Why I'm becoming a vegetarian

[Subotan]

Bleh too many posts to reply to all of them.

to what is in bold - holy contradiction batman!
and you can´t choose what you evolve into.

We can choose our behaviour though. My point about the stupid animals thing is that it's a way of showing how civilised and un-animal like it is to voluntary choose not to eat meat as reason has led you to conclude that it is wrong.

Well up to a point. Here you can pretty much buy twice as many vegetables and pretend it's all as yummy as meat or fish, but we as a species cannot. For instance if you happened to be lactose intolerant, it'd be quite unhealthy to discard your only source of various vitamins which only occur in animals and which your body can't really do without. In various other places meat and fish are simply needed because they are pretty much the only source of protein rich food available, or because it is practically impossible to gather as much calories in the environment yourself -- consider the practice of eating tarantula's in the Amazonian rain forest.

Sure, hence my point of eating for pleasure. If there was some unfortunate with a whole host of allergies, including nut allergies, lactose intolerance, tofu intolerances, beans and pulses intolerance, then that individual would have to eat meat in order to maintain a healthy diet.

You seem to be vaguely pushing forth a concept of "greater good" Humans have no such concept and overall, most strive only to survive. We are not the pinnacle of evolution. We have not changed very much in the past 75000 years and we are still susceptible to stagnation and the repercussions of our own arrogance.

You're wrong in supposing that the idea of a "greater good" does not exist - if it doesn't, then why does society exist?

Hunting them for fun is evil, letting them run themself into a situation of mass death is good? Yes, the population will stabilize (at least cyclic) with time, but if we have already given the animals a high value, it's inconsistant to simply let them destroy themself.

The latter is ethically neutral. Since humans will have had no impact on the situation, there are no morals to speak of. This is in contrast to situations were humans can have an impact on animal life.

That's what I told the coast guard, but they didn't take it well.

In any case, me being the other vegetarian on the forums, having not eaten meat for about six years (with an interval here and there), the first reason why I chose not anymore meat was not so much the fact that animals were killed (which is something we have been doing for at least the last 8,000 years), but rather the way in which they were killed.

In essence, I find it hard to swallow (heh) that when I eat meat, there is no real connection between the hunter and the prey. It goes to such a degree that we might be unaware of the fact that what we're eating was once a creature frolicking around in the wild, or at least, frolicking around with six other like-minded animals in a 2x2 pen.

So would you eat meat that you hunted for pleasure? I'm not criticising, just curious.

In any case, I don't think we should anthropomorphise animals and automatically assume that they are capable of feeling pain. There was a study pertaining to whether or not crustaceans like lobster feel pain if they are boiled alive. There is no real academic consensus concerning this, and as such I am hesitant to assume that animals are capable of realising they are in pain.

Definitely agree. That said, my reasoning is based more upon the actual act of taking sentient life for pleasure, as opposed to the pain, but YMMV.

I don't think non-vegetarians are lesser humans, or less ethical than other people. It's unfair. Eating meat is only natural. It's our choice to act unnaturally. Don't forget that.

Again, definitely agree, hence my Himmler example. There also might be an element of craftiness in not being zealous, as being finger-wagged at and told that you're a bad person and a lesser human for eating meat is going to change anyone's behaviour. C.'s attitude for example to non-vegetarians is extremely relaxed, and had C. been in my face about it (To a level that I would have expected given how passionate C. is about animal welfare), then I probably would have been a lot more resistant to C.'s ideas.

your first error is the stance that it somehow needs to be justified.

Surely we should seek to justify as many of our actions as possible? By denying the need for a justification for anything, you are denying the consequences of your actions.

Because we CAN eat meat, we eat meat.

Because we CAN skin people alive to make hats out of their skin, we skin people alive to make hats out of their skin!

EDIT: Whoops, forgot this:

That your defense is a fart compared to a hurricane. In human terms, you're suggesting wiping out ghettos out of mercy, due to the maltreatment of the humans living there. How many would call such a person humane and not a competitor to the most evil person ever?

Aha, I see. There is a distinction to be made though, even if we temporarily sideline the knee-jerk, automatic and correct reaction to put human life far above animal life. A factory farmed animal will be born, grow up in a cage, and then die. That is it. There are no opportunities for self-improvement or the fulfilment of aspiration (to temporarily and shamelessly anthromorphize the chickens). This is in contrast to a ghetto-kid, who has the potential, however slim, to do just that. This difference means that the value of the life of the ghetto-kid is more worthwhile than that of a factory farmed chicken.

[jirisys]

Because we CAN skin people alive to make hats out of their skin, we skin people alive to make hats out of their skin!

