Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[infectedmushroom]

Not just affect profits, the industry would have to be completely re-orgiansed, with more acres of land to grow food, etc. It would be an enormous project and things would be both harder to produce and less profitable to sell, so there's not much enthusiasm for it, to say the least. It's ok if a few people turn vegetarian for health reasons, etc. but for the vast majority to is very undesired.



That kind of thinking is the reason things never change. If everyone just stopped over night it would stop. If 50% of us stopped half of it would stop. But it takes one and one at a time, over a long period, for something like this to actually change.

It's just what it takes, so it's confused to see it as pointless. It would only be pointless if only you did it, which it can seem like from your own limited viewpoint, but is not how it turns out when more change the way they live. If everyone thought like that at the start there would be no vegetarians, when now the 5-10% there are makes a real change.

I did not say it was pointless and I don't think I suggested it was either, my main point was it takes time, and people are greedy.

TBH I think it pompous you believe i'm confused, Ninae, but I don't want to make this argument personal.

 

[What 23]

Beautiful (a killer, new dad, Perigrene Falcon)

----

My main problem is the way it is being presented. "The poor animals!". It is annoying. It seems somebody doesn't realize that THE EARTH DOES NOT LOVE YOU. It is constantly looking for ways to EAT YOU (or fight you off, or use you for its own selfish reasons). We didn't develop armor for no reason, Mr. Softy.

I am receptive- very receptive to the fact that humans damage our environment, and inflict suffering (and potentially bring about an end to that, in an undesirable way, i.e. extinction). I see it largely a problem nestled with our greater mismanagement problem.

As one said, perhaps the most ethical thing one could do is suicide.
...Or mass murder.

I like the idea of eating more bugs.
That might be better for the environment.

In ways, I don't really have an argument. But I just can't consider eating life to be bad in and of itself.

 

[swilow]

My main problem is the way it is being presented. "The poor animals!". It is annoying. It seems somebody doesn't realize that THE EARTH DOES NOT LOVE YOU. It is constantly looking for ways to EAT YOU. We didn't develop armor for no reason, Mr. Softy.

I agree with you here by and large (gasp!). I think that earth is utterly neutral really, and that nothing that has happened here has any actual intrinsic value to the planet. I guess that makes the human experience that much stranger, that we have somehow got to where we are (for good or bad) against the odds and with no help. Which is part of the reason I think we should try and at least create a natural world for animals we farm, to give them a chance at developing. It sounds a bit hippy-nonsense, but I do believe that if humans have rights, so do animals. Neither party need be more important then the other.

 

[What 23]

I agree.

I think humans have a huge potential... But we lack perspective.

I wish we could change our habit...

 

[Journyman16]

what are you talking about?

meat industry DESTROY the delicate ecosystem
it destroy it.
we have destroyed the ecosystem of the seas because we eat fish. we have totally destroyed the seas ecosystem.
the meat we eat comes from farm, not nature. its been a long time the delicate eco system has been destroyed.

You might want to think through your choice of words a little more. We haven't DESTROYED anything, we have changed things. The sea still lives and has billions of life forms in it. The ecosystems that farms have re[placed are still around and, although arguably in danger in some places, are certainly not 'destroyed.'

And the point about Monsanto can be echoed about vegetable farms and grains - monoculture farms, which is what we would need to feed everyone on non-animal foods, are horrendously bad for environments. Just as Monsanto risks our entire future by killing off diversity, and poisoning the pollinators as well as us, monoculture farming causes large swathes of land become inhospitable to 'natural life forms. Those animals and insects then adapt to eat the foods we are growing where they once lived and then we kill them off with pesticides.

Eating meat isn't 'wrong' just because greed makes people treat animals badly, GREED is wrong. We will not resolve any problems while we try to demonise things that aren't a problem, and in spite of rhetoric, eating animals IS natural. Lots of animals do it. It's not eating them that is wrong, it's setting up and glorifying systems that demand everybody get all they can for themselves and bugger the rest. It's programming people to BUY! BUY! BUY! at all costs (I like puns :D) so the ultra-rich can get even richer and THAT focus on riches and power is why we have producers with zero empathy for the produce, and that includes the vegetables.

We've allowed the God of Money to overwrite even normal commonsense and now we risk our world so the Rothschilds and others can add another zero or two to their wealth.

 

[-=SS=-]

My main problem is the way it is being presented. "The poor animals!". It is annoying. It seems somebody doesn't realize that THE EARTH DOES NOT LOVE YOU. It is constantly looking for ways to EAT YOU (or fight you off, or use you for its own selfish reasons). We didn't develop armor for no reason, Mr. Softy.

