Veganism: I honestly don't understand it

[Lonewulf]

Of course I don't mock them for it. I'm fairly certain you knew that, though.

It's not that I thought I was a target for what you were saying. It's that when you shave off all the incendiary language that goes into this kind of discussion it really does turn out to not quite be so black and white.

Incendiary language really does have a way of making things seem more black and white. And while I may respect your arguments, I cannot respect people like Drudgewire, and I was responding primarily based on what he was saying. I don't respect his mindset, his arguments, or his general attitude.

 

[RandFan]

I'd buy that--except I'm not fond of the "transcend our nature" idea. (I think I know what you mean, though--pretty much the same idea Lonewulf just expressed about craving or physical desire.)

Thank you yes. Let me be a bit more clear. As we travel back through time we see higher and higher rates of homicide, rape, and what we might call brutality in general. As we go back through time we see a reversal of Peter Singer's expanding circle. In the past tribalism was greater than it is now. A popular refrain was that the tears of a stranger are just water. Why? Is it because we are by nature tribalistic and brutish. I think this is true but simplistic. We are more than that. Our "nature" is based on a number of variables. I think we have predispositions for both tribalism and altruism. It is reason and the luxury of surplus calories and other resources that lead us to focus our empathy from simple family units and extended family units (tribes) to an ever expanding circle (see Jared Diamond's Guns Germs and Steel).

I'm not even sure what many people mean when they say something is our nature or some behavior is unnatural to us. It seems like the distinction can be pretty arbitrary.

I think I brought it up here before that humans were hunter/gatherers for a long time before the Neolithic Revolution. Does that mean settling down into more stationary communities and getting our sustenance from farming was an unnatural thing?

What about our current social institutions (e.g. laws & judicial systems, modern forms of government, schools, etc.) and technology? Are they part of human nature or not? If they are, what about the humans who lived before we had many institutions and most of the technology we now have?

All natural. But natural given Jared Diamond's thesis that human society advance with an abundance of resources. It is when our species has the luxury to allow moral philosophers, inventors, scientists, innovators, educators and others the opportunity to reason and debate and apply critical thinking that our nature becomes more refined. To rise above our base needs and instincts. To move up the levels of hierarchy that Maslow lays out in his theory.

 

[GreNME]

Well, I can't really claim to mediate between you two on that mark. I'm more just pointing out that sometimes you can cut through the incendiary language (and sometimes, as I learned in the other thread, you can't).

I respect your arguments and your reasoning on this topic as well. I know I said it before, but it's worth repeating in this thread.

 

[Cain]

Nobody minds if I do a "Washington read", right?

I admit I haven't read all of Cain's posts, but I'm pretty certain that no one else on this thread has tried to enforce their ideals on anyone else. I for one have said several times that I'm not trying to convert anyone to vegetarianism. Your meat-eating diet doesn't disturb me in the least. (Why does a discussion of my vegetarianism disturb you so much?)

That's not quite true. Meat-eaters seem to have no problem imposing their preferences onto, and at the expense of, animals. Society seems to have no problem imposing animal cruelty laws on sadists. Meat-eaters are not unjustified in feeling threatened at the spread of veganism/vegetarianism, an idea that might, if the numbers become sufficiently strong enough, end up restricting what they can and cannot eat. Barring rapid technological advances, that is at least generations away, but the moral arguments are already compelling enough. As I have maintained, we ought not ban meat tomorrow because we cannot ban it (ought implies can).

This reminds me of that idiotic bumper sticker -- "If you don't like abortion, THEN DON'T HAVE ONE." Well, if so-called "pro-lifers" are correct, and abortion really does involve murdering a morally significant being, then that's a misguided argument. "If you think stealing is wrong, then don't steal." The whole idea is that you're imposing upon someone else, which is precisely where morality enters the picture.

 

[Drudgewire]

And while I may respect your arguments, I cannot respect people like Drudgewire, and I was responding primarily based on what he was saying. I don't respect his mindset, his arguments, or his general attitude.

It only makes this Bojangles steak biscuit taste even better.

 

[Lonewulf]

It only makes this Bojangles steak biscuit taste even better.

Yeap, that's pretty much the only thing you can handle consistently: Trolling.