Really? Ad Absurdum?

I meant food, not behaviour. Yes, we can eat other people. Other people have done it, it's just another product of evolution, our moral value of not eating other people; though it was practitioned in other cultures (carthaginians are supposed to be one of them; or etruscans, I forget which). We change though.

~Jirisys ()

[Hax]

Really? Ad Absurdum?

Regardless, his argument stands. There's a difference in doing what we could and what we should, right? You might feel like stabbing someone in the face after he slept with your girlfriend, but that doesn't mean that it's an ethical thing to do, right?

[gaelic cowboy]

Isn't any society only as good as it treats it's most vulnerable, animals are living breathing things. There is no evolutionary reason for us to eat meat, there simply isn't. Not that we shouldn't imho but we don't have to. Subotan's logic is perfectly sound (and more meat for us yay)

Yes there is Frag, humans are PREDATORS.

Don't believe eh then take a look at picture of any mammalian predator and compare there eye location.

Yes correct there at the front like a monkey a lion a bear or a dog and unlike a rabbit a sheep or a cow

[ajaxfetish]

The latter is ethically neutral. Since humans will have had no impact on the situation, there are no morals to speak of. This is in contrast to situations were humans can have an impact on animal life.

Well, that's quite the cop out. Is it ethically neutral to watch a woman being gang-raped and do nothing about it? When it's your lack of action, rather than your action, that results in a horrible outcome, you are not automatically absolved. Of course, our responsibilities towards other humans are not the same thing as our responsibilities towards animals, but consider: the farm animals that would undergo genocidal losses have us to thank both for their numbers and for their relative helplessness without human symbiosis. The deer that would overgraze their territories and then suffer massive numbers of death in the readjustment have us to thank for eliminating their other natural predators, and for developing much of their grazing territory into human communities. We are well beyond the point of having no impact on the situation. Furthermore, you're assuming the situation of the deer exists in isolation from humans. What happens when deer descend from the overgrazed mountains to search for food in human neighborhoods? What happens after human children start getting injured or killed by desperately hungry deer? You're taking a very simplistic approach to the issues in your attempt to absolve us of responsibility unless we are actively killing animals.

Ajax

[CrossLOPER]

You're wrong in supposing that the idea of a "greater good" does not exist - if it doesn't, then why does society exist?

As I stated, you are a social creature. Therefore, the answer is: practicality.

[Rhyfelwyr]

That your defense is a fart compared to a hurricane. In human terms, you're suggesting wiping out ghettos out of mercy, due to the maltreatment of the humans living there. How many would call such a person humane and not a competitor to the most evil person ever?

Well that's not a very fair comparison on a lot of levels that are pretty obvious.

These incisors are just for show

Meat is why our brains are so big and why we continue to get taller every

But how is this related to the ethics of it?

Anyway, I am responsible for a one-man genocide of the chicken species. Got to feed the beast.

Hmm... I wonder if sometime in the far future if we have become some sort of weird hippie-enlightened society, they will look upon our treatment of animals as a horror show. And all these people using 'rational' arguments and appealing to the natural order of things etc to defend it will be seen like those who did similar things to defend slavery.

[econ21]

Hmm... I wonder if sometime in the far future if we have become some sort of weird hippie-enlightened society, they will look upon our treatment of animals as a horror show. And all these people using 'rational' arguments and appealing to the natural order of things etc to defend it will be seen like those who did similar things to defend slavery.

Yeah, I reckon so. I've heard it phrased as a widening circle of concern: over history, we have become more inclusive about the beings we care about. Distinctions by slavery, caste, class, sex, nationality, sexuality etc have gradually become to be regarded as having little or no ethical force. Universalist morals - regarding all people with equal concern - are dominant. It's already spilling over to other species - many countries outlaw animal cruelty and harming animals while making movies, for example, has become unacceptable.

However, as someone who hasn't eaten meat for the last 28 years, I guess I would say that. For me it's quite a simple matter - many of the things that make my life enjoyable and give it value, I know are also felt by many kinds of animals (tastey food, the sun warming my body, the affection of my companions, even play). Even more commonly felt are the things that can make my life unpleasant (pain, discomfort, fear etc.).

[Beskar]

Pre-domestication of animals and farming, humans and their domesticated counterparts (horses, cows, sheep, dogs, etc) only made up 2% of the total Wildlife population.

Since the domestication of animals, humans and those domesticated now make up 90% of all wildlife.

Not only we benefited, so did they and in this partnership, both are good.

