Veganism: I honestly don't understand it

[RandFan]

AI myself don't buy it. I still think things are right or wrong of themselves. In other words, even if I knew with certainty that my not doing something wrong would not guarantee reciprocal behavior, I'd still want to avoid doing wrong. . .just because it's wrong.

I'm not criticizing I promise. Just commenting.

What is right and what is wrong? Do you believe that morality is a priori?

I would say your position is Kantian. Kant's position is that we must do what is right regardless of the consequences. It's a very coherent philosophy but it is not without it's problems.

Hypo: A child runs into your house and runs up stairs and closes the door. Before you can follow in order to find out what is going on you hear a loud banging on your front door. You answer and a man with a gun asks you if you've seen a small child.

Do you lie? Kant says no. I say yes.

Would you steal to feed your starving children (see Trevelyan's corn)?

Personally I don't believe that there is any such thing as morality beyond a human construct. It makes no sense to me outside of that.

 

[Princess]

Personally I don't believe that there is any such thing as morality beyond a human construct. It makes no sense to me outside of that.

Just a minor comment: if you really think about it, economics is just as much a human construct as morality and is meaningless beyond that, but you don't usually see people denying the existence of economies or that we can solve economic disputes in the same way that people deny the existence of morality.

I usually imagine that people have meaningful discussions of economics and can discuss the merits of different competing economic systems because, generally, economies don't exist in any concrete way seperate from people's interactions with one another. Economies exist between people and their interactions, and that's enough to make it coherent to talk about. "Property", "friendship", "liberty", "government", "social contracts", and a huge host of other abstract concepts are completely intelligible human constructs also.

I think of morality in the same way: we can deny that morality is objective, and we can also deny subjectivism that turns morality into figments of their imagination; there's an intermediate position that says morality 'exists' between people and there interactions.

(I only bring this up because, in every AR thread, as the length of a thread gets longer, the probability that someone will deny that its wrong to slaughter animals on the basis that "morality doesn't exist" approaches 1.)

 

[Cain]

I'm not criticizing I promise. Just commenting.

What is right and what is wrong? Do you believe that morality is a priori?

I would say your position is Kantian. Kant's position is that we must do what is right regardless of the consequences. It's a very coherent philosophy but it is not without it's problems.

Hypo: A child runs into your house and runs up stairs and closes the door. Before you can follow in order to find out what is going on you hear a loud banging on your front door. You answer and a man with a gun asks you if you've seen a small child.

Do you lie? Kant says no. I say yes.

Ethics professors tell this to their students to provoke opinion. "The Nazis come knocking on the door looking for Anne Frank. What do you do?" Kant's ethics possess the machinery to lie in these types of situations. More generally, Kant opposes lying for personal gain, especially at the expense of another person.

It's my understanding this infamous position was articulated very late in life, when Kant's once unrivaled powers were in serious decline. Translations were very bad back then, and a French philosopher had misread Kant's position as saying it's always wrong to lie. As a cranky old far he was not about to have a Frenchman correct him, so he defended the idea.

Princess:

I think of morality in the same way: we can deny that morality is objective, and we can also deny subjectivism that turns morality into figments of their imagination; there's an intermediate position that says morality 'exists' between people and there interactions.

(I only bring this up because, in every AR thread, as the length of a thread gets longer, the probability that someone will deny that its wrong to slaughter animals on the basis that "morality doesn't exist" approaches 1.)

I think it was in an old issue of Skeptic (the one with Spinoza on the cover) where a philosopher said there are more evolution-deniers in (American) biology departments than moral relativists in (American) philosophy departments.

 

[RandFan]

Just a minor comment: if you really think about it, economics is just as much a human construct as morality and is meaningless beyond that, but you don't usually see people denying the existence of economies or that we can solve economic disputes in the same way that people deny the existence of morality.

I usually imagine that people have meaningful discussions of economics and can discuss the merits of different competing economic systems because, generally, economies don't exist in any concrete way seperate from people's interactions with one another. Economies exist between people and their interactions, and that's enough to make it coherent to talk about. "Property", "friendship", "liberty", "government", "social contracts", and a huge host of other abstract concepts are completely intelligible human constructs also.

I think of morality in the same way: we can deny that morality is objective, and we can also deny subjectivism that turns morality into figments of their imagination; there's an intermediate position that says morality 'exists' between people and there interactions.


