Veganism: I honestly don't understand it

[madurobob]

Yeah, um, you can set your moral compass by PETA. I choose not to.

ETA: whoops - forgot to quote Drudgewire on that...

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

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 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.

The problem with Cain's illustration is that it actually does not connect with the "line of thinking".

Keeping an animal as a fashion accessory is not the same thing as raising animals that are going to be eaten.

The analogy fails at that point no matter how eagerly one wishes to paint a skinny and annoying heiress as being a total plonker.

It is not irrational to give meat eating a special pass - it is entirely logical to do so because it is part of most people's diet. It is also a fact that most food animals - cows, sheep, pigs chickens et al are only here because of the demand for their meat.

I have a sneaking admiration for Carthusian Monks and their dedication and adherence to a rigid and high demand lifestyle. I also think that their beliefs are idiotic. In like manner I think veganism is a pointless exercise in general, though if it gives the person doing it some sense of purpose - well it isn't doing any harm to anyone. So good luck to them with their religion sez I.

 

[Yoink]

Read it again, there were reasons given for each putting down.

I did read it again. You're confused about my point. There are reasons given for why she doesn't want the dog. There is no reason given for why she has the dog put down. Why not give the dog away rather than put it down? In the first case she is supposed to ask her friends if they want the dog. They don't, so she has it put down. I'm sorry, but "asking her friends" doesn't exhaust the possible pool of people who would want the dog. Frankly, giving away Paris Hilton's dog would be a pretty easy task (what crazed fan wouldn't want to own it?). So, no, she's having the dog put down for no reason at all by the lights of the original example.

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?

Killing a dog for no reason at all seems pointlessly wasteful (after all, the dog might bring pleasure to some other person). Killing a cow for meat clearly brings pleasure (and sustenance) to those who eat that meat. I'm not saying that this demolishes any case for veganism, but it pretty solidly demolishes this particular case. The spoiled heiress and the meat eater just aren't parallel cases.

Oh, and would you care to have a stab at the "collateral damage from harvesting vegetable crops" question? Why is it o.k. to harvest wheat, say, knowing that doing so will kill animals, but not o.k. to kill those animals directly in order to eat them? We wouldn't harvest the wheat if doing so would kill humans, would we? Isn't this a clear case of "ranking" human life above animal life?

 

[GreNME]

All I can say is:

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Actually cannibalism is quite dangerous.

Not in and of itself. There is nothing about human flesh that is more dangerous than say cow flesh. You can get diseases like kuru from eating infected human nervous tissue, but you can also get other kinds of encephalopathy from eating infected cows.

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

I don't think so. It used to, but these days in the U.S., I can eat in just about any restaurant (I'm not a vegan, though), and there is a great variety of convenience food available to me.

On a broader scale, it's not easier in terms of energy efficiency. We convert solar energy to energy in grain, then feed that grain to cows (who use up most of the energy by being living cows), then get our energy from eating the beef.

And I'm not sure what to make of the "natural" argument. It's more natural for me not to eat meat than to eat meat.

 

[volatile]

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

Doing something "because it is natural" is a fallacious line of reasoning, and one which you do not extend to other areas of your life. It's a silly argument. Humans have a rapacious capacity to transcend nature for bold moral goals.

On "easier" - the tofu and the chicken are on adjacent aisles in the supermarket next to my house. Why should I pick the chicken? For most people in the developed West, eating Vegan is no more arduous (or, only trivially more arduous) than eating meat. Even if it were more difficult, there are doubtless many actions that would make your life easier (pissing against walls, dropping litter, theft are three that come to mind) that you do not engage in because they counteract some of your basic moral principles.

If you are of the opinion that animals should not be harmed for trivial reasons (for example, you support animal cruelty laws and prohibitions on dog fighting, for example), how can you justify your diet?

 

[volatile]

All I can say is:

http://image.grenme.com/thread/NTSA.jpg

My thoughts entirely.

 

[Drudgewire]

Yeah, um, you can set your moral compass by PETA. I choose not to.

ETA: whoops - forgot to quote Drudgewire on that...

Me neither, but then again I'm an ordained Subgenius minister and one of our commandments is "Don’t just eat a hamburger, eat the HELL out of it!"

