Veganism/vegetarianism and "ethical" lifestyle choices

[murphythecat]

I see

Awesome post man.

 

[turkalurk]

See, I figured they'd be working on this already!

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-05/20/village-lab-meat-farms

Maybe if I post a relevant article, someone will acknowledge ita significance!

 

[Xorkoth]

I see

It was a little harsh but I think what he said is more or less spot on. I think you're on a bit of an ego trip about your "enlightenment" in various threads. I like you and I can tell you're coming from a good place but you come across as quite judgmental and condescending sometimes. When you start comparing your enlightenment with others', it starts to be about the ego.

But, I was more responding to the second half of his post, I thought it was pretty profound and it resonated with me.

 

[murphythecat]

sadly, im sure you wouldnt say that if you shared the same opinion on the matter.

all I see is people, without valid and strong argument, always rely on personal attacks, generalization or plain mistaken view which has no logic.

and now, you agree with
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.

wouldn't you have preferred that the bear wouldnt have killed you so you can continue to enjoy your life. we are way worst then the bear. the bear has to kill you to live, but we dont. we just kill it because we don't like nuts and veggies, we prefer steak. we have the choice to choose what we find the most beneficial for everyone. that choice makes us so lucky yet in so much critical point in our life. I guess I find it all very sad, and the way Im able to express it, badly, is not the most politically correct way to do it.

It was a little harsh but I think what he said is more or less spot on. I think you're on a bit of an ego trip about your "enlightenment" in various threads. I like you and I can tell you're coming from a good place but you come across as quite judgmental and condescending sometimes. When you start comparing your enlightenment with others', it starts to be about the ego.

But, I was more responding to the second half of his post, I thought it was pretty profound and it resonated with me.

 

[Ninae]

Don't attack me for making a part of yourself you're not comfortable with alive for you. If you were truly comfortable with yourself you wouldn't care what anyone said or feel the need to keep defending yourself. I don't get angry if someone questions me about not being a vegan, because I know that it's wrong and I'm just not ready for it yet, but I have peace with myself because I've already done a lot to reduce the suffering of the animal kingdom so it doesn't disturb me.

 

[turkalurk]

Don't attack me for making a part of yourself you're not comfortable with alive for you. If you were truly comfortable with yourself you wouldn't care what anyone said or feel the need to keep defending yourself. I don't get angry if someone questions me about not being a vegan, because I know that it's wrong and I'm just not ready for it yet, but I have peace with myself because I've already done a lot to reduce the suffering of the animal kingdom so it doesn't disturb me.

who is attacking you? Now I can see where willow is coming from. Without quoting the post you are responding to its hard to figure out the context in which to interpret what you mean and to whom you are directing them at. I am comfortable with my efforts because I know there is always room for progress. If I were only comfortable being the person I desired to be, then I would never be comfortable because there is always room to grow. That's what I mean when I say I an comfortable with my self and place in the World. Not, because I am so great, but because from my place in the World I can see vast greatness and I am grateful to take part in the system. I believe we are progressing as things ought to regardless of how favorable the outcomes are to me specifically. It took me awhile to get to where I am, and I still struggle with who I am at times, but I don't hate myself for my failures, I love myself for being able to acknowledge them and strive to learn from my mistakes.

 

[ebola?]

I believe I did respond to your post the first time you posted it.

Ah. I just believe that it didn't really adequately address the series of questions I put forth specifically. I don't mean to badger you. I'm just interested in your answers.

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 to eat it, if I can find a healthy alternative.

This is an honest answer I can respect, and I think that most people probably approach food choices in this way. Consequently, I think the main useful step for vegetarian 'propagandists' is just to introduce the idea of applying ethics to one's diet just by example and answering questions. 'Converts' do best doing the cognitive and affective work themselves.

Also, sorry if I missed your noted statement of approach.

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.

One problem with the Kantian categorical imperative, I think, is that it's often unclear what the scope of the maxim one attempts to universalize should be. So I was approaching the whole issue from an entirely different angle. Namely, I think that willing that compassion be in general extended to perceiving beings does not present any inherent contradictions in its possible implementations that undermine its reason for being. Put more specifically, extending such compassion does not undermine the overall goal of reducing suffering. Now, I think that willing that all perceiving beings should be given ethical regard similar to what we extend humans leads to incoherence that undermines extension of such regard (namely, treating animals as ethical agents undermines our ability to promote their welfare).

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.