(I only bring this up because, in every AR thread, as the length of a thread gets longer, the probability that someone will deny that its wrong to slaughter animals on the basis that "morality doesn't exist" approaches 1.)

That would be fine if I had made such an argument. I haven't and I can assure you that I hold no such position.

• I believe that morality is a complex set of adaptive traits that are both physiological and sociological.
• I believe that humans were born with near universal physiological mechanisms for morality that we as individuals can't easily ignore. These include mirror neurons (empathy) and mind theory (not an exhaustive list I assure you).

Let me make my point as crystal clear as I can.

That morality is a human construct isn't to say that morality doesn't exist nor is it to say that morality is whatever anyone wants it to be.
If I killed someone it would be dishonest (and fruitless) for me to proffer the defense that morality is strictly relative and I did not personally believe that killing was immoral.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm not criticizing I promise. Just commenting.

What is right and what is wrong? Do you believe that morality is a priori?

I would say your position is Kantian. Kant's position is that we must do what is right regardless of the consequences. It's a very coherent philosophy but it is not without it's problems.

Hypo: A child runs into your house and runs up stairs and closes the door. Before you can follow in order to find out what is going on you hear a loud banging on your front door. You answer and a man with a gun asks you if you've seen a small child.

Do you lie? Kant says no. I say yes.

Would you steal to feed your starving children (see Trevelyan's corn)?

Personally I don't believe that there is any such thing as morality beyond a human construct. It makes no sense to me outside of that.

I never did like hypotheticals as an approach to morality. I'm also a pacifist, and invariably people will challenge my position by coming up with absurd situations. "You've got a gun in your hand, and you magically know for certain if you don't shoot and kill someone, your mother will be raped and a thousand people will die."

No situation just pops up in a vacuum. Generally, you have many choices along the way long before the choice given in the hypothetical.

As for the on with Anne Frank and the Nazis--who says my only options are to lie or let the girl be taken? (For what it's worth, I don't have any convictions that lying is always wrong.)

With pacifism, it is important for me to have a commitment to that principle in advance of any situation where such a decision might arise. The reason for that is that I know I'm a passionate person. There are plenty of situations where anger might lead me to lash out. Also, there are plenty of situations where I might think I know all the information but in a more dispassionate frame of mind, I can see that it's impossible for me to be certain that I have all the information. So, having the commitment ahead of time makes it easier to avoid violence even when in the heat of the moment it seems like the best thing to do.

Also, when I bring up pacifism, people will often try to think of really exceptional situations where violence is necessary. My response is, OK sure--it might be necessary in that situation (which I'm almost certain never to find myself in), but do you think that the problems in the world are caused by not enough violence? Not enough killing?

ETA: I don't have any children, and I've had a vasectomy. It's unlikely I'll ever need to answer the question about stealing to feed my children.

 

[politas]

There are very fundamental differences between plants and animals--especially that "higher" animals (the ones in question really) have nervous systems and are capable of sensing pain and suffering. Plants do not.

They don't feel pain and suffering the way us humans do, but neither do many animals, as far as we can tell. Ultimately, you can't make definite statements about the experience of any kind of life other than human. Fish parted ways with our ancestors a long time ago; how do you know that they "suffer"?

Also, we share a MUCH nearer common ancestor with animals than we do with plants.

A quantitative difference, not a qualitative one. We share a MUCH nearer common ancestor with chimpanzees than we do fish, too.

These difference might not make you reach the conclusion that it's wrong to kill animals for food--and that's perfectly fine--but the differences between plants and animals are quite apparent and significant to the discussion.

Clearly, they are to you. That doesn't make it a universal and inarguable truth.

I agree with this in part. The fact that we draw different boundaries doesn't mean the boundaries are "entirely arbitrary".

A common ancestor at a thousand million years ago compared to 75 million years ago (which is about where I draw the line) is pretty arbitrary, if you ask me. Actually, where are you drawing the line? Do you eat fungi? They're far more recent ancestors than plants; by 200 million years or so.

 

[RandFan]

I never did like hypotheticals as an approach to morality.

Thanks Joe. I assure you that I'm just fine with your conscience and wouldn't try and talk you out of it.

Hypotheticals are good to find the lines and limits of our beliefs. I don't personally see the use of hypotheticals as simply an approach.

FTR, I don't mind that you see the world the way you do. You seem a right decent person. The world would not be made poorer if more people shared your world view. OTH, I don't see how I could ever adopt your moral philosophy. The hypotheticals in question are not simply academic to me and I would be lying to myself to suppose that they were.