 

[madurobob]

Killing a dog for no reason at all seems pointlessly wasteful (after all, the dog might bring pleasure to some other person). Killing a cow for meat clearly brings pleasure (and sustenance) to those who eat that meat. I'm not saying that this demolishes any case for veganism, but it pretty solidly demolishes this particular case. The spoiled heiress and the meat eater just aren't parallel cases.

OK, so as long as killing the dog brings either the heiress or the executioner pleasure, then everything is cool with that? Interesting. And if they eat the dogs thats even better?

What about Michael Vick? Would his actions have been fine as long as he was gathering the carcasses, making a stew, and serving down at the local homeless shelter?

Oh, and would you care to have a stab at the "collateral damage from harvesting vegetable crops" question? Why is it o.k. to harvest wheat, say, knowing that doing so will kill animals, but not o.k. to kill those animals directly in order to eat them? We wouldn't harvest the wheat if doing so would kill humans, would we? Isn't this a clear case of "ranking" human life above animal life?

See Volatile's response to this, he covered it well.

 

[volatile]

I did read it again. You're confused about my point. There are reasons given for why she doesn't want the dog. There is no reason given for why she has the dog put down. Why not give the dog away rather than put it down? In the first case she is supposed to ask her friends if they want the dog. They don't, so she has it put down. I'm sorry, but "asking her friends" doesn't exhaust the possible pool of people who would want the dog. Frankly, giving away Paris Hilton's dog would be a pretty easy task (what crazed fan wouldn't want to own it?). So, no, she's having the dog put down for no reason at all by the lights of the original example.

Killing a dog for no reason at all seems pointlessly wasteful (after all, the dog might bring pleasure to some other person). Killing a cow for meat clearly brings pleasure (and sustenance) to those who eat that meat. I'm not saying that this demolishes any case for veganism, but it pretty solidly demolishes this particular case. The spoiled heiress and the meat eater just aren't parallel cases.

Yes, they are. Killing the animal satisfies personal whim. Why is her whim unnecessary, and yours is defensible?

Seems it comes down to pleasure for you. That is, the pursuit of pleasure is an acceptable reason to subvert otherwise sincerely held beliefs. Do you really believe that? Is that extensible to any other form of pleasure other than taste? Let's say someone get's pleasure from animal torture (and there are doubtless people who do) - is their behaviour excusable?

 

[Deus Ex Machina]

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.

you have not made any sort of case that "reducing harm" is a worthwhile exercise of any kind.

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

unless you are referring to those unfeeling plants of course. But also the "deaths" of cows, pigs sheep etc really does not trouble me. I certainly don't think that is better morally to not kill them.

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.

er, wrong. The heiress example misses the boat. According to your example and follow up then - it would be totally fine for her to cart around overweight puffy and annoying dogs as fashion accessories - just don't kill them? What has this to do with food? you might as well have cited clearing trees to get a better view for her house. It's on your shoulders to try and give that example some relevance.

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?

Ah, a little self indulgent eh? I choose to eat what I wish in order to make my life more pleasant and easier. In one case - veggie burgers - it means I choose a vegetarian example because I do not like the taste or the effort to cook a hamburger. But when it comes to bacon and eggs for breakfast - there is no alternative. So the pigs must die so I can enjoy my bacon.

 

[Drudgewire]

I choose to eat what I wish in order to make my life more pleasant and easier. In one case - veggie burgers - it means I choose a vegetarian example because I do not like the taste or the effort to cook a hamburger. But when it comes to bacon and eggs for breakfast - there is no alternative. So the pigs must die so I can enjoy my bacon.

Oh god, I wrote one of the first commercials for Boca Burgers when I worked in Pompano. We shot the commercial in a restaurant kitchen and of course had to try them.

 

[volatile]

See Volatile's response to this, he covered it well.

Thanks.

Might I also add that I actually do "[rank] human life above animal life", but do not believe this legitimises unnecessary harms.

I am perfectly OK with medical testing on animals where justified, and if, in some hypothetical situation, I needed to eat meat to survive, I would have no problem with that. There is nothing inherently wrong with meat eating (veganism requires no metaphysical appreciation of the sacredness of animals). It depends on the circumstances and the necessity or otherwise that arises from them.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

One can keep animals for slaughter without being cruel to them.

One can, but can 6.7 billion? The fact is, most of our meat comes from factory farms.

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.

