Veganism: I honestly don't understand it

[JoeTheJuggler]

What is your premise based on? Why is killing animals wrong?

I understand your premise but I am interested in how you arrive at the judgment that killing animals is wrong.

I start with it as a sort of moral axiom, so I admit I don't have much of a defense for it. For me, the logical argument starts with that premise.

Still, I'll try to answer--sorry if this gets long-winded.

It's mostly based on what I think of as a moral sense.

I believe we evolved a mental capacity for a moral sense as an adaptation or at least a byproduct of other adaptations to living in social groups--similar to language, the ability to recognize faces, infer intention, etc. I think the moral sense is a brain-based ability and tendency to imagine oneself in the other's place.

It's very much the same sense as the squeamishness I think we all feel if we were to see a nail jabbed into an eye--even if the eye isn't human. I instantly put myself in that other's place and imagine a nail jabbing into my eye. I probably even react to seeing that by recoiling and covering or protecting one eye with my hand.

The result of that moral sense (tendency to imagine myself in the other's place) is that I find myself extremely reluctant to kill an animal. It's very much the same way I would find myself extremely reluctant to punch an infant or small child. It's probably what also makes stealing a regular person's private property feel wrong to me. (I imagine how it would be if someone stole my car or whatever.) I would probably need to do something to overcome that reluctance.

In other words, I think my default condition is a moral revulsion to killing an animal. (I'm sure I could be trained away from that revulsion, but that's where I start looking for sufficient justification to do so.)

What is sufficient justification?

I don't know. I haven't seen it yet in my life. Maybe some extreme survival situation where I would die if I didn't kill and eat an animal. I've been lucky enough to be among the vast majority of people who have never found themselves in such a situation.

I know what is not sufficient justification--for me:

Theistic/supernatural ones, as "God gave humans souls but not animals" or "God created the animals for us to use however we want".

The argument that we have the ability (as in "we're on top of the food chain"). By that thinking, anything we CAN do would be moral. (I have the ability to rape and murder and steal, for a few examples.)

Arguments based on intelligence. By that logic, there should be no stigma against eating imbecile humans.

Arguments based on nutrition. (Someone actually said that to me in a recent discussion--something like, "Eating meat must be moral because meat is nutritious.") Again, human flesh is nutritious, but we have a pretty strong taboo against cannibalism. So the morality question is not merely about nutrition.

Arguments based on the false notion that eating meat is essential. There is no essential nutrient for humans that is only available in meat.

 

[martu]

Except some would argue that the act of slaughter is inherently cruel. As I said, I'd recommend the other thread for a lot more of that line of argument.

I was too late to contribute.

It's a nonsense position in my opinion, looking after the animal then killing it as quickly as possible so it doesn’t suffer is not cruel, but I fully understand if you don't want to go over it again, you made some very good arguments in the other thread.

It’s an argument over definitions fundamentally, hence the many,many pages of the previous thread. And no one convinced by either side.

 

[madurobob]

What was wrong with how they were kept?

No HBO. And the beds would not vibrate no matter how many quarters you put in.

All the usual suspects, really. Incredibly crowded living conditions, no chance to move around, fed a diet that leads to disease that is then controlled by high levels of antibiotics, chickens crippled in the melee and left to suffer and die. And that was just on one quick weekend "Farm Tour" where they cleaned up the place for us visitors.

 

[volatile]

I was too late to contribute.

It's a nonsense position in my opinion, looking after the animal then killing it as quickly as possible so it doesn’t suffer is not cruel, but I fully understand if you don't want to go over it again, you made some very good arguments in the other thread.

Thank you. Might you allow me, then to re-present what I consider to be a wonderful illustration of where this line of thinking fails. I can't take any credit for it, though - it's all Cain's:

The argument in the first post raised the issue of why we privilege some forms of pleasure over others. It's OK to enjoy eating animals, but it's not OK to watch them fight. It's OK if they suffer on a farm far away, but if you harm them yourself, for the sheer pleasure of harming them, then you are doing something that it that potentially deserves prison time. I do not think anyone has even pretended to address the argument substantively, but I have seen a lot of sanctimonious hand-wringing and moral outrage about the ridiculousness of the comparison.

Idealized forms of meat-eating have come up, the kind that would have one believe animals are treated like nobility on "free range" farms. It has the word "free" it in so it must be good. I addressed these scenarios on their own terms, forgetting a memorable argument I have used in the past, the case of the hotel heiress.