Thank you.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They don't feel pain and suffering the way us humans do, but neither do many animals, as far as we can tell.

We certainly know that animals (especially mammals) have very similar nervous systems to humans. We know they all have nociceptors. We know from their behavior that they avoid pain. We know plants lack those mechanisms for feeling pain.

Ultimately, you can't make definite statements about the experience of any kind of life other than human.

Ultimately, a person can't make definite statements about the subjective experience of other humans than himself.

That certainly wouldn't justify me killing another human. I have no way of knowing for sure that they suffer or feel pain.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Thanks Joe. I assure you that I'm just fine with your conscience and wouldn't try and talk you out of it.

Likewise. One of my moral principles is not to expect anyone else to have exactly my moral principles (or opinions etc.)

In other words, it's the difference between "everyone is entitled to their own opinion" and "everyone is entitled to have their opinion treated as if it were the only right one". I believe my views are valid. . but I don't presume to insist that other people have to accept my views as valid.

Again, in real life, I rarely talk about vegetarianism with non-vegetarians. Almost never.

But when I do, (or when I see others in such a conversation) there is invariably anger and outright hostility. Sort of like AWPrime's assumption that a vegetarian is trying to to pass himself off as morally superior. For myself, I'm really not. Different moral principles is not the same thing as "superior".

I don't see that same hostility directed, for example, to orthodox Jews and Muslims who don't eat pork. People might think it's a foolish thing to do, but I've never seen anyone get hostile toward them (as I have with vegetarianism). Is it perhaps because those are based on religious ideas, and they get that special treatment that Dawkins talks about?

 

[AWPrime]

I'm not sure why or how you distinguish between "it's moral" and "it's merely a choice". I've said over and over that my being vegetarian is a moral choice I've made for myself.

If there were no freedom of choice involved, then discussing morality would be pointless.

Let me give you an example but be warned it might offend you.

You walk in a deserted ally and find some guy beating another guy up. You have three choices:
1. Don't get involved.
2. Defend the victim (correct an apparent wrong situation)
3. Join the attacker

Vegetarianism is basically option 1.
Passing animal cruelty laws and buying stress free meat is option 2. Because one is then using their voice and wallet to seek improvement.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Let me give you an example but be warned it might offend you.

It doesn't offend me, but I find that it's a pretty bad analogy.

You walk in a deserted ally and find some guy beating another guy up. You have three choices:
1. Don't get involved.
2. Defend the victim (correct an apparent wrong situation)
3. Join the attacker

Why are those my only choices? I'd probably dial 911 and start shouting as loud as I could.

With choices 2 and 3 in the situation you described, how do you know who is the victim and who is the attacker? How do you know the apparent attacker isn't a victim who just got the upper hand before you saw them? For example, if I opted for 2 (as you're thinking of it) and jumped in to help the guy that was being beaten and another person came on the scene at that point. He'd basically see two guys beating up another and might assume that the two of us are the bad guys.

Vegetarianism is basically option 1.
Passing animal cruelty laws and buying stress free meat is option 2. Because one is then using their voice and wallet to seek improvement.

Terrible analogy. For most people in our culture, the default behavior ("doing nothing") is to go along with a meat eating diet and think about the conditions of animals rarely (er. . pun sort of intended) if at all.

ETA: And your analogy has done nothing to address the issue of what distinguishes "merely a choice" from "it's moral". Again, even here all the options are options. If you can't make a choice, then there is no point in discussing the morality of your decision.

 

[AWPrime]

Why are those my only choices? I'd probably dial 911 and start shouting as loud as I could.

That belongs to option 2. Is that so hard to understand?

With choices 2 and 3 in the situation you described, how do you know who is the victim and who is the attacker? How do you know the apparent attacker isn't a victim who just got the upper hand before you saw them?

You don't, which fits. Most moral cases aren't clear cut they differ from ones pov, that is why the apparent situations makes it more realistic. The example is about how to respond (neutral, positive, negative).

For most people in our culture, the default behavior ("doing nothing") is to go along with a meat eating diet and think about the conditions of animals rarely (er. . pun sort of intended) if at all.

Then that can also fall under option 1 just as vegetarianism. Also you have yet to provide any argument that it falls under any other option.

Option 2 is the only moral one, as its the only one that actually helps.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Then that can also fall under option 1 just as vegetarianism. Also you have yet to provide any argument that it falls under any other option.