I understand that. My point was that from the premise I started with (that it's wrong to kill animals without justification) the fact that we're on "top of the food chain" doesn't constitute justification for me. No more than the fact that I have the power to do some other wrong act somehow makes it moral.

You're starting from a different position, and I don't think the fact that we're on top of the food chain really matters. Would it be different if we were somewhere in the middle? (I.e. if we were predator to some animals, but prey to others?)

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

I do appreciate your live and let live attitude. Actually, it's not a problem for me. I don't eat meat.

I can't help but wondering why my moral choices piss off some people. I, and most vegetarians that I know personally, don't have any agenda to convert other people.

Before anyone starts lumping me in with animal-rights terrorists (an inherently self-contradictory position--sort of like a "violent militant pacifist"), I don't crow about being a vegetarian. (This conversation is not at all typical of conversations that I have in "real life".) I often eat in restaurants with people who don't realize that I'm a vegetarian. I don't quibble over silly things like whether that utensil or pot has ever been used in meat preparation. I have no problem buying meat dishes for friends or dates.

I'm really not out to make anyone else stop eating meat.

I'm motivated to write on this thread because of some arguments that don't hold water.

 

[Yoink]

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.

Actually it was a serious question. I do suspect that veganism can't quite be maintained as a self-consistent philosophy, but for my own part the jury is still out. However, the argument you give strikes me as seriously dangerous to the vegan position. You are not giving an argument here based on animal "rights"--you are giving a strictly utilitarian argument ("cause as little suffering as possible"). You wouldn't accept human deaths as the price to pay for harvesting a field of wheat; therefore you are tacitly accepting that human lives are more important than animal lives. Humans have an absolute "right" not to be sacrificed to my dietary needs, but with animals it's simply a case that I should be as merciful as possible. Well, fine--but that just gets us back to treating animals humanely and killing them without suffering. I suspect that there is far more suffering in the wake of a combine harvester than there is in a well-run slaughterhouse; the combine harvester isn't designed to kill efficiently, after all.

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

Yes, perhaps: though, again, from a "rights" perspective that's not such a great boast (it's a little like ranking mass-murderers; sure Pol Pot was bad, but not Hitler bad). It's also not quite clear that a vegan world would--from a purely utilitarian view--contain a sum total of less suffering than a non-vegan world (I mean, if we're no longer talking about "rights" we're just talking about pleasure vs. pain, right?). Think of the huge increase in suffering that would be caused by the outlawing of all drugs tested on animals, for example--and the myriad future treatments that would be either greatly delayed or remain undiscovered as a result. It's also a bit of a puzzle to figure out the utilitarian value of a vegan approach to livestock animals. Sure, the last generation of cows and sheep and so forth would get to live out their lives (which also means enduring the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to as they age, suffer and die); but then there's be no point in breeding any more of them. The world population of cows and sheep would plummet to virtually (perhaps absolutely) zero. From a utilitarian point of view, is it better for a species of animals to exist for unnaturally curtailed lives or not to exist at all?

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.

Like Madurobob, you've missed the point. The Heiress has no reason AT ALL to have the dogs put down. Why doesn't she just give them away? Tweak your hypothetical so that the killing is at least related to her whim (as it is for the meat-eater's) and you may have a point. As it is you've just got a straw woman.

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?

And this is interesting ad-hom, but irrelevant to the actual argument.

 

[billydkid]

Let me add my usual nothing. First, yes, the philosophy of veganism is not logical, but that is their prerogative - to adhere to an illogical philosophy, just so long as (as we extremely heterosexual guys like to say about those scary homos) they don't try to force their philosophy on me. I don't have a problem with eating meat, but it does feel unwholesome to me at times. I do have a problem with the way we are disconnected from the way our meat gets to our tables and I find factory farming fairly repellent. There is nothing really logical in feeling that way, but I feel that we owe the animals who give us sustainance some modicum of respect beyond merely not brutalizing them in an obvious way. From personal experience I know that it drives chickens out of their minds (my spell checker must be turned off. I know spelled some things wrong. Sue me.) to be crammed together in cages in sweltering chicken houses and I have seen film of giant pig houses where the pigs can barely move and live in their own filth. It bothers me. All the people who are indifferent to farm animals being treated inhumanely should know that in a number of countries animals that we considered beloved pets and family members are treated with the same callousness and worse on a regular basis.