At last! Someone else to say what needs to be said!

I get real tired of hearing about the poor animals and how killing is wrong, is violent, bla bla bla. Animals kill animals all the damn time. Some even play with their kills before the thing has died, torturing them if you will. That's just how it is. That is nature. Period.

The mouse exists to feed the cat. The bug exists to feed the mouse. Microbes in dirt exist to feed the bug. Everything is eating everything else, it's how life is constructed on this planet. Why is that fact so hard to understand. You choosing to go all limp and have a moral dilemma over eating flesh is all in your head, nothing more. Factory farming as we have established has a lot of reforming to do, but the act of farming itself.. nothing wrong with that at all.

I think this debate has kind of covered all the points really after 20 or so pages. I'm out.

 

[ForEverAfter]

It annoys you because - deep down - you know it's true.

"The poor Africans." It is annoying (to racists).
"The poor women." It is annoying (to sexists).

It seems somebody doesn't realize that THE EARTH DOES NOT LOVE YOU. It is constantly looking for ways to EAT YOU (or fight you off, or use you for its own selfish reasons). We didn't develop armor for no reason, Mr. Softy.

We don't live by the same laws as the animal kingdom.
We have a responsibility to try and do the right thing, because we are human.
There are many benefits to being human... This responsibility we are given is a blessing and a curse.

Nobody lives like animals, yet they say "we're animals" when they want to justify misdeeds... The fact that sharks kill ruthlessly and have no regard for the consequences of their actions, doesn't mean we need to follow suit.

The shark doesn't know any better. We do.
And the damage we're doing is considerably greater.

It sounds a bit hippy-nonsense, but I do believe that if humans have rights, so do animals. Neither party need be more important then the other.

It's not hippy nonsense.

 

[ebola?]

One way of summing up this type of approach is in terms of "fairness" or reciprocity: because animals naturally wreak great suffering on one another, they don't deserve our efforts to minimize their suffering. I believe this approach flawed, as it doesn't make sense to regard beings who aren't capable ethical agents in this way; we shouldn't expect animals to regard others with reciprocity due to their cognitive limitations, so it thus doesn't make sense to penalize them for such. Ergo, I prefer an ethic or care or compassion in this domain.

ebola

 

[socko]

It annoys you because - deep down - you know it's true.

"The poor Africans." It is annoying (to racists).
"The poor women." It is annoying (to sexists).

Their main point is what23 said: THE EARTH DOES NOT LOVE YOU. It is constantly looking for ways to EAT YOU (or fight you off, or use you for its own selfish reasons). We.... We tend to romanticize nature and to attribute human qualities to animals that they probably don't have, at least not the way we imagine. The wilderness and nature are violent and deadly. I know first hand because I have spent a lot of time living and traveling in the wilderness. It's easy to die out there and be eaten ...

ebola----- One way of summing up this type of approach is in terms of "fairness" or reciprocity: because animals naturally wreak great suffering on one another, they don't deserve our efforts to minimize their suffering. I believe this approach flawed, as it doesn't make sense to regard beings who aren't capable ethical agents in this way; we shouldn't expect animals to regard others with reciprocity due to their cognitive limitations, so it thus doesn't make sense to penalize them for such. Ergo, I prefer an ethic or care or compassion in this domain.

I agree. Unlike animals, we can choose compassion.

 

[infectedmushroom]

"The poor animals." It is annoying (to animal haters. anti-animalists? what's the correct term here?)

 

[Ninae]

My main problem is the way it is being presented. "The poor animals!". It is annoying. It seems somebody doesn't realize that THE EARTH DOES NOT LOVE YOU. It is constantly looking for ways to EAT YOU (or fight you off, or use you for its own selfish reasons). We didn't develop armor for no reason, Mr. Softy.

Not at all. The hatred comes from humanity. The earth is full of love. The plant kingdom is full of a love and peace that is perceptible. The animals act on instinct and don't have free will like we do. They're innocent. And if humanity changed the way we relate to each other and the rest of the earth the animals would also change. We are the ones who set the tone or create the consciousness for this world.

You can laugh off this all you want but it's true. To begin with this world was a paradise and it was first when humans started to turn against one another that the animals changed. There was no murder in the Garden of Eden. If it had been it wouldn't have been a paradise. Stop trying to make up excuses to defend evil. It's depressing and degrading to your spirit.

 

[murphythecat]

whats funny, its people for the killing of animal keep repeating the same argument over and over:
1- the cycle of life is based upon killing
2- killing is everywhere in nature
3- nothing wrong with killing, we have to eat

im out, im so happy to have compassion though, as clearly, some cannot even grasp the concept. very worrysome

 

[turkalurk]

If people stopped eating meat, we would be overstocked with land because 80% of crops are cultivated to feed livestock. No need to clear anymore.