You're the one who said these are the only options. I gave one that was different than the ones you offered, and you just said it fits into one of the ones you said (as if jumping in and joining the fight or trying to thwart the attacker were the same decision and calling 911 and making noise).

You also didn't answer my question about how you can possibly know who is the victim and who is the attacker.

Your analogy is nothing like vegetarianism.

Your analogy does nothing to address the distinction you make between "merely a choice" and "it's moral".

Don't you understand that moral issues must involved choices and decisions? (If you're not free to choose, then it's senseless to talk about right and wrong.)

By the way, what happened to your contention that I think I'm morally superior? You lifted a part of a sentence out and said that it showed I thought that even though the entire quote shows that I was saying exactly the opposite.

Also, do you still insist that since I don't eat meat I must not be as healthy as a meat eater?

You just letting those points drop?

Also, on the cannibalism issue--is your fear of the spread of infectious diseases really the only thing that prevents you from eating human flesh?

Let's not bring up any more strained analogies without addressing some of this stuff you've already raised.

 

[AWPrime]

You're the one who said these are the only options. I gave one that was different than the ones you offered, and you just said it fits into one of the ones you said (as if jumping in and joining the fight or trying to thwart the attacker were the same decision and calling 911 and making noise).

Their both 'positive', in both cases you try to help the one being attacked. I can assume that you understand that such options represent categories?

You also didn't answer my question about how you can possibly know who is the victim and who is the attacker.

I have answered your question by stating and explaining it to be meaningless. The defeat position is to defend your fellow man. Even if the roles are revered you just might prevent someone from becoming a murderer.

Don't you understand that moral issues must involved choices and decisions? (If you're not free to choose, then it's senseless to talk about right and wrong.)

And how are you incapable of choosing?

Your analogy does nothing to address the distinction you make between "merely a choice" and "it's moral".

There are three types of choices, only one type is moral. I have shown that vegetarianism falls into neutral category. You have yet to show otherwise. Therefore you can claim to have made a choice based upon your preferences, but it isn't the same thing as a moral choice.

Also, do you still insist that since I don't eat meat I must not be as healthy as a meat eater?

I think I have shown that it does take more effort to use an herbivore diet to feed an omnivore. And I personally get the feeling that you could be healthier.

Also, on the cannibalism issue--is your fear of the spread of infectious diseases really the only thing that prevents you from eating human flesh?

Lets see; harmful for the community, dangerous for ones health, I find the concept to be revolting, etc.

You lifted a part of a sentence out and said that it showed I thought that even though the entire quote shows that I was saying exactly the opposite.

Hardly, how can your position be a moral choice if your only using a different default position?

 

[applecorped]

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ies_shrinks_the_brain/articleshow/3480629.cms

Don't blame vegans, they have smaller brains!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Their both 'positive', in both cases you try to help the one being attacked. I can assume that you understand that such options represent categories?

OK, but if your categories are meant to be analogous to meat eating and vegetarian, you're lumping both into one of your options. So it's not a very useful analogy.

I have answered your question by stating and explaining it to be meaningless. The defeat position is to defend your fellow man. Even if the roles are revered you just might prevent someone from becoming a murderer.

Your writing is getting less comprehensible. (Their for they're and your for you're is bad enough, but now I'm having to translate a lot of words---default for defeat and revered for reversed, I assume.)

One of your options in your analogy is to intervene to help the victim. I pointed out that in the situation you described, you can't possibly know for sure which one is the victim (if any). And now you're saying the distinction between attacker and victim is meaningless? That's almost as bad as your saying that killing is morally the same as dying.

I think I have shown that it does take more effort to use an herbivore diet to feed an omnivore. And I personally get the feeling that you could be healthier.

You've shown no such thing. And even if it takes more effort--so what? Is that a bad thing? Remember, we're discussing the morality of the decision not to eat meat.

And I repeat that I am in excellent health. You want to compare blood pressure, cholesterol count, etc? Care to run 5 or 10 miles with me? (Lately I've been running 5 miles while juggling three clubs non-stop about 3 times a week, plus some other faster running and a bootcamp workout and plenty of bicycling riding and a bit of resistance work. Oh yeah--I'll turn 47 next month.)

It's hard to imagine I could be healthier. Again, even if that's true (and I definitely do NOT concede that it is), a barely perceptible improvement in already outstanding health certainly wouldn't rise to the level I would need to justify killing animals.

Since you're still stuck on arguing that eating meat is necessary, perhaps you could say what essential nutrient you think is only available in meat and from no other food?