You've pretty much fled any other kind of debate in fear.

Let's see here. Claims you still haven't withdrawn:

1) That "animal welfare" or vegetarianism only ever became a question after Disney began anthropomorphizing them, because after all, the only way to care about an animal is through Disney brainwashing. False. Contrary examples have been provided, and subsequently ignored.

2) Evolution has it so that we need meat. False.

3) Evolution "wants" us to eat meat. Also false. Evolution is not some intelligent being with a gray beard. Anthropomorphizing Evolution makes about as much sense as anthropomorphizing a mouse, which is notably the Disney trick.

4) I'm a "fundamentalist" because I believe that one can make moral arguments on the subject. Of course, I wouldn't be a "fundamentalist" if I believed the same about a thousand other different subjects, but I'm arbitrarily attacked here because you don't agree with me.

5) Personal pleasure necessarily subjugates all questions of an animal's welfare (the "billion times tastier" thing, which I still laugh at). As animal welfare laws currently prosecute sadistic tendencies towards animals, also false.

6) I have called you, or have in some way made the attack, that you are a "caveman" for your beliefs. Also false. But naturally you continue to work with that insulting strawman, because naturally I'm "mockable" for disagreeing with you, which is just another word for "intellectual honesty goes out the window 'cause I don't agree with you".



Intellectual dishonesty all around, I'd say. Nothing but a troll. And thus, to be ignored by me, as you are incapable of being able to contribute to a conversation in any meaningful way.

 

[Lonewulf]

That's not quite true. Meat-eaters seem to have no problem imposing their preferences onto, and at the expense of, animals. Society seems to have no problem imposing animal cruelty laws on sadists. Meat-eaters are not unjustified in feeling threatened at the spread of veganism/vegetarianism, an idea that might, if the numbers become sufficiently strong enough, end up restricting what they can and cannot eat. Barring rapid technological advances, that is at least generations away, but the moral arguments are already compelling enough. As I have maintained, we ought not ban meat tomorrow because we cannot ban it (ought implies can).

I predict more of a gradual change than anything else, but I'm sure that you agree with me on that, so no need to belabor the point.

This reminds me of that idiotic bumper sticker -- "If you don't like abortion, THEN DON'T HAVE ONE." Well, if so-called "pro-lifers" are correct, and abortion really does involve murdering a morally significant being, then that's a misguided argument. "If you think stealing is wrong, then don't steal." The whole idea is that you're imposing upon someone else, which is precisely where morality enters the picture.

I wouldn't call it idiotic, but I do agree that your logic has merit here.

 

[Drudgewire]

Yeap, that's pretty much the only thing you can handle consistently: Trolling.

You've pretty much fled any other kind of debate in fear.

Let's see here. Claims you still haven't withdrawn:

1) That "animal welfare" or vegetarianism only ever became a question after Disney began anthropomorphizing them, because after all, the only way to care about an animal is through Disney brainwashing. False. Contrary examples have been provided, and subsequently ignored.

2) Evolution has it so that we need meat. False.

3) Evolution "wants" us to eat meat. Also false. Evolution is not some intelligent being with a gray beard. Anthropomorphizing Evolution makes about as much sense as anthropomorphizing a mouse, which is notably the Disney trick.

4) I'm a "fundamentalist" because I believe that one can make moral arguments on the subject. Of course, I wouldn't be a "fundamentalist" if I believed the same about a thousand other different subjects, but I'm arbitrarily attacked here because you don't agree with me.

5) Personal pleasure necessarily subjugates all questions of an animal's welfare (the "billion times tastier" thing, which I still laugh at). As animal welfare laws currently prosecute sadistic tendencies towards animals, also false.

6) I have called you, or have in some way made the attack, that you are a "caveman" for your beliefs. Also false. But naturally you continue to work with that insulting strawman, because naturally I'm "mockable" for disagreeing with you, which is just another word for "intellectual honesty goes out the window 'cause I don't agree with you".



Intellectual dishonesty all around, I'd say. Nothing but a troll. And thus, to be ignored by me, as you are incapable of being able to contribute to a conversation in any meaningful way.

So be it. I was pretty much bored with you anyway.