That is a good point, but these animals are still alive and still have to eat, and we won't be killing them so their populatiins would still grow out of control. Without killing animals the competition for space still remains inevitable.


I have asked people to post some statistics, some studies, some kind of contingency plan explaining how the world could transition.

I admit, this is a topic I have never debated or thought too much about. Which is why I have agreed that it is ignorance due to my laziness.

 

[turkalurk]

I hate to do this, but I think that the discussion might benefit if you address the points I posed to you earlier:



Also, it might be useful to explore this:


And I mean in terms of your generalized framework. From this, you should be able to derive your particular case for eating meat (or if you justify your views on human carnivory on more specialized ethical grounds, these warrant explanation and should be squared with your wider ethical framework). I was also relatedly interested in an explanation of how your picture squared with Kantian reasoning (as you claimed earlier).

Generalized discussion note:
I think that people need to be a bit more careful when trying to disprove others' arguments via reductio ad absurdum, as if you're not careful, you can mischaracterize your discussant's views in the course of showing them to lead to undermining consequents. I have seen that in this thread, in a couple cases to the point of the 'rebuttal' hardly making sense.

ebola

I believe I did respond to your post the first time you posted it. I was only offering an alternative view. I am sorry if I made the impression that my food preferences are based on ethical principles, but as I have said they simply aren't that thought out. I get hungry and I eat. I liked Kant's universalization, but in a serious ethical debate where I applily my personal code of ethics, I don't believe I could say I personally feel that it is right for me to take a life from my fellow family of non-envasive mammals to eat it, if I can find a healthy alternative. The closer the species is to being human, the more compassion and empathy I feel for it. I used to let empathy run my life, but I have grown to have a balance between empathy and self-preservation. Too much empathy can cripple a person. I have tried to change my diet, I don't possess the will power to do it on my own. When I was younger I tried to talk my family into it, but I couldn't resist the temptation of my love of eating meat. I suppose its an addiction as I savor the flavor of a good steak that melts in my mouth. What can I say, as much as I hate to admit it, I live a hedonistic lifestyle motivated by superficial gratification of my senses.

If I explained how I ought to live my life based on this code, than I would also have to explain how I wouldn't be sacrificing an amount of integrity when it comes to my diet. Kant's universalization loses its appeal when you apply the murderer situation where Kant suggests one still ought not tell a lie. I would rather sacrifice my integrity and become a liar than to tell a murderer where to find his prey.

Its easy for me to claim meat eating can be universalized because we already eat meat and have been for tens of thousands of years. Veganism as a global diet has not been experienced so the implications can only be assumed. To decide ethics we must be able to predict the consequences to decide which diet would truly bring the most good with the least amount of harm. I have said not to expect me to take your word for the statistics that support veganism as the ethical diet for the human population. I feel since vegans want change, they should provide some verifiable evidence that supports their contingency plan of just switching from meat to vegetables.

I am speaking on behave of those who might have ethical codes that do not conflict with eating meat, but I do not want to confuse you by implying I eat meat as an ethical decision.

I have also offered a compromise that is soon to occur in the next 50 years, if not sooner. We can already grow body parts in a lab through stem cells derived from the pig intestine. I am all for promoting technology to grow animal muscles. I believe technological advancements are more likely to revolutionize the world's diet than debates on ethical principles.

To be honest, I mostly listen to my conscience when making ethical decisions unless my conscience is conflicted. My conscience is really not conflicted with respect to eating meat. Regardless if inherently eating meat is ethical or not, I know the way I consume is not ethical by my standards. I am iust lazy and poor. I don't believe it is right to farm plants or animals the way that we do. But, I still consume their products. I am no better than any other human and I don't pretend to be able to contend with my nature. It would be too exhausting for my particular mind. I don't have to strength to fight the way of the world, so the Taoist in me accepts the world for what it is. I have faith that things will progress the way they ought to without having to be at odds with our natural diet.

For those of you unfamiliar with principle of inaction here is a quote explaining it:

Inaction or wu-wei does not mean that one literally does nothing (although more often than we think actually doing nothing is the best policy). Rather, it means that one avoids unnatural action. This is most often forced or aggressive or obsessively fussy action. It also means, that one performs all one's actions with a natural, unforced attitude. The Taoist remembers that sand will settle out of water in time if the water is left undisturbed, and that no one person can do everything. Above all the Taoist avoids fussing. Excessive excitement over trivial matters is an annoyance to both self and others. The Czech philosopher Comenius expressed the idea in his motto: "Omnia sponte fluant; absit violentiarebus" – "Let all things spontaneously flow; let there be no violence to things". Wu-wei is also related to tolerance: one does not insistently interfere in the lives of others unless they themselves are interfering with someone. This letting alone of others is a form of respect and non-violence, and is akin to the modern notion of human rights.