This is misuse of Kant's universalization. Namely, you are taking a claim with ambiguous ethical implications and attempting to universalize it. We'd need to know motivating ethic underlying this maxim, "All humans should eat meat," so we can predict whether this behavioral maxim will undermine this ethic when put into practice. Empirical evidence of the sort you note, eg, that we've been putting this into practice for tens of thousands of years, doesn't speak at all to whether the behavioral maxim to eat meat can be validly universalized; the question is instead of ethical principles and consequents that follow from initial concepts by logical necessity.

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.

Ah. So would you say that you come from a mostly utilitarian perspective?

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 meatt o vegetables.

I don't know why you assume that this transition would be difficult, as vegetarian eating depends on mostly the same agricultural infrastructure that we already have in place. It's not intractably difficult to plant different crops on land...and actually, I think maybe we should practice animal husbandry in pasture land that can't be used for anything else. Half of Indians are vegetarian, indicating that the practice is viable on a very large scale.

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 again appreciate your honesty. This bears some similarity to my particular explanation for why I'm a lacto-ovo vegetarian rather than vegan.

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.

At the same time, couldn't treating animals with compassion be part of walking the Way, in that in doing so, one avoids causing the sorts of discord and tension that wreaking suffering on others causes? So in this way, spontaneous regard with compassion is a route toward conformity to 'nature'.
(as a general remark, I find it interesting in such cases where the same ethical system can allow generation of conflicting ethical conclusions.)

ebola

 

[Ninae]

who is attacking you? Now I can see where willow is coming from. Without quoting the post you are responding to its hard to figure out the context in which to interpret what you mean and to whom you are directing them at.

In general, as it wasn't directed towards anyone. I wasn't singling you out. Again, why so angry and defensive? If you truly believe there is no wrong with how you live. He who protests too much, etc.

And how was I to know you would go back and change your post? Before that it was obvious who it was directed to. No reflection on me at all, I just didn't think it was that big of a deal.

What is more, you know well it was directed at you, so why even bring it up? Just to cause trouble.

 

[ebola?]

In general, as it wasn't directed towards anyone. I wasn't singling you out. Again, why so angry and defensive? If you truly believe there is no wrong with how you live. He who protests too much, etc.

Volleying out vague suspicions about being under attack is misleading: it leads people to believe that you are being personally attacked by a specific individual. But more importantly, it is disruptive, distracting from the substantive issues at hand, serving no real purpose; please don't do it. PandS doesn't stand for "Please Stir up drama".

ebola

 

[-=SS=-]

It was a little harsh but I think what he said is more or less spot on. I think you're on a bit of an ego trip about your "enlightenment" in various threads. I like you and I can tell you're coming from a good place but you come across as quite judgmental and condescending sometimes. When you start comparing your enlightenment with others', it starts to be about the ego.

But, I was more responding to the second half of his post, I thought it was pretty profound and it resonated with me.

I'd just like to second that part. I do believe everyone in the anti-killing and vegetarian/vegan crowd has their hearts in the right place, I do get your position and I know others on the pro side do too. We can all agree industrial farming cuts a lot of corners and is a perversion of the kind of farming our ancestors engaged in, and I don't think anyone disputes that. It's just the bleeding heart attitude in combination with a condescending attitude towards those who take sustenance from killing that is faulty here. It's the assumptions and projections upon animals and the processes of life with nothing to substantiate the position but emotion. Which is fine in your own sphere.. if you feel it to be true, that's great and again I salute you for your convictions.. but at the end of the day it's a subjective interpretation. It could turn out to be true, that God wants us to be vegetarian's. I don't know. But neither does anyone else.

Again Murphy you talk about 'wouldn't I prefer to live' rather than be eaten? Of course I would.. and by "I" I mean my natural programming that does not want this body to die, not the real "I". The real "I" does not care whether the body lives or dies. No living organism wants to die.. that is natural programming inherent in the organism. But do you know that the mouse about to be eaten by the cat doesn't accept its fate, that it isn't already aware of why it exists in the first place.. as food for the cat? You say we have a choice, that we know what is best/right based upon our emotional conviction... but again how do you know nature doesn't want you to kill and eat the animal? Perhaps nature requires death. Plenty of ancient peoples offered sacrifices for that reason and hoped they could win the gods blessings.. perhaps they were right, if a bit misguided in that they thought they could sway the gods/nature. Who knows.