 

[madurobob]

Meat-eaters are not unjustified in feeling threatened at the spread of veganism/vegetarianism, an idea that might, if the numbers become sufficiently strong enough, end up restricting what they can and cannot eat. Barring rapid technological advances, that is at least generations away, but the moral arguments are already compelling enough. As I have maintained, we ought not ban meat tomorrow because we cannot ban it (ought implies can).

Well, yes, but... I see it as a matter of degree.

I claim no moral high-ground simply because I eat no farmed meat. I have no veggie friends that do either. To a large extent the breathless complaint that veggies are so smug and holier-than-thou is strawman and projection.

Sure, being veggie is better for the environment and avoids senseless brutality towards animals, but we all make selfish choices in the margins of our lives. I sometimes turn the A/C on when I should really just open a window. I know I'm wasting resources and contributing to global pollution problems, but I want the house cooler, dammit. I also sometimes drive my big old Dodge truck that gets 11 MPG when I could just as easily complete the errand on my motorcycle or bicycle. Sometimes I just want to drive the truck - even though I know its a choice that increases damage to the planet. Its pure selfishness.

I don't feel any twinge of moral inferiority when I do these things because I do think about the consequences and I make efforts in other parts of my life to more than offset. I don't expect the Prius drivers feel morally superior when they see me drive by. The occasional wasteful selfish act is not such a bad thing as long as its just occasional. But, I do have a problem with those few meat eaters I've encountered who refuse to acknowledge that their choice does have a net negative impact. That it is unabashedly selfish. I do feel "holier than thou" wrt these people, just as I do to the jerks who litter our highways with their fast food wrappers and beer cans. As long as they continue to make selfish decisions and refuse to acknowledge the consequences I will continue to call them out (or at least watch and smile while Cain and Lonewulf and others do...).

 

[Lonewulf]

(or at least watch and smile while Cain and Lonewulf and others do...).

Glad to serve.

 

[RandFan]

I claim no moral high-ground simply because I eat no farmed meat. I have no veggie friends that do either. To a large extent the breathless complaint that veggies are so smug and holier-than-thou is strawman and projection.

Given that good and bad people and all the other diverse states a person can be attributed with occupy any group to some degree then I would have to say it is a two edged sword. Perhaps meat-eaters don't have a monopoly on projection and pretension?

I started a thread regarding vegans and vegetarians recently and some did state plainly that they were in fact superior. That's just the nature of the beast. We are human, it's what we do.

As far as feeling threatened. I'm not convinced that meat-eaters are threatened any more than non-meat-eaters. However I can see how that could be an emotionally rewarding fantasy for those so inclined.

Are the arguments really compelling? I guess it all depends on who you ask. I'm guessing that those who believe that they are compelling believe that they are compelling and those that don't, well they don't. No surprise there. But I will confess that I see the Zeitgeist changing in the future, for a number of reasons that will have more to do with technology and the environment more than anything else.

 

[Cain]

I started a thread regarding vegans and vegetarians recently and some did state plainly that they were in fact superior. That's just the nature of the beast. We are human, it's what we do.

And that thread was mostly B.S. from what I recall. People discriminate for seemingly arbitrary and trivial reasons all of the time in the dating market, which gives outrage to someone discriminating on views that actually matter. Besides, the position taken by people you cited seems to fall more in line with a conservative or traditional morality, one not much expressed on these forums. See for instance the Jonathan Haidt article posted in the politics forum, "Why People Vote Republican."

People of a more liberal orientation take the view that morality consists of reciprocity and reducing harm. Conservatives tend to incorporate ideas of in-group loyalty, purity/sanctity, and authority/respect. The view expressed by people who do not want their lips to touch something that had beef in it is rather irrational, closer to the purity/sanctity view. Thankfully, we do not really argue in those terms.

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

Money quote:

There is a long tradition of liberal anti-materialism often linked to a reverence for nature. Environmental and animal welfare issues are easily promoted using the language of harm/care, but such appeals might be more effective when supplemented with hints of purity/sanctity.