So, there's a publicity savvy hotel heiress who has no recognizable talent other than partying until morning, dressing up, and being famous for being famous. Appearance matters. Her income and fame will drop if she packs on the pounds or is seen in an embarrassing get-up. As a minor fashion icon her most recognizable accessory is her chihuahua named Chino. Unfortunately, appearance matters for dogs too, and Chino has been getting heavy, which also makes him difficult to carry around while attending events, or running errands in town. The hotel heiress asks if any of her friends want to adopt Chino, but they already have animals of their own, so she has a vet put the dog down. The hotel heiress gets a new dog, but she finds that this one tends to get nervous around people, which is bad for the pup. Even worse, the new dog peed on her, which would have been disastrous had it happened a movie premiere. She has him put down. A couple weeks pass and the hotel heiress finds another dog; she immediately names him Chino and they get along famously... until she finds one who is even cuter. She has Chino put-down and replaces him with the new dog. Unfortunately, after a few more months the whole small-dog fad is over, and she sees no benefit for keeping the animal. The hotel heiress is reminded of the German Shepard she had growing up, and now begins to long for a larger companion, one she can take running, one who will help her at least feel protected. She buys a rottweiler from a reputable breeder, but finds the new dog and the latest incarnation of Chino do not get along so well together, so she has Chino put down (it was for his own good; the hotel heiress does not always think of herself). Unfortunately, the new dog does not get along well with humans either; she does not want to risk it biting someone -- not because it might hurt somebody, but because she's rich and famous, which means she will probably face a lawsuit. Therefore, she has the rottweiler put down.

Is the hotel heiress doing anything wrong? These dogs are pampered, treated better than most people and killed in the most humane manner known (certainly better than "livestock" at the slaughterhouse).

The point here, as JdJ hints at, is that most of us already accept that animal harm (even death that follows idealised living conditions) is problematic if performed outside the context of food production. We somewhat irrationally give meat-eating a special pass.

 

[Beerina]

I wonder what percent of vegans want universal health care and big government.


Environmentalists: People who want Man to control no other animal...except Man*.




* Slightly rewritten from everyone's favorite hero.

 

[Drudgewire]

I have the same view of vegans as I do with everyone else. I don't give a crap what you eat, extend me the same courtesy and we're good.

 

[Vic Vega]

I have no respect for vegetarians or vegans just because they are vegetarian or vegan. Why would anyone "respect" that? I don't expect vegetarians to respect me because I am an omnivore (well I hate fish and broccoli so I guess I am an almost-omnivore) even though that makes me way better than them morally.

I respect that they've made a lifestyle choice for resons that are important to them. Being a vegan especially has to be difficult. As long as they aren't obnoxious about it, I'm all for it... As long as I can keep eating meat myself.

 

[balrog666]

I respect that they've made a lifestyle choice for resons that are important to them. Being a vegan especially has to be difficult. As long as they aren't obnoxious about it, I'm all for it... As long as I can keep eating meat myself.

For some, it is simply a religion.

 

[volatile]

For some, it is simply a religion.

Like Libertarianism?

 

[Vic Vega]

We get goods from other people, where we pay them in money or trade or barter. Why can't we view our relationship with bees and cow as such?

Because cows and bees aren't people. They're animals and they don't have any concept of trade, barter, or money.

My dad's apiary was wonderful, set into an apple orchard, constantly monitored to make sure the bees had a happy, safe home. We never "fed" them crappy sugar water, they were free to come and go as they pleased, and I remember one time they took the swarm and left. But most of the time Dad made a home that any bee would be proud to live in, and many of them chose to stay there.

That's good, but I don't think bees have the capability to feel happy or sad or pride or any other human emotion. They're bugs, albeit useful ones. We should not do them harm, but I see no issue at all with using them to make honey. The health of the bee population is something that is also good for our food supply, so mistreating them is against our own interests.

 

[Vic Vega]

For some, it is simply a religion.

That's strange to me, but what do I care? As long as they aren't persecuting non-vegans, they can do as they wish as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Vic Vega]

The argument that we have the ability (as in "we're on top of the food chain"). By that thinking, anything we CAN do would be moral. (I have the ability to rape and murder and steal, for a few examples.)

Well, we ARE on the top of the food chain. That's not an argument, that's a fact. However, it is morally wrong in my opinion to mistreat animals. Killing them as humanely as reasonably possible so that we can eat them is not immoral as far as I'm concerned.

If it's a problem for you morally, being a vegetarian is absolutely the right choice for you.

 

[volatile]

However, it is morally wrong in my opinion to mistreat animals. Killing them as humanely as reasonably possible so that we can eat them is not immoral as far as I'm concerned.

And we're right back where the "Admit it" thread started.

What's your take on the Heiress Problem as above?