If everyone became vegatarian, cows/sheep/pigs will become pests, and they were be killed or driven away. Their populations would significantly reduce as humans grow in proportion. As these animals are no longer farmed, their birthrate would pummel.

In short, eating meats keeps those animals with us today.

[jirisys]

Regardless, his argument stands. There's a difference in doing what we could and what we should, right? You might feel like stabbing someone in the face after he slept with your girlfriend, but that doesn't mean that it's an ethical thing to do, right?

Depends for which person you are speaking. But that argument makes no sense in light what I said, and stop with the ad absurdum, it's getting annoying.

You are hungry, you eat, what you eat doesn't matter. Though your lack of vitamin B and protein will take it's toll soon. Heck, if we eat too much, we get cataracts and goute. It's all about balance, don't try to escape from your instincts with human's tiny willpower, you're only fooling yourself.

Pre-domestication of animals and farming, humans and their domesticated counterparts (horses, cows, sheep, dogs, etc) only made up 2% of the total Wildlife population.

Since the domestication of animals, humans and those domesticated now make up 90% of all wildlife.

Not only we benefited, so did they and in this partnership, both are good.

If everyone became vegatarian, cows/sheep/pigs will become pests, and they were be killed or driven away. Their populations would significantly reduce as humans grow in proportion. As these animals are no longer farmed, their birthrate would pummel.

In short, eating meats keeps those animals with us today.

Precisely, quid pro quo. If it benefits us that an animal may never go extinct, because we have to eat it.

Though how things have been going on today, we'll end up eliminating land for pasture and then it will become a desert. We don't need to stop killing as many animals, we need for people to die in larger quantities (light side, non-cynical answer: we need to control our population).

~Jirisys ()

[Strike For The South]

The ethics of it?

You don't like large scale slaughter? Buy local.

But we are made to consume animals make no mistake about that.

Fellas sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

[Samurai Waki]

We do have some evolutionary traits that make us lean more towards the carnivorous than herbivorous. The presence of Canine Teeth, and the amino acids in our stomach that breaks down meat are clear indications that we evolved to consume raw protein. However, we also have the appendix which indicates that at a time before our current form we favored grasses, and wild grains... the appendix no longer serves that, or any other function. I'm not saying you have to eat meat, because that's absurd, but meat tastes good to some of us, and I doubt you can convince many (including me) otherwise.

Amongst hunters today the practice of give a silent prayer and thanking the animal for their sacrifice is still widely used, we've created a symbiotic relationship with our food sources... especially wild game, and it's thanks to hunters that wanted their children to be able to hunt that have contributed the most to conservation efforts... PETA despite shouting the hardest contributes only a drop in the bucket for wildlife preservation compared to conservation groups.

[Fragony]

However, as someone who hasn't eaten meat for the last 28 years, I guess I would say that. For me it's quite a simple matter - many of the things that make my life enjoyable and give it value, I know are also felt by many kinds of animals (tastey food, the sun warming my body, the affection of my companions, even play). Even more commonly felt are the things that can make my life unpleasant (pain, discomfort, fear etc.).

I really can't argue with this, but I just like meat and will continue to eat it. The steak at the supermarket is too impersonal to me to consider it, but I know it anyway

[Viking]

Hmm... I wonder if sometime in the far future if we have become some sort of weird hippie-enlightened society, they will look upon our treatment of animals as a horror show. And all these people using 'rational' arguments and appealing to the natural order of things etc to defend it will be seen like those who did similar things to defend slavery.

Only if the animals turned out to be more of our calibre than we think - having emotional lives comparable to those of humans. Of course, mental capabilities of animals should vary from species to species, so talk about animal treatment as a whole is going to be inaccurate regardless of which year we're in.

Slavery was about fellow humans, same is issues related to sexual orientation etc.

[Hax]

You are hungry, you eat, what you eat doesn't matter. Though your lack of vitamin B and protein will take it's toll soon.

I've been a vegetarian for six years. Come on, I'm waiting. When does the toll-man come?

I've discussed this with my doctor several times, and there is absolutely no problem for me, if I just maintain a good, steady diet.

[Strike For The South]

I've been a vegetarian for six years. Come on, I'm waiting. When does the toll-man come?

I've discussed this with my doctor several times, and there is absolutely no problem for me, if I just maintain a good, steady diet.

You are correct, but being a vegetarian is a luxury.

Not dispariging your beliefs, just saying

[Hax]

You are correct, but being a vegetarian is a luxury.

Not dispariging your beliefs, just saying

Strike, did you even read my post on the last page?

[Strike For The South]

Strike, did you even read my post on the last page?