In a way this is the type of argument made by people here claiming we should obey evolution by eating meat, or evolution somehow mandates meat-eating. It's in some ways just a more severely misguided purity/sanctity argument because it commits a basic error in moral reasoning. The evolution assumption also incorporates elements of in-group/patriotism and hierarchy ("My ancestors didn't climb their way to the top of the food chain in order to eat carrots.")

(Haidt's research is cited in Pinker's Blank Slate and one topic of discussion in the other big thread on this issue ("Admit it, you believe in Animal Rights.") He's responsible for asking people if there's anything wrong with incest, or using American flags that would otherwise be discarded for cleaning one's bathroom, or eating a pet accidentally run over by a car).

----------------------

I don't feel any twinge of moral inferiority when I do these things because I do think about the consequences and I make efforts in other parts of my life to more than offset.

I'm not sure how or why or if people even DO feel morally inferior. We naturally compare ourselves against others to determine what's reasonable. "Most people would not have waited ten minutes in the rain, so I did my part." We also do this when rationalizing otherwise immoral behavior ("everyone else is doing it so..."). I imagine a more common reaction is one of guilt. Do you feel a twinge of guilt when driving an unnecessarily ginormous car on the side-streets with the A.C. cranked up just to make a quick trip to the bank and back home (say)?

The whole "you think you're better than me" bit gets played out far too often in these threads, I agree. What's far more troubling is a lack of self-awareness, but their thought process seems to run:

-If these vegetarians/vegans are correct, then I'm killing morally significant creatures just because I like how they taste, which makes my behavior sound monstrous. Literally, monstrous.
-This would make me a bad person.
-But I'm not a bad person.
-So their argument must be mistaken-- or at least overstated, self-righteous.
- They're aholes for assaulting my moral character.

People generally seem to think they're not bad people because well, self-deception is part of it (yes, RandFan, evolutionary psychology plays a significant role in self-deception, as Robert Travers and others have said). But it's also a matter of comparison. "I may cheat slightly on my taxes, but almost everyone does it, and besides I'm not nearly as bad as most others." Others establish a baseline of acceptable behavior.

 

[madurobob]

I'm not sure how or why or if people even DO feel morally inferior.

Could have been a poor choice of words on my part, but I DO sometimes. When I see or hear of someone doing something very selfless, sacrificing their own comfort for the comfort of others, etc... For instance, a colleague of mine's mother became incurably ill and needed near constant care. He moved her into his house and took care of her, completely re-arranging his life to make it work.

I knew I would have done it differently - because I'm a bit too selfish to disrupt ALL aspects of my life. I'd find a good care facility, pay for it, and visit every day, but that's not quite the same.

Moral Inferiority may not be what I meant. But I recognize that some people can be more caring, more compassionate and more giving than me. When I see people - volunteers - on the side of the road picking up litter I think "I'm SO glad someone cares enough to do that and makes time for it". I must not care as much because I don't do it.

 

[AWPrime]

I think that the point is that some people (notably not you, of course), might not be so callous if they know the actual process behind it.

I do know the process and I still eat meat.

However the treatment of animals is different in every country. Heck from what I heard some of the farming methods in the US are illegal here.


As for the morality of meat eating, most people eat based preferences (including vegans). Morality doesn't actually come into play until one improves or worsens the situation.


However in this discussion I do believe that both sides agree with some things: A lot of people eat too much meat and the treatment of animals could be a lot better in many countries.

 

[luchog]

Says who? As a moral argument, that sounds like it's all right to do anything that you have the power to do.

Non sequitor. There was no moral argument anywhere in my post. You're the one making moralistic judgements, not me.

This is the naturalistic fallacy again. Evolution doesn't prescribe anything.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." In fact, it doesn't. You're using the term wrong, and creating remarkably stupid straw men.

Again, since you seem to have missed it:

1) Humans evolved the ability to process a wide range of foodstuffs, including animal products. This is a demonstrated biological fact.

2) Humans need external sources of Vitamin B12 to survive; since we are not able to synthesize it. This is a demonstrated biological fact.

3) The only naturally occuring source of Vitamin B12 is from animals who are able to absorb it from symbiotic hindgut bacteria. This is a demonstrated biological fact.

4) Therefore, humans are obligate omnivores, and by nature require animal products to survive. QED.