 

[Yoink]

OK, so as long as killing the dog brings either the heiress or the executioner pleasure, then everything is cool with that? Interesting. And if they eat the dogs thats even better?

Please re-read the "Heiress Problem" post. There is no claim in that post that killing the dogs gives the Heiress pleasure. You've substituted one straw man for a different straw man. I think we are all agreed--meat-eaters and non-meat-eaters alike--that killing animals simply because snuffing out a life gives you pleasure is wrong. But there's no parallel between the person who kills a dog because it's death per se "gives them pleasure" and the person who kills a cow because they want to eat its meat.

What about Michael Vick? Would his actions have been fine as long as he was gathering the carcasses, making a stew, and serving down at the local homeless shelter?

Seriously, are you trying to start some kind of straw-man conflagration here? Everybody is agreed that inflicting needless suffering on animals is wrong. If you can find a slaughterhouse where the animals are killed in fights-to-the-death then everyone--vegan and carnivore--will agree that it should be closed. Try to stay a little on topic here.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It is not irrational to give meat eating a special pass - it is entirely logical to do so because it is part of most people's diet.

I haven't been following this line of the discussion, so I apologize if I'm missing some context.

This sounds like you're saying the reason x is justified is because most people do x.

I'm better able to accept people who just don't start from the premise that I start with (that it's wrong to kill animals without justification) than I am to accept this reasoning.

In other words, I think most meat eaters don't have that moral axiom that I do, and start from meat-eating as a default position. For them, the question is, "Why is it wrong?" For me the question is, "Why is it justified?"--basically a different burden of proof. I'm fine with that. Reasonable minds can disagree on such things.

I'm not fine with the attempt above (unless I've taken it horribly out of context and misunderstood it totally) to provide a justification.

 

[Yoink]

Yes, they are. Killing the animal satisfies personal whim. Why is her whim unnecessary, and yours is defensible?

You guys can't even read your own hypothetical. The story didn't go "a spoiled heiress had a dog, and suddenly she decided killing it would be fun, so she did." The story was that the dog itself became an inconvenience to her. Her "whim" was to get another dog. Killing the dog was the "solution" she came up with. Now the problem in the original hypothetical that I kindly pointed out to you is that while killing cows is necessary for the cow-eater, killing dogs is not necessary for the inconvenient-dog-owner. That's pretty self-evident. I'm sorry that you thought you had a great hypothetical that would put us all on the horns of a dilemma and that I went and ruined it for you, but instead of desperately clinging to it why don't you see if you can't come up with one that is actually parallel to the situation of the meat-eater?

Seems it comes down to pleasure for you.

Not necessarily. I've simply offered a sufficient argument to dispel your straw man. Come up with a better hypothetical and I might have to dig somewhat deeper.

That is, the pursuit of pleasure is an acceptable reason to subvert otherwise sincerely held beliefs.

Hoo boy, you really love this question-begging stuff, don't you? Please tell me what part of my argument licenses that piece of ad-hom nonsense?

Do you really believe that?

Well, no, actually, I don't--if I believed that I probably would have said it. As I didn't say it (or anything vaguely analogous to it) I can only assume you're imputing that position to me because you'd rather offer insults than engage in an actual argument.

Is that extensible to any other form of pleasure other than taste? Let's say someone get's pleasure from animal torture (and there are doubtless people who do) - is their behaviour excusable?

Clearly not. If someone gets pleasure from torturing their opponent's argument beyond all recognition, that wouldn't excuse that behavior, either.

 

[madurobob]

Seriously, are you trying to start some kind of straw-man conflagration here?

"Afraid? I'm not afraid of Nothin... 'cept a box of matches"

I was simply adjusting the heiress scenario to fit your insertion of "pleasure" in the the argument. Eating meat give pleasure thus killing the cow is OK. By the same token, if the heiress gets pleasure from putting down the dog then doing so must be OK.

You choose to eat meat, and eating that meat requires the death of an animal. All that is being asked is why you feel your choice (that results in death of an animal) is more important or morally superior to any other choice (that results in death of an animal). Its simple reductio ad absurdum.

I'm sorry if this line of reasoning is painful for you, but, as I said very early in this thread, little of what we choose to eat is based on logic and when faced with logic we may choose to ignore it. I know I do (see where I readily admit to hunting/killing/eating deer).