Meh, unatural has to much of a negative connitation

I like my explanation of your beliefs better

[Hax]

Meh, unatural has to much of a negative connitation

I like my explanation of your beliefs better

I think that a lot of stuff that we do as humans could probably be classified as unnatural. Such as sitting in front of a screen for hours on end, eh?

[Strike For The South]

I think that a lot of stuff that we do as humans could probably be classified as unnatural. Such as sitting in front of a screen for hours on end, eh?

Well, that was a bit rude

I hope you get a warning for this devastating personal attack.

You know there are recreational sports you could be playing, instead of attacking me. Just trying to voice my well thought out opinoin. Why are you such a bully?



Edit: Why are you not in the chat? If I'm not going to sleep I would enjoy someone to talk to!

[Subotan]

Well, that's quite the cop out. Is it ethically neutral to watch a woman being gang-raped and do nothing about it? When it's your lack of action, rather than your action, that results in a horrible outcome, you are not automatically absolved.

I think you've misinterpreted me. It's not the lack of human action in the overpopulation case which makes the situation ethically neutral, it's that all the agents are amoral beings. This is in contrast to a gang-rape situation, where all the agents are beings with consciences.

Of course, our responsibilities towards other humans are not the same thing as our responsibilities towards animals, but consider: the farm animals that would undergo genocidal losses have us to thank both for their numbers and for their relative helplessness without human symbiosis. The deer that would overgraze their territories and then suffer massive numbers of death in the readjustment have us to thank for eliminating their other natural predators, and for developing much of their grazing territory into human communities. We are well beyond the point of having no impact on the situation.

Sure, but our impact is very indirect, and certainly not enough to make letting "nature take its course" and us eating animals morally equivalent.

What happens after human children start getting injured or killed by desperately hungry deer? You're taking a very simplistic approach to the issues in your attempt to absolve us of responsibility unless we are actively killing animals.

Like I said, I have no problem with killing from necessity - I don't even oppose the badger cull in England, which a lot of people over here, (Including non-vegetarians) are going mental about (Presumably because they have a Wind in the Willow's conception of badgers, as opposed to the correct "Honey Badger doesn't give a ****" approach)

In short, eating meats keeps those animals with us today.

Again, see my point about this argument in post #29

You are hungry, you eat, what you eat doesn't matter. Though your lack of vitamin B and protein will take it's toll soon. Heck, if we eat too much, we get cataracts and goute. It's all about balance, don't try to escape from your instincts with human's tiny willpower, you're only fooling yourself.

So, eating meat is OK so long as it's necessary part of our diet? Mhm k, I can go with that - only it is no longer a necessary component of a healthy diet, thanks to the wide variety of sources of protein available for people, including Quorn (which actually just tastes like meat), tofu, paneer, nuts, beans, pulses etc.

We do have some evolutionary traits that make us lean more towards the carnivorous than herbivorous. The presence of Canine Teeth, and the amino acids in our stomach that breaks down meat are clear indications that we evolved to consume raw protein. However, we also have the appendix which indicates that at a time before our current form we favored grasses, and wild grains... the appendix no longer serves that, or any other function. I'm not saying you have to eat meat, because that's absurd, but meat tastes good to some of us, and I doubt you can convince many (including me) otherwise.

I agree with everything you've just said, including that meat tastes good.

Amongst hunters today the practice of give a silent prayer and thanking the animal for their sacrifice is still widely used, we've created a symbiotic relationship with our food sources... especially wild game, and it's thanks to hunters that wanted their children to be able to hunt that have contributed the most to conservation efforts...

I think this goes back to what Hax was saying about detachment. For example, Theodore Roosevelt's impact is utterly bizarre - even though he was probably the first (only?) conservationist to get into the White House, he was also obsessed by hunting - e.g. in one trip over 40 days, he killed 147 animals, including four bears. The man was practically a force of nature. Even then, when it comes to hunting...I think it's wrong, and I would never do it, but I'm not sure that I can make the moral leap to advocating a ban on it. As you've said, hunters are an important force for conservation, and it's certainly not cruel in the same way cock-fighting or bear baiting is. Would it be cool if nobody hunted? I guess. But such a change would have to come about through changing social attitudes, as opposed to through legislation.

PETA despite shouting the hardest contributes only a drop in the bucket for wildlife preservation compared to conservation groups.

PETA is much more of a public awareness group then an organisation dedicated to actually looking after animals - other organisations do that. A lot of what PETA does is really daft (Sea kittens? WHY?!?), and I'm not going to defend them for advocating stuff I disagree with (E.g. veganism, fur coats, vivisection etc.).