5) It is only through the use of modern technology that humans have been able to construct a diet that completely excludes any and all animal products. Again, QED.

Evolution doesn't have any intention. The fact that my ancestors had success as hunter gatherers doesn't mean I have to do the same. (By that argument, we shouldn't farm or live in cities because "we evolved to be hunter gatherers".)

Non sequitor.

Also, B12 is synthesized by bacteria. It's usually found in meat, eggs and dairy. I'm a vegetarian, not a vegan. It's not essential to eat meat to get B12.

But it is essential to get animal products, barring the use of modern technology to produce B12.

And although B12 is found in eggs, the bioavailability is very low, due to co-exising factors which block absorption. Eggs are not a reliable source of B12. Only meat and dairy are.

Even so, a typical multivitamin supplement has something like 18mcg of B12 giving 300% of the RDA for that particular nutrient. Vegans can get these supplements that are made from the microbial fermentation of brown rice.

In other words, through the use of modern technology.

Also, the soymilk called Silk is made without any animal products, and 1 cup of it contains 50% of the RDA for B12. (I guess it's made from fermented soy or something like that.)

Nope. Soy does not contain B12. Any B12 is derived from bacterial or yeast sources.

Note: it's not actually possible to get B12 directly from bacteria naturally; as naturally-available bacteria do not contain B12. Some, such as spirulina, contain substances which are very similar, but do not perform the same function in the human body. The only bacteria which produce usable B12 are animal symbiotes.

Seriously, does evolution shackle our behavior?

When there is insufficient technology to overcome evolutionary limitations, then yes, clearly it does. How many people were able to fly prior to the advent of modern technology? Anyone manage to do it just by flapping their arms and wishing real, real hard?

Likewise, until the technology existed to understand what Vitamin B12 was, it's necessity, and how to produce it independent of any animal source; eating animal products was an absolute necessity. It is no longer necessary because our technology has developed to the point where we can use it to overcome evolutionary limitations. But even that is limited to people who have access to that technology.

Are you similarly opposed to wearing synthetic fibers as clothing? Does it bother you that so many of our useful products are made out of synthetic materials? What difference does it make if my B12 comes from a fermentation vat or "natural vegetable sources in nature"?

Which is precisely my point. The decision to not use animal products is a religious/philosophical one; and is only possible through the use of modern technology. (And, as previously noted, there are no "natural vegetable sources" of B12.)

I'm a vegetarian myself, and few things irritate me more than sanctimonious, self-righteous vegans who attempt to elevate their dietary preferences to the level of moral imperatives; and deny the fact that they're only able to pursue their chosen diet due to the actions of people and institutions they commonly deride.

 

[Lonewulf]

Given that good and bad people and all the other diverse states a person can be attributed with occupy any group to some degree then I would have to say it is a two edged sword. Perhaps meat-eaters don't have a monopoly on projection and pretension?

No, they don't.

I started a thread regarding vegans and vegetarians recently and some did state plainly that they were in fact superior. That's just the nature of the beast. We are human, it's what we do.

I'm not sure about that thread, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them existed, yes. And there are many that feel that they are superior to vegetarians as well. I think we can both accept that.

As far as feeling threatened. I'm not convinced that meat-eaters are threatened any more than non-meat-eaters. However I can see how that could be an emotionally rewarding fantasy for those so inclined.

Well, the thing is, the meat-eaters have all the power (over the market and the legal system), and there is the very real fear that if enough people turn vegetarian for moral reasons, that this might start to influence politics and the markets. Whether or not anyone actually feels that fear for those reasons are up to speculation.

Are the arguments really compelling? I guess it all depends on who you ask.

For everything, that is true. There are those that don't find the arguments compelling for global warming, evolution, or any number of topics.

I'm guessing that those who believe that they are compelling believe that they are compelling and those that don't, well they don't. No surprise there.

Well, it is somewhat of a tautology. But I feel that some might actually find them compelling, but refuse to acknowledge so for selfish reasons. I used to be like that myself, after all; I looked down on vegetarians and vegans myself once a long time ago. It took me a while to start to see their point of view, and it caused (and is still causing, in a way) a sort of cognitive dissonance.