 

[turkalurk]

whats funny, its people for the killing of animal keep repeating the same argument over and over:
1- the cycle of life is based upon killing
2- killing is everywhere in nature
3- nothing wrong with killing, we have to eat

im out, im so happy to have compassion though, as clearly, some cannot even grasp the concept. very worrysome

please go read some more about Buddhism if you want to be a monk. You seem to have alot of attachment.

 

[turkalurk]

Not at all. The hatred comes from humanity. The earth is full of love. The plant kingdom is full of a love and peace that is perceptible. The animals act on instinct and don't have free will like we do. They're innocent. And if humanity changed the way we relate to each other and the rest of the earth the animals would also change. We are the ones who set the tone or create the consciousness for this world.

You can laugh off this all you want but it's true. To begin with this world was a paradise and it was first when humans started to turn against one another that the animals changed. There was no murder in the Garden of Eden. If it had been it wouldn't have been a paradise. Stop trying to make up excuses to defend evil. It's depressing and degrading to your spirit.

what exactly is our will free from?

 

[-=SS=-]

im out, im so happy to have compassion though, as clearly, some cannot even grasp the concept. very worrysome

Aw you had to wait to post that until after I had left.. making me come back in here

It's precisely this kind of comment I was waiting for and why I came in here in the first place, and I thank you for so eloquently summing up the attitude and conviction of the anti-killing animal crowd, namely this kind of smug anthropocentric stance that you understand how reality really is and why you so feel so elevated that you know god/nature/whoever's plan, and that you have something that the rest of us don't.

If you want to be meat free, fantastic, all the power to you and your determination. I salute you. Just don't be a smug hippy liberal douche about it. Meat eaters have compassion too. I know I certainly do, and I have personally explained my position in this thread for one to clearly see. Just because I don't share the exact same conceptualization of compassion as you do doesn't mean I don't posses it or that other meat eaters don't.

The difference between us is I accept my place within this system of nature and I embrace the aspect of killing. As I and one other person wrote earlier it's a kind of privilege and spiritual experience in itself.. you recognize you are but a cog in this biosphere.. and that bestowing death upon another life so that you may survive deserves respect. That doesn't mean I take pleasure or personal satisfaction from the killing, just acknowledgement of the way this thing is set up.

I have always imagined what it would be like to be eaten by another animal like a bear or shark. I imagine it would be intense pain until the very last moments, unlike good farming practices where the animals death is pretty instant. But in the last moments, when your brain knows you're done and you let go, I always imagine there would be an acknowledgement of the power of this whole thing.. and that in the moment of death you would see that despite your temporary pain that actually it doesn't matter. The cycle just goes on. You realize you were not that important after all.

Why should any other animals death be any different to that scenario. Why should you decide that not bestowing death upon other life to survive is "ethically sound"? Have you asked nature for her opinion on this? Did you ever consider that maybe nature requires this function to take place? No. You didn't.

 

[turkalurk]

You might want to think through your choice of words a little more. We haven't DESTROYED anything, we have changed things. The sea still lives and has billions of life forms in it. The ecosystems that farms have re[placed are still around and, although arguably in danger in some places, are certainly not 'destroyed.'

And the point about Monsanto can be echoed about vegetable farms and grains - monoculture farms, which is what we would need to feed everyone on non-animal foods, are horrendously bad for environments. Just as Monsanto risks our entire future by killing off diversity, and poisoning the pollinators as well as us, monoculture farming causes large swathes of land become inhospitable to 'natural life forms. Those animals and insects then adapt to eat the foods we are growing where they once lived and then we kill them off with pesticides.

Eating meat isn't 'wrong' just because greed makes people treat animals badly, GREED is wrong. We will not resolve any problems while we try to demonise things that aren't a problem, and in spite of rhetoric, eating animals IS natural. Lots of animals do it. It's not eating them that is wrong, it's setting up and glorifying systems that demand everybody get all they can for themselves and bugger the rest. It's programming people to BUY! BUY! BUY! at all costs (I like puns :D) so the ultra-rich can get even richer and THAT focus on riches and power is why we have producers with zero empathy for the produce, and that includes the vegetables.

We've allowed the God of Money to overwrite even normal commonsense and now we risk our world so the Rothschilds and others can add another zero or two to their wealth.

great post!

