these morals, and that is what I consider a moral high horse. The fact that I call it a beautiful one, means that I respect, admire, and appreciate it as it applies empathy and compassion more generously than I would be willing to apply for practical and pragmatic reasons. Although I don't see anything wrong with my analogy of a fine looking high horse (hozier), I did respectfully relabeled the high horse as a stronger moral leg. I find it laughable that you even imply that I am being underhanded and mean them to be insulting and offensive instead of it just being my opinion about those who preach unjustified opinions as moral absolutes. At any rate, I am tired of useless conversation in which I have to respond to blatant misinterpretations from people who refuse to acknowledge any of the other things I have said that consistently conflict with these misintretations. I am a blunt person. Not a coward afraid to put my feelings out there. I thought you were cool at first willow, now I think its useless to communicate with you because you seem to dig your head in the sand. Yes, seeing that you don't care about wasting my time by addressing issues I have repeatedly clarified, sorry if I assume you are not very empathetic and compassionate. I don't know you as a person, I can only go by how I feel you have treated me. And, I can tell you in all honesty, I expected much more from someone that takes such a beautiful stance on the ethical treatment of animals.

out of context again. You see, i didn't imply all vegetarians are smug, I said that they can come off that way when they preach and impose their morality on others by making judgements and implying a moral absolute has been broken. As you see, my arguments are not meant to be absolute, but infered ontologically from the meaning of my words. I start from assumed premises and infer their implications. I never admit certainty, I take an agnostic approach to knowledge. I reason that if "A" happens, then "B" is likely to happen. If B group preaches to A group, about how A group lives their life, then it stands to reason that B group assumes they certainly know how everyone ought to live and thus will appear smug to A group. Whether B group is justified in holding their position or not is an entirely different question. However, justice usually involves at least a majority acceptance, if not a consensus.

 

[ebola?]

I thought you were cool at first willow, now I think its useless to communicate with you because you seem to dig your head in the sand. Yes, seeing that you don't care about wasting my time by addressing issues I have repeatedly clarified, sorry if I assume you are not very empathetic and compassionate.

Why can't you refrain from making personal insults? How were my suggestions for how discussion should be conducted unclear?

ebola