All I know is that animals eat other animals, and none of them have a moral conniption fit about it. I'm merely observing the patterns I see before me and going from there.

 

[turkalurk]

Ebola

you make some valid points, but please keep in mind that my argument is whether it is inherently wrong to eat meat. If it is wrong, then we should be able to universalize a law outlawing the killing of all animals. Do you see the problem with this? Inhumane practices are irrelevant because I have admitted that we ought to change and provided a means and a possible time-line included in the contingency plan I offered.

 

[Ninae]

Of course it can't be carried out like that. That is completely unrealistic and I've never said anything of the kind so why even argue for it like that? Like I keep saying, the only way it can be done is through a gradual adjustment where more and more make the choice to give up meat on a personal level. It would take decades so a gradual transformation of the industries and economy can be done. Not only that, I am convinced it WILL be done, and it won't take too long either.

The main thing is the obstacles that people have in mind are mostly imaginary. It's really not that much of a sacrifice, neither from a nutrition point of view or the enjoyment that can be had from your food. It's true that the majority of meat-eaters eat shitty food, both unhealthy and tasteless, and like me and Xorkoth discussed further up there are perfectly good alternatives you can learn to make for yourself. Homemade food always tastes best and if you had a girlfriend who could make you high-quality home-cooked vegetarian meals I very much doubt you would miss your old meals. I can make the best pizza in the world so what is there to miss? Learn how to cook for yourself and you'll be healthier and happier.

It does ask you to give up some on the level of convenience, both when it comes to making sure you get the nutrition you need and taking the time to prepare your own food. It's really worth it, though, both for the welfare of aninmals and for the sake of your own health and quality of cuisine. Or would you really miss hotdogs, burgers, chips and the kinds of cheap low-level foods most people eat most of the time (meat or not) and believe they can't do without?

 

[turkalurk]

In general, as it wasn't directed towards anyone. I wasn't singling you out. Again, why so angry and defensive? If you truly believe there is no wrong with how you live. He who protests too much, etc.

And how was I to know you would go back and change your post? Before that it was obvious who it was directed to. No reflection on me at all, I just didn't think it was that big of a deal.

What is more, you know well it was directed at you, so why even bring it up? Just to cause trouble.

I was wondering why you thought you were being attacked. Maybe, you projecting because your words seem contradictory. First you say you were speaking in general, now you say I assumed correctly to think it was directed at me. I just want to clarify that I am not angry. I don't pretend to stand on a stronger moral leg(is that bettet than moral horse?) I love the legs you stand on. I find your empathy and compassion admirable and women that promote such ideas are adorable to me. If you were the slightest bit physically attractive to me, my silly ass would easily become infatuated enough to give your cause a sincere effort. If you think I harbor any ill feelings for you because I don't measure up to your level of beauty and empathy then you are severely mistaken. I admire those people like you, and I value your empathetic position so much, I would gladly lay down my life in order for a person like you to survive against the harsh violence that can emerge from this world. And, I would consider it a self-serving act, because I would feel so grateful to have the opportunity to make that kind of significant impact on a good person's life, and the opportunity to prove who I am to myself and the world.

 

[murphythecat]

im convinced now.

I shouldnt care about the well being of animals, I clearly cannot see the pig screaming when hes about the get kill. he should only embrace his faith. hey, who am I to know if he really suffers. its too subjective to see. I think the pig screams of happiness actually.
Violence is in nature all around me, why should I not be violent myself, its totally acceptable. hey, ancient civilisation were much worst then us!
Next time someone complain about being raped, lets just say to them, its natural, your real I doesnt suffer, we shouldnt punish your aggressor, you should have embraced your faith.

I'd just like to second that part. I do believe everyone in the anti-killing and vegetarian/vegan crowd has their hearts in the right place, I do get your position and I know others on the pro side do too. We can all agree industrial farming cuts a lot of corners and is a perversion of the kind of farming our ancestors engaged in, and I don't think anyone disputes that. It's just the bleeding heart attitude in combination with a condescending attitude towards those who take sustenance from killing that is faulty here. It's the assumptions and projections upon animals and the processes of life with nothing to substantiate the position but emotion. Which is fine in your own sphere.. if you feel it to be true, that's great and again I salute you for your convictions.. but at the end of the day it's a subjective interpretation. It could turn out to be true, that God wants us to be vegetarian's. I don't know. But neither does anyone else.