Hardly, how can your position be a moral choice if your only using a different default position?

I'm choosing to adhere to a moral principle--maybe a different moral principle than others use, but it's my choice. You're basically restating the question I'm asking you: how can you separate "choice" from "moral"?

Surely you're not saying that my being a vegetarian is NOT a choice-- that I'm incapable of eating meat?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My A & P textbook (Anatomy & Physiology 3rd Edition, Elaine N. Marieb, Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1995) says this:

The ability of cells, especially those of the liver, to convert one type of molecule into another is truly remarkable. These interconversions allow the body to use the wide range of chemicals found in different foods to adjust to varying food intakes. But there are limits to this ability to conjure up new molecules from old. At least 45 and possibly 50 molecules, called essential nutrients, cannot be made by such interconversions and must be provided by the diet.

Have you discovered one such molecule that is ONLY available in meat?

According to the USDA (the people who make the food pyramid):

Vegetarian diets can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.

So, if you get all your essential nutrients in a vegetarian diet, what is the health advantage of eating meat? Just saying we're omnivores isn't an answer to the question. (When you say that to support your contention that meat eating is necessary for a healthy diet, it sounds like you're saying Mother Nature intends us to eat meat.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, on the cannibalism issue--is your fear of the spread of infectious diseases really the only thing that prevents you from eating human flesh?

Lets see; harmful for the community, dangerous for ones health, I find the concept to be revolting, etc.

Good, so you have two other reasons and "etc." besides the erroneous idea that it's significantly harmful to your health, so we can drop that. I brought up cannibalism to counter the argument that because meat is nutritious that it's automatically morally right to eat it. Or the idea that since my body craves meat (which I don't think it really does, as I said earlier--it actually craves nutrients), it's automatically morally right to eat it.

So even if you knew a serving of human flesh was perfectly safe to eat (say--it had been irradiated so you wouldn't have to worry about pathogens), you would still refrain from eating it under all but starvation situations, wouldn't you?

So there are principles that are sufficient to override the fact that you're an omnivore and could eat anything.

 

[AWPrime]

OK, but if your categories are meant to be analogous to meat eating and vegetarian, you're lumping both into one of your options.
[snip]
One of your options in your analogy is to intervene to help the victim. I pointed out that in the situation you described, you can't possibly know for sure which one is the victim.

That's reality for you. Do you have principles or do you need meta data?

You've shown no such thing. And even if it takes more effort--so what? Is that a bad thing? Remember, we're discussing the morality of the decision not to eat meat.
[snip]
Since you're still stuck on arguing that eating meat is necessary, perhaps you could say what essential nutrient you think is only available in meat and from no other food?

We already know its possible for the average western person to replace the diverse content of meat. But I have stated over and over again that your position isn't globally true. Some people lack the money while other lack the food types to replace meat. So for them meat eating is vital. Making any statement that give a std moral value over just meat eating completely useless.

I'm choosing to adhere to a moral principle--maybe a different moral principle than others use, but it's my choice. You're basically restating the question I'm asking you: how can you separate "choice" from "moral"?

Some choices are moral while others aren't. Moral choices stop or lessen bad situations, your choice doesn't do either. You only have your disgust of the process as basis for your position.
In my example you're just walk past the beating, softly muttering your disgust with the situation.

And when will you start answering this?:
1. What makes vegetarianism a positive/moral choice instead of a neutral one?

Good, so you have two other reasons and "etc." besides the erroneous idea that it's significantly harmful to your health, so we can drop that.

Actually you haven't you only stated your doubt about the species barrier, which I then nuked.

So even if you knew a serving of human flesh was perfectly safe to eat (say--it had been irradiated so you wouldn't have to worry about pathogens)

For bacteria and parasites, yes, for other harmful elements, no.
Even if it was safe, and wasn't harmful for the community, then I would be left with my disgust for it. Reducing it to a mere choice. Just like you.

 

[Drudgewire]

Let me give you an example but be warned it might offend you.

You walk in a deserted ally and find some guy beating another guy up. You have three choices:
1. Don't get involved.
2. Defend the victim (correct an apparent wrong situation)
3. Join the attacker

Vegetarianism is basically option 1.
Passing animal cruelty laws and buying stress free meat is option 2. Because one is then using their voice and wallet to seek improvement.

That analogy is so flawed on so many levels I've decided to eat veal for lunch today and it's all your fault.