EDIT:

Only if the animals turned out to be more of our calibre than we think - having emotional lives comparable to those of humans. Of course, mental capabilities of animals should vary from species to species, so talk about animal treatment as a whole is going to be inaccurate regardless of which year we're in.

Slavery was about fellow humans, same is issues related to sexual orientation etc.

Those issues were all justified by the assumption that the victims were "less than human" though. Do we really want to be caught on the wrong side of history?

[Ironside]

The latter is ethically neutral. Since humans will have had no impact on the situation, there are no morals to speak of. This is in contrast to situations were humans can have an impact on animal life.

While ajaxfetish cover it mostly, I'm just adding that it feels that you don't really care about the animals themself, but only the human-animal interaction when it comes to food.

Aha, I see. There is a distinction to be made though, even if we temporarily sideline the knee-jerk, automatic and correct reaction to put human life far above animal life. A factory farmed animal will be born, grow up in a cage, and then die. That is it. There are no opportunities for self-improvement or the fulfilment of aspiration (to temporarily and shamelessly anthromorphize the chickens). This is in contrast to a ghetto-kid, who has the potential, however slim, to do just that. This difference means that the value of the life of the ghetto-kid is more worthwhile than that of a factory farmed chicken.

It's not like we have more rigid systems than ghettos. Personally I would want the case system to disappear, but I'm quite certain that the casteless would prefer to exist if status quo or death are the only reasonable options.

I'm not opposing better conditions for the animals and your need to anthromorphize also gives another problem. If aliens are keeping us from transcendance for some reason and we're not even close to achiving it anyway, is that bad, from our position? So, is the loss of self-improvement or the fulfilment of aspiration bad, when the animal in question can't achieve it anyway?

Is someone truely living in slavery if they never realize it? Presonally I find this one quite eerie, from a human perspective.

Well that's not a very fair comparison on a lot of levels that are pretty obvious.

In that case, name them please.

Hmm... I wonder if sometime in the far future if we have become some sort of weird hippie-enlightened society, they will look upon our treatment of animals as a horror show. And all these people using 'rational' arguments and appealing to the natural order of things etc to defend it will be seen like those who did similar things to defend slavery.

Possibly, some time after the artificial meat market has taken over by pragmatic reasons and the silent genocide in the aftermarch is forgotten by most.

[Viking]

Those issues were all justified by the assumption that the victims were "less than human" though. Do we really want to be caught on the wrong side of history?

I wonder who it was that opened a thread with the statement "Animals are stupid. Really stupid."

It is why we should treat animals with respect, but it is not to say that we should stop eating them. For this, proofs or indications of high mental capabilities would be in order. Even if such capabilities turned out to be the case, we could turn to chickens and crustaceans (yum), or create stupid breeds.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Since the domestication of animals, humans and those domesticated now make up 90% of all wildlife.

Not only we benefited, so did they and in this partnership, both are good.

And the black man gained a lot from slavery. I mean they would just be living in huts in Africa if it wasn't for the slave trade.

The ethics of it?

You don't like large scale slaughter? Buy local.

But we are made to consume animals make no mistake about that.

Fellas sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

The scale of it is not relevant to me, since it is about the individual animals.

I still eat meat, but I can't really justify it when I think about it.

In that case, name them please.

Well for a start you talked about actively killing off the ghetto population, while with the animals we would just let their populations die out naturally because we would no longer mass breed them.

[drone]

You guys are missing the obvious. C. just happens to be a hot philosophy major babe that Subotan is trying to bed. That's as good a reason as any to stop eating meat (for a while, anyway). Just stay away from the soya products.

[Xiahou]

If we weren't meant to eat animals, why are they made out of meat?

[Greyblades]

People are made of meat, should we eat them too?

[ajaxfetish]

Those issues were all justified by the assumption that the victims were "less than human" though. Do we really want to be caught on the wrong side of history?

Well, the problem there of course is that the assumption was wrong. Other humans are not "less than human," but are in fact "human." Animals, on the other hand, are "less than human," as your own opening post so eloquently pointed out.

Ajax

[Xiahou]

People are made of meat, should we eat them too?

As long as you're not eating them for pleasure.

[Hosakawa Tito]

The ethics of it?

You don't like large scale slaughter? Buy local.

But we are made to consume animals make no mistake about that.

Fellas sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

No no no. A woman is just a woman. A cigar is a fine smoke.

You guys are missing the obvious. C. just happens to be a hot philosophy major babe that Subotan is trying to bed. That's as good a reason as any to stop eating meat (for a while, anyway). Just stay away from the soya products.

Ahhh, now it's all starting to make sense. Giving up prime rib in the hope for prime...