Again Murphy you talk about 'wouldn't I prefer to live' rather than be eaten? Of course I would.. and by "I" I mean my natural programming that does not want this body to die, not the real "I". The real "I" does not care whether the body lives or dies. No living organism wants to die.. that is natural programming inherent in the organism. But do you know that the mouse about to be eaten by the cat doesn't accept its fate, that it isn't already aware of why it exists in the first place.. as food for the cat? You say we have a choice, that we know what is best/right based upon our emotional conviction... but again how do you know nature doesn't want you to kill and eat the animal? Perhaps nature requires death. Plenty of ancient peoples offered sacrifices for that reason and hoped they could win the gods blessings.. perhaps they were right, if a bit misguided in that they thought they could sway the gods/nature. Who knows.

All I know is that animals eat other animals, and none of them have a moral conniption fit about it. I'm merely observing the patterns I see before me and going from there.

As I told you, take a knife and go kill a animal. look at how you feel when you do it, look into the animal eye when you do it. look how you feel. better yet, take some shrooms, and think about killing another being.
morality and ethic can only be based on compassion. the way we act, if we really want to better ourselves in this life, must be based on noble feeling. otherwise, your doomed.

 

[Ninae]

I was wondering why you thought you were being attacked. Maybe, you projecting because your words seem contradictory. First you say you were speaking in general, now you say I assumed correctly to think it was directed at me. I just want to clarify that I am not angry. I don't pretend to stand on a stronger moral leg(is that bettet than moral horse?) I love the legs you stand on. I find your empathy and compassion admirable and women that promote such ideas are adorable to me. If you were the slightest bit physically attractive to me, my silly ass would easily become infatuated enough to give your cause a sincere effort. If you think I harbor any ill feelings for you because I don't measure up to your level of beauty and empathy then you are severely mistaken. I admire those people like you, and I value your empathetic position so much, I would gladly lay down my life in order for a person like you to survive against the harsh violence that can emerge from this world. And, I would consider it a self-serving act, because I would feel so grateful to have the opportunity to make that kind of significant impact on a good person's life, and the opportunity to prove who I am to myself and the world.

Well, I have to thank you for this, probably the highest level of appreciation I've received on this board.

 

[-=SS=-]

It does ask you to give up some on the level of convenience, both when it comes to making sure you get the nutrition you need and taking the time to prepare your own food. It's really worth it, though, both for the welfare of aninmals and the sake of your own health and quality of cousine. Or would you really miss hotdogs, burgers, chips and the kinds of cheap low-level foods most people eat most of the time (meat or not) and believe they can't do without?

Ninae, you keep making this assumption that meat eaters are all eating shitty quality meat products from fast food joints and it is irritating to say the least. I know plenty of meat eaters, myself included, who like the best quality products (even if we can't always afford them). The taste of proper meat is superior, same with eggs mentioned earlier. In order for the taste to be superior the animals must have led a healthy life and had access to good nutrition themselves. There is no other way around it. Same goes for welfare.. a stressed animals flesh tastes worse than one that was contented. Farmers know this, hence why the best quality meat comes from farmers who care for their animals.

If the animal has a good life and is killed instantly then its welfare does not come into question. You can debate whether it was free or not.. but considering 99% of humans live imprisoned in a completely artificial way of living and love their condition, do you really think an animal with half our brain capacity is going to debate its freedom? Those cows in the pasture look pretty damn content to me.

 

[murphythecat]

but, its not just the animal who suffers from being killed.
I'm also very concerned about the person who kill. actually, the one being killed will suffer much less then the person who accept himself to kill or to promote violence for his own benefits.

Ninae, you keep making this assumption that meat eaters are all eating shitty quality meat products from fast food joints and it is irritating to say the least. I know plenty of meat eaters, myself included, who like the best quality products (even if we can't always afford them). The taste of proper meat is superior, same with eggs mentioned earlier. In order for the taste to be superior the animals must have led a healthy life and had access to good nutrition themselves. There is no other way around it. Same goes for welfare.. a stressed animals flesh tastes worse than one that was contented. Farmers know this, hence why the best quality meat comes from farmers who care for their animals.

If the animal has a good life and is killed instantly then its welfare does not come into question. You can debate whether it was free or not.. but considering 99% of humans live imprisoned in a completely artificial way of living and love their condition, do you really think an animal with half our brain capacity is going to debate its freedom? Those cows in the pasture look pretty damn content to me.

