Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[ebola?]

That was an argument you put forth to characterize your opposition, not a position that others advanced widely in this thread (with stress on the importance of what "inherent" means here though). Eg, I don't think that many here would condemn those who depend crucially on hunted animals for nutrition without readily available alternatives.

ebola

 

[murphythecat]

ive always said its encouraging the industry and buying meat that is wrong because it promotes killing. im against killing and promoting killing.
once its bought and offered, the wrong is already done.

what happened to eating meat was inherently wrong?

 

[murphythecat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oht9AEq1798#t=40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSZmV_3Lm_A

 

[Abject]

Here in Australia we have wonderful kangaroo meat. Extremely lean, a source of CLA/transfat and omega 3s, full of minerals like zinc and iron and plenty of B group vitamins, and it's all wild hunted!
No farming of 'roos here, no hormones or antibiotics, only males are culled in the wild with a swift shot to the head, and if we didn't keep the numbers down it would result in environmental damage.
It's one of the most sustainable renewable resources around!

There's also venison and rabbits, both of which are hunted wildly and killed with a single shot to the head.
I find this to be much more ethical than farming.

 

[ebola?]

Yeah, it pretty much tastes like comparatively lean beef or bison.

ebola

 

[swilow]

I'm just wondering if all vegetarians/vegans do this... and, if not, why not?
Is it better / worse to throw away the meat?

What is the ethical issue, if any, when it will otherwise go to waste?
And, by extension, does the same apply to an animal that died of natural causes?
If you have a pet sheep, do you make mutton stew when it dies or do you bury it.
In which case, should I have buried the bacon?

It's not something I'm losing sleep over.
I just haven't quite worked it out, yet.
And, I thought it might generate some discussion.

Ah, quite the conundrum

Not really, I think you followed the right path. Better to consume and utilise some of the value of the animal then not. However, you could have the buried the meat and surely some sort of ground burrowing carrion insect would have found it. Or just letting it decompose would have provided sustenance to a thriving galaxy of bacteria and microorganisms. But, the most direct way that YOU could have utilised that resource is what you did IMO. What you excrete of it will also go to use, and all excretements that follow there-on. I'm thinking of the way that not much (that is food) could be thought of as going to waste (unless you sent it to the moon). One could take and follow this thought ad infinitum...If the universe works in the way we think, then nothing really ever goes to waste. I suppose you could say that some things get misappropriated.

what happened to eating meat was inherently wrong?

It seemed to be left by the wayside when you stopped mentioning it . Its probably good that Murphy is exhibiting some pragmatism here, but this is a good example of a real-world scenario and an example of moral absolutism being inflexible and incompatible with the vicissitude's of life. I'm pretty sure I've heard the Dalai Lama mentioning that he consumes animal if a host offers it, to avoid being impolite and wasteful. I can respect that line of thinking. I guess, for a Buddhist, the wrong doing is largely accrued by the purchaser of the product...? Whether that statement is true or not, I think its a bit disingenuous and cunning. I'm not sure how flexible the operation of karma is meant to be though...

Here in Australia we have wonderful kangaroo meat. Extremely lean, a source of CLA/transfat and omega 3s, full of minerals like zinc and iron and plenty of B group vitamins, and it's all wild hunted!
No farming of 'roos here, no hormones or antibiotics, only males are culled in the wild with a swift shot to the head, and if we didn't keep the numbers down it would result in environmental damage.
It's one of the most sustainable renewable resources around!

I didn't know you were Aussie. Hi, I am too...

I have consumed kangaroo in the past; I didn't like it all that much except when eaten at a restaurant. My attempts to cook it were futile... My brother, who lives more to the north, has been known to eat roadkill including kangaroos. That is dedication I'm not sure I can muster....

But it brings up foreverafter's point, about (I guess) ethical utilisation of resources. I hope I've made my point, that I am not against ethical use of animals, but in modern farming that appears pretty sparse and has lead me to make the only choice I think I can. I think that consuming an animal, died after being randomly struck by a car, almost honours the death of the creature. I suppose I support that.

 

[turkalurk]

yeah, that makes sense. Absolutism when its convenient. Argue a person to death and then change your position.

 

[turkalurk]

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?

I guess its a better argument than you thought eh? It worked for you when you wanted to eat meat. So many things I can quote where you implicitly claim that eating meat is always wrong. I am glad to see you have changed your mind.

 

[murphythecat]

my mind hasnt change about it, it is my position from day one of this thread and ive been following that for years now.
Ive said so many time in this thread that its buying meat that encourage and continue the massacre and that this is what im against. once its bought, theres nothing else to do. the harm has been done because the killing will continue. if we were to all stop buying meat, the industry of cruelty would end. the only solution is to stop buying meat.

I guess its a better argument than you thought eh? It worked for you when you wanted to eat meat. So many things I can quote where you implicitly claim that eating meat is always wrong. I am glad to see you have changed your mind.

 

[ForEverAfter]

the only solution is to stop buying meat.

There are ways to purchase meat without contributing to the suffering of animals.
Wild over-populated game, like kangaroo, as someone else mentioned.
And molluscs, since they don't have brains...

yeah, that makes sense. Absolutism when its convenient. Argue a person to death and then change your position.

I'm not sure who that was directed towards, turk, but the vast majority of vegans / vegetarians in this thread haven't been speaking in absolutes. We've all clarified, repeatedly, that we are against the suffering caused by meat industries on farmed animals... There have been some absolute statements, here and there, like the one I quoted - above - from Murphy... But, you that doesn't justify lumping your entire opposition together into one convenient mass target...