But I will confess that I see the Zeitgeist changing in the future, for a number of reasons that will have more to do with technology and the environment more than anything else.

That is unfortunately true. As said Thomas Paine, time makes more converts than reason.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm a vegetarian myself, and few things irritate me more than sanctimonious, self-righteous vegans who attempt to elevate their dietary preferences to the level of moral imperatives; and deny the fact that they're only able to pursue their chosen diet due to the actions of people and institutions they commonly deride.

The bolded and the unbolded feel like they're talking about two different ideas, but perhaps both exist within the same person.

I don't get why viewing it as a moral question is necessarily a wrong one. It seems that when it comes to animals, morality goes out the window and only preference remains.

It's difficult for me to comprehend that, as my empathy extends past the species barrier.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Making a point doesn't AUTOMATICALLY make it a fallacy. It's only a naturalistic fallacy if I was trying to use it to prove eating meat is BETTER than not eating meat. I wasn't.

It sure sounded like that's exactly what you were saying. Especially when you said that's all that needs to be said about the issue.

Since you accept that meat eating is not necessarily better than not eating meat, don't you think there's more to be discussed regarding vegetarianism?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

1) Humans evolved the ability to process a wide range of foodstuffs, including animal products. This is a demonstrated biological fact.

Humans also evolved the ability to commit rape and murder. It doesn't mean they're morally right.

2) Humans need external sources of Vitamin B12 to survive; since we are not able to synthesize it. This is a demonstrated biological fact.

3) The only naturally occuring source of Vitamin B12 is from animals who are able to absorb it from symbiotic hindgut bacteria. This is a demonstrated biological fact.

4) Therefore, humans are obligate omnivores, and by nature require animal products to survive. QED.

5) It is only through the use of modern technology that humans have been able to construct a diet that completely excludes any and all animal products. Again, QED.

Using the same argument, man shouldn't be living in cities and houses and farming for sustenance.

It is impossible to support the 6.7 billion humans on the planet living without technology. What have you got against technology?

When I make a moral decision, I do it in the world in which I live. In this world, it's very easy for me to get enough B12 without eating meat.

A derail, but you keep doing this:

Non sequitor.

It's non sequitur. It's a deponent verb that takes the passive voice form.

But it is essential to get animal products, barring the use of modern technology to produce B12.

But why bar the use of modern technology? Do you think the 6.7 billion humans could survive without using modern technology? I'll even limit that to nothing more than modern food-producing technology.

I'm a vegetarian myself, and few things irritate me more than sanctimonious, self-righteous vegans who attempt to elevate their dietary preferences to the level of moral imperatives; and deny the fact that they're only able to pursue their chosen diet due to the actions of people and institutions they commonly deride.

I just don't see people doing these things. Even very strict vegans live in a meat-eating society. I can't imagine them deriding meat eaters all the time.

I'm a vegetarian, but virtually all my friends and family are meat eaters. I eat with meat eaters probably 5-10 time every week. I think it would be destructive to all these relationships if I attempted to persuade them all to adopt my moral principles.

For that matter, I interact with plenty of people who disagree with me (and each other) on any number of moral questions. I certainly don't think they're being sanctimonious or self-righteous merely by making the choices they make.

 

[RandFan]

I'm not sure about that thread, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them existed, yes. And there are many that feel that they are superior to vegetarians as well. I think we can both accept that.

Of course.

Well, the thing is, the meat-eaters have all the power (over the market and the legal system), and there is the very real fear that if enough people turn vegetarian for moral reasons, that this might start to influence politics and the markets. Whether or not anyone actually feels that fear for those reasons are up to speculation.

I've little doubt that there exists meat-eaters who feel threatened. I'm just not certain that it is a phenomenon that is significantly different from the insecurities some vegans and vegetarians feel. It just seems like such a non-issue to me.

That is unfortunately true. As said Thomas Paine, time makes more converts than reason.

Yes, but I think that reason plays a significant role. I think that reason is more likely to alter younger generations because they are not as entrenched in their world views for any given convention that is being questioned.

I think it appropriate to add that change isn't always what is moral. I think we will lose something of significant value if and when animal husbandry is eliminated. Perhaps it is best but I'm not convinced.