 

[Yoink]

And we're right back where the "Admit it" thread started.

What's your take on the Heiress Problem as above?

Your "Heiress Problem" is hardly a fair parallel to the situation of killing animals for meat. The problem I see with what the Heiress is doing is not that it's "cruel" it's that it's pointless and wasteful. Why not give the dogs away? She's having them put down for no reason at all. You might not think killing animals to eat them is a good reason, but it's mere question-begging to equate it with killing animals for nothing.

By the way--it's impossible for anyone to harvest vegetable food on a commercial scale without killing quite a large number of animals (have a look at a combine harvester in operation and ask yourself if you'd like to be a bunny in its path). What is the vegan position on those deaths? Is killing animals in order to eat vegetables o.k.?

 

[Drudgewire]

By the way--it's impossible for anyone to harvest vegetable food on a commercial scale without killing quite a large number of animals (have a look at a combine harvester in operation and ask yourself if you'd like to be a bunny in its path). What is the vegan position on those deaths?

Heh, reminds me of the sermon in Tool's "Disgustipated":

And the angel of the lord came unto me, snatching me up from my place of slumber. And took me on high, and higher still until we moved to the spaces betwixt the air itself. And he brought me into a vast farmlands of our own midwest.

And as we descended, cries of impending doom rose from the soil. One thousand, nay a million voices full of fear.

And terror possesed me then.

And I begged, "Angel of the Lord, what are these tortured screams?"

And the angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots, the cries of the carrots! You see, Reverend Maynard, tomorrow is harvest day and to them... it is the holocaust."

And I sprang from my slumber drenched in sweat like the tears of one million terrified brothers and roared, "Hear me now, I have seen the light! They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers!" Can I get an amen? Can I get a hallelujah?

Thank you Jesus.

This... is... necessary. LIFE feeds on LIFE feeds on LIFE!!

 

[madurobob]

Your "Heiress Problem" is hardly a fair parallel to the situation of killing animals for meat. The problem I see with what the Heiress is doing is not that it's "cruel" it's that it's pointless and wasteful. Why not give the dogs away? She's having them put down for no reason at all. You might not think killing animals to eat them is a good reason, but it's mere question-begging to equate it with killing animals for nothing.

Read it again, there were reasons given for each putting down. The question is why you think those are "no reason" compared to choosing to kill for meat when there are a myriad of valid food sources you could instead choose.

On the one hand you can put the dog down or give it away
On the other you can kill the cow for meat, or eat non-meat and leave the cow alone.

Why is one decision to kill more noble than the other?

 

[Drudgewire]

PETA is a big supporter of veganism, and they euthanize animals. Certainly by their standards there is a big difference.

 

[AWPrime]

Arguments based on nutrition. (Someone actually said that to me in a recent discussion--something like, "Eating meat must be moral because meat is nutritious.") Again, human flesh is nutritious, but we have a pretty strong taboo against cannibalism.

Actually cannibalism is quite dangerous.

Arguments based on the false notion that eating meat is essential. There is no essential nutrient for humans that is only available in meat.

And it takes a lot of effort. Eating some meat is easier and more natural.

 

[volatile]

By the way--it's impossible for anyone to harvest vegetable food on a commercial scale without killing quite a large number of animals (have a look at a combine harvester in operation and ask yourself if you'd like to be a bunny in its path). What is the vegan position on those deaths? Is killing animals in order to eat vegetables o.k.?

Yes, for a number of (rather trivially obvious) reasons.

The most obvious and straight forward one is that in using this example to somehow point out that veganism is hypocritical you are engaging in what is an enormously fallacious line of reasoning - that because we cannot eliminate harm entirely, we should not make any efforts to reduce it as much as reasonably possible.

It is trivially true that a vegan diet, though not perfect from any perspective, results in significantly fewer deaths than the meat-eating alternative.

On the Heiress problem, as Madurobob points out, it is on your shoulders to explain why the Heiress' whims were "for nothing", but your whims to eat meat when plant-based sources are as nutritious and as readily available to most in the West, are not.

In other words - why does your no doubt sincere desire to reduce animal harm cease at the precise moment your taste-buds get a craving for meat? What, as Cain said in the other thread, is so exaltant about the sense of taste that it alone is sufficient to trump otherwise sincerely-held convicitons?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I wonder what percent of vegans want universal health care and big government.

From my experience, most vegans are pretty left-leaning and would be in favor of universal health care.

"Big government" is at best an ambiguous term, so I don't know about that part. I'm guessing you don't count bloated military budgets as "big government" but you do count social welfare programs as such.