 

[-=SS=-]

but, its not just the animal who suffers from being killed.
I'm also very concerned about the person who kill. actually, the one being killed will suffer much less then the person who accept himself to kill or to promote violence for his own benefits.

Why? Why be concerned? Again you're projecting your beliefs on to the situation and seeing things that may not be there. Why should killing be any different from any other function performed by the human organism? Just because we've built up this cultural dread of death doesn't mean its a big deal in reality. The same can be applied to the act of sex. It's been built up to be this huge thing *heh* but it's just nature working its magic through us.. we have little control over the whole situation despite our own protests of free will.

As stated before, does the cat eating the mouse suffer under your logic? Should it feel guilty for daring to kill the mouse in order to survive? Is it going to hell for killing? I mean come on man.. you must see this argument can be reduced down to show quite clearly the ridiculous notion that killing is wrong. Animals do it all the time. Why would nature, god or whoever put this mechanism into the system if it were wrong and required all the damn time!

So long as we make the distinction between killing and murder. Killing animals for sustenance is not murder, you do it to survive. Killing your grandma ahead of natural schedule in order to get her estate, or because you just wanted to, is deplorable. Though in the end I would actually argue neither is inherently wrong, philosophically speaking.

 

[murphythecat]

are you a cat? does a cat have a choice? a cat is carnivore, we are both carnivore and herbivore. the cat has no choice, but you do. he cannot decide what hes going to eat, he cannot decide to turn vegetarian and go to the super market.

Why should killing be any different from any other function performed by the human organism?
because it creates suffering, it promotes violence. are you gonna compare giving a hug to killing a animal for his flesh? both are bodily function: one motivated by love and care, the other by lack of compassion and violence.

why kill when you can eat something that hasnt suffered, like nuts, seeds, fruits. you have a choice, that makes all the difference in the world. is that really hard to see?

oh, now you have no control over sex? sex is more strong then your will?

again, take a knife, and look how you feel and how you make feel the other being when you kill it. well, please dont do it, but realize how much it hurts you. I personally would do anything in my power to protect life. Im not afraid of suffering, not afraid of death, but im damn afraid to kill another being, because I believe that killing another being is like killing love inside oneself, killing compassion, killing the will to do good.

Why? Why be concerned? Again you're projecting your beliefs on to the situation and seeing things that may not be there. Why should killing be any different from any other function performed by the human organism? Just because we've built up this cultural dread of death doesn't mean its a big deal in reality. The same can be applied to the act of sex. It's been built up to be this huge thing *heh* but it's just nature working its magic through us.. we have little control over the whole situation despite our own protests of free will.

As stated before, does the cat eating the mouse suffer under your logic? Should it feel guilty for daring to kill the mouse in order to survive? Is it going to hell for killing? I mean come on man.. you must see this argument can be reduced down to show quite clearly the ridiculous notion that killing is wrong. Animals do it all the time. Why would nature, god or whoever put this mechanism into the system if it were wrong and required all the damn time!

So long as we make the distinction between killing and murder. Killing animals for sustenance is not murder, you do it to survive. Killing your grandma ahead of natural schedule in order to get her estate, or because you just wanted to, is deplorable. Though in the end I would actually argue neither is inherently wrong, philosophically speaking.

 

[-=SS=-]

are you a cat? does a cat have a choice? a cat is carnivore, we are both carnivore and herbivore. the cat has no choice, but you do.

Why should killing be any different from any other function performed by the human organism?
because it creates suffering, it promotes violence. are you gonna compare giving a hug to killing a animal for his flesh? both are bodily function: one motivated by love and care, the other by lack of compassion and violence.

why kill when you can eat something that hasnt suffered, like nuts, seeds, fruits. you have a choice, that makes all the difference in the world. is that really hard to see?

oh, now you have no control over sex? sex is more strong then your will?

Ok, so I have a choice. I choose to eat meat. Why is that choice wrong when I am designed quite perfectly to eat and process meat? If the animal has not suffered during its life and died instantly then where is the moral quandary to be had? I do not see how that creates suffering nor do I subscribe to the idea it necessarily promotes violence. Killing does not have to involve lack of compassion and violence by default.. that's your subjective interpretation.

Why kill when I can eat a pure veg diet? The question really for me is, why should I forcefully limit my dietary options when I am designed to eat meat and I don't believe it's a crime to kill another organism? I agree about the factory farming part and so forth, as mentioned numerous times. But the killing.. I fail to see an issue here.