 

[murphythecat]

Aw you had to wait to post that until after I had left.. making me come back in here

It's precisely this kind of comment I was waiting for and why I came in here in the first place, and I thank you for so eloquently summing up the attitude and conviction of the anti-killing animal crowd, namely this kind of smug anthropocentric stance that you understand how reality really is and why you so feel so elevated that you know god/nature/whoever's plan, and that you have something that the rest of us don't.

If you want to be meat free, fantastic, all the power to you and your determination. I salute you. Just don't be a smug hippy liberal douche about it. Meat eaters have compassion too. I know I certainly do, and I have personally explained my position in this thread for one to clearly see. Just because I don't share the exact same conceptualization of compassion as you do doesn't mean I don't posses it or that other meat eaters don't.

The difference between us is I accept my place within this system of nature and I embrace the aspect of killing. As I and one other person wrote earlier it's a kind of privilege and spiritual experience in itself.. you recognize you are but a cog in this biosphere.. and that bestowing death upon another life so that you may survive deserves respect. That doesn't mean I take pleasure or personal satisfaction from the killing, just acknowledgement of the way this thing is set up.

I have always imagined what it would be like to be eaten by another animal like a bear or shark. I imagine it would be intense pain until the very last moments, unlike good farming practices where the animals death is pretty instant. But in the last moments, when your brain knows you're done and you let go, I always imagine there would be an acknowledgement of the power of this whole thing.. and that in the moment of death you would see that despite your temporary pain that actually it doesn't matter. The cycle just goes on. You realize you were not that important after all.

Why should any other animals death be any different to that scenario. Why should you decide that not bestowing death upon other life to survive is "ethically sound"? Have you asked nature for her opinion on this? Did you ever consider that maybe nature requires this function to take place? No. You didn't.

Ive only stated my opinion. I havent decided anything, but faced with staggering evidence, some of you fail to see how bad meat farms is for the animals and for the planet.

it is the most polluting industry on the planet, it consume 20% of the water supply, the food that needs to be used to feed the animals is ridiculously too much. its not a viable option to feed people with meat. theres been hundreds of scientific articles written about it. It is the most harming industry for the nature.

yet people still consume meat and act as if they dont have any responsability toward the issue. when you buy meat, you encourage that industry, you encourage the worst condition a being could live, you encourage the torture, violence.

lol, I need to ask nature? I ask MY nature, I ask myself, would you want to be killed for your meat?

theres nothing wrong with killing a animal for his meat when you could eat something else that doesnt imply killing another being? I disagree. It is so wrong that if you dont see it, too bad.

people eat meat because it taste good. nobody would eat it if it tasted like shit. its not to respect the way of nature, to respect the way nature want us to feed ourselves, to respect the eco system to make sure the economy doesnt collapse, we eat it because we like the taste of meat, no matter the consequence our preference has on other people lives.
thats how our society is

 

[Xorkoth]

Aw you had to wait to post that until after I had left.. making me come back in here

It's precisely this kind of comment I was waiting for and why I came in here in the first place, and I thank you for so eloquently summing up the attitude and conviction of the anti-killing animal crowd, namely this kind of smug anthropocentric stance that you understand how reality really is and why you so feel so elevated that you know god/nature/whoever's plan, and that you have something that the rest of us don't.

If you want to be meat free, fantastic, all the power to you and your determination. I salute you. Just don't be a smug hippy liberal douche about it. Meat eaters have compassion too. I know I certainly do, and I have personally explained my position in this thread for one to clearly see. Just because I don't share the exact same conceptualization of compassion as you do doesn't mean I don't posses it or that other meat eaters don't.

The difference between us is I accept my place within this system of nature and I embrace the aspect of killing. As I and one other person wrote earlier it's a kind of privilege and spiritual experience in itself.. you recognize you are but a cog in this biosphere.. and that bestowing death upon another life so that you may survive deserves respect. That doesn't mean I take pleasure or personal satisfaction from the killing, just acknowledgement of the way this thing is set up.

I have always imagined what it would be like to be eaten by another animal like a bear or shark. I imagine it would be intense pain until the very last moments, unlike good farming practices where the animals death is pretty instant. But in the last moments, when your brain knows you're done and you let go, I always imagine there would be an acknowledgement of the power of this whole thing.. and that in the moment of death you would see that despite your temporary pain that actually it doesn't matter. The cycle just goes on. You realize you were not that important after all.

Why should any other animals death be any different to that scenario. Why should you decide that not bestowing death upon other life to survive is "ethically sound"? Have you asked nature for her opinion on this? Did you ever consider that maybe nature requires this function to take place? No. You didn't.

Awesome post man.