 

[murphythecat]

There are ways to purchase meat without contributing to the suffering of animals.
Wild over-populated game, like kangaroo, as someone else mentioned.
And molluscs, since they don't have brains...

yeah, we talked about this like 2 months ago about different scenario where killing would be acceptable to save species, or save a eco system ect.

 

[para-thesis]

You're a total crackpot. If an alien race had the ability to feed on us, well that would be survival of the fittest now wouldn't it? But please, an advanced alien race would travel trillions of miles to eat another less advanced race? That's sounds, smells, etc like false-equivalency bullshit.

 

[para-thesis]

Or, better yet, just eat a balanced diet with lots of iron-rich food.
Vegans have to take (some) supplements, but vegetarians don't.

Love this, so if you're basically required to supplement your diet with pills to stay healthy, doesnt that say something about the diet itself. I take supplements, but only to SUPPLEMENT, not as a requirement to stay baseline healthy. Being an omnivore (which i'm sorry to inform you) we are, is the balanced diet for the human animal.

 

[ForEverAfter]

You're a total crackpot.

Who are you talking to?

...

People on the omnivore side of this argument keep returning to of naturalism, yet you're all typing on computers...
Aren't condoms unnatural? Should we do without them, too? ... What about medicine?
Aren't there other factors - aside from who natural something is - to consider?

And, has anybody on this thread actually suggested that being a vegan is "more natural" than eating meat?
We're not discussing what is natural; we're discussing what is ethical.

 

[para-thesis]

I won't deny any predatory qualities. I'm pretty fierce on the intellectual level, I have the killer-instinct. The thing is it can be channeled in different ways.

There is so much self-aggrandizement in that statement its ridiculous.... you may think its possible for the human race to seperate itself from nature, but how exactly is that even possible? We live within the same ecosystem as everything else. Basically, although he couldn't quite articulate it correctly, what23 was right. You make these moral decisions based off of the luxury of being insulated from life-or-death survival. You cant tell me your philosophy holds any water as optimal if, pushed by the necessity, you were forced to eat meat. Yes, it may be hypothetical, but if you were in a place with no fauna or available flora, you would be forced to eat meat. Because you are an omnivore, and you cant just choose to deny a million years of human evolution because you feel nicer about it that way.

 

[para-thesis]

...

People on the omnivore side of this argument keep returning to of naturalism, yet you're all typing on computers...
Aren't condoms unnatural? Should we do without them, too? ... What about medicine?
Aren't there other factors - aside from who natural something is - to consider?

And, has anybody on this thread actually suggested that being a vegan is "more natural" than eating meat?
We're not discussing what is natural; we're discussing what is ethical.[/QUOTE]

Ethics has nothing to do with the diet of an animal. But you seem to think you're so outside of the very world you live in that you can just disregard it. Why is that?

 

[socko]

T.... Yes, it may be hypothetical, but if you were in a place with no fauna or available flora, you would be forced to eat meat. ....

What I want to know is, if we were all stuck in a place with no edible flora or fauna, which of us would resort to cannibalisme in order to survive?

 

[ForEverAfter]

Ethics has nothing to do with the diet of an animal.

No, but it has to do with the dietary choices of human beings.
Again, that's what this thread is about.

you seem to think you're so outside of the very world you live in that you can just disregard it. Why is that?

I'm not sure I understand the question... I'm not disregarding anything...
Although it is more natural for humans to eat meat, it is also more natural for humans not to use contraception.

if you were in a place with no fauna or available flora, you would be forced to eat meat.

if we were all stuck in a place with no edible flora or fauna, which of us would resort to cannibalism

Well said.

 

[para-thesis]

No, but it has to do with the dietary choices of human beings.
Again, that's what this thread is about.

Then the thread is based on a falsehood, because seperating yourself from nature by inserting your fabricated code of ethics into nature which has no regard for your moral code is sort of useless. factory farming is horrible, I havent seen anyone advocate for it, but considering meat consumption to be the infringement of an animals' rights? Thats a different matter altogether that has more to do with your opinion and preferences, not the reality of nature. In the end, survival trumps regard for feelings, and ethical practice has nothing to do with survival of the fittest.

I'm not sure I understand the question. I'm not disregarding anything...
Although it is more natural for humans to eat meat, it is also more natural for humans not to use contraception.



Well said.

who said that I supported contraception? And if it did come down to cannibalism, damn right I would be prepared to eat you. It may take awhile for me to work up the hunger, but in the end i'm a mammal, an omnivorous one at that, and my nature would prevail over all my purely intellectual reasoning on morals. When it comes down to necessity vs. Morals, whos really fool enough to believe that their morals are more important?

 

[murphythecat]

but, are you in that position where you are starving to death and need to kill and eat another human? no, so why bring those situation when we are not in this situation and you go to a supermarket and decide to buy meat rather then cereals, beans, lentils, nuts, eggs, ect.

and, your diet and the choice you make to eat meat is also purely intellectual and you are influenced by the culture where you live. there are close to a billion humans in india that are vegetarian.

who said that I supported contraception? And if it did come down to cannibalism, damn right I would be prepared to eat you. It may take awhile for me to work up the hunger, but in the end i'm a mammal, an omnivorous one at that, and my nature would prevail over all my purely intellectual reasoning on morals. When it comes down to necessity vs. Morals, whos really fool enough to believe that their morals are more important?