Veganism: I honestly don't understand it

[Lonewulf]

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.

Yeah, I find it hard to argue the point really.

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.

I'm not convinced that animal husbandry will be eliminated entirely, really. Though I do predict that it will be severely lessened, though.

(I'm too tired currently to make much more of a cogent argument one way or the other)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Really? People claimed that they were morally superior? You sure it wasn't a misunderstanding?

I've been making arguments for my position and criticizing arguments against it (notably those that say meat-eating is necessary or that evolution somehow defines humans as meat-eaters). Some people take those arguments themselves as claims of moral superiority when they are most certainly not.

On this thread, I've seen no one make that claim (admittedly, I haven't read all of Cain's posts. though I don't think he made that claim either), yet I've seen several people railing against people who make that claim. These are the ones who seem to be the angriest too.

In a similar discussion on my atheist message board, someone who hadn't even read the thread told me to kiss his ass because I'm vegetarian and I raised the issue of cannibalism to point to a flaw in the argument "If it's nutritious then we're supposed to eat it". He didn't know why I raised the issue of cannibalism. He only knew I'm a vegetarian, and I brought up cannibalism, and he came out with guns blazing (very angry about self-righteous, holier-than-thou vegetarians). On that thread, I'm the only vegetarian participating with the exception of one comment by a woman who is a vegetarian saying she's tired of hearing the argument that you can't get enough protein without eating meat. I know for a fact that no one there was claiming moral superiority.

 

[bigred]

Anecdotal of course, but I've yet to have a single vegetarian/vegan cop a morally superior attitude towards me or even see it done to someone else. Course I hang with a heavily carnivorous crowd But I would bet serious coin that extremely few do this - in fact, if anything, it seems most by far even tend to avoid the subject, as it's just not worth getting into a debate about and they know they aren't likely to "convert" anyone.

 

[Lonewulf]

Not to mention that sometimes just mentioning you're vegetarian elicits a "kiss my ass" reaction, as noted before.

Personally, I feel morally superior to people that do that, but for other reasons than vegetarianism.

 

[RandFan]

Really? People claimed that they were morally superior? You sure it wasn't a misunderstanding?

No, I don't think so.

The problem is that some people are better than others.

I think most were simply defensive of the right to see others as inferior.

On this thread, I've seen no one make that claim (admittedly, I haven't read all of Cain's posts. though I don't think he made that claim either), yet I've seen several people railing against people who make that claim. These are the ones who seem to be the angriest too.

I've never seen Cain make that claim but his contempt for others who don't share his view is rather naked. He doesn't come out and say "I'm better than you" but he doesn't leave much else to the imagination. He's very creative at finding ways to belittle and berate. I'm tempted to dismiss it as all just being his narcissism and it could be but I kinda doubt he sees it separately in his mind. That he isn't a meat-eater is likely one more reason why he is so superior. This is a guy who criticized me for being civil for crying out loud.

Volatile is orders of magnitude better, more civil and more polite and I think he sincerely thinks I'm otherwise a good guy but he tells me flat out that I know that my actions are morally wrong. According to him I'm not simply morally wrong but I know that I'm morally wrong and act contrary to my own morality. How should I interpret that?

I don't go around telling people that they know that they are immoral.

Clearly you don't see yourself the way Cain and Volatile do. I don't get that feeling from Lonewulf or Princess either. I have a great deal of respect for both of them.

I get the feeling that most vegans and vegetarians are like you, Lonewulf and Princess.

 

[AWPrime]

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

Modern Humans are incapable of surviving without shelter.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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

Modern Humans are incapable of surviving without shelter.

Whether that's true or not is irrelevant. I didn't say anything about living without shelter.

I said, by your logic (we evolved to eat meat, therefore not eating meat is unnatural or against evolution and dispositive of any question about morality), then the fact that we evolved to be hunter/gatherers means that the Neolithic Revolution (where humans first lived in more permanent settlements and farmed for most of their sustenance) was unnatural or against evolution and therefore wrong.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, I don't think so.

I think most were simply defensive of the right to see others as inferior.

I've never seen Cain make that claim but his contempt for others who don't share his view is rather naked. He doesn't come out and say "I'm better than you" but he doesn't leave much else to the imagination. He's very creative at finding ways to belittle and berate. I'm tempted to dismiss it as all just being his narcissism and it could be but I kinda doubt he sees it separately in his mind. That he isn't a meat-eater is likely one more reason why he is so superior. This is a guy who criticized me for being civil for crying out loud.

Volatile is orders of magnitude better, more civil and more polite and I think he sincerely thinks I'm otherwise a good guy but he tells me flat out that I know that my actions are morally wrong. According to him I'm not simply morally wrong but I know that I'm morally wrong and act contrary to my own morality. How should I interpret that?

I don't go around telling people that they know that they are immoral.

Clearly you don't see yourself the way Cain and Volatile do. I don't get that feeling from Lonewulf or Princess either. I have a great deal of respect for both of them.

I get the feeling that most vegans and vegetarians are like you, Lonewulf and Princess.

I appreciate that. Part of the reason why I was asking to be sure is that I keep hearing that vegetarians are "holier-than-thou" when my experience with vegetarians is not that way at all. I've also heard people say similar things about atheists. I equate these attitudes in a way--both atheists and vegetarians live in a world where theirs is the minority view. They aren't generally free to assume that others hold similar views.

On my other thread (in my atheism group) when I asked the guy who said vegetarians were preachy and claimed moral superiority, the example he gave was of a vegan who declined an invitation to a BBQ.

I'd compare that to an atheism declining to attend a religious ceremony. Most atheists probably do attend these things (weddings, funerals, baptisms), but some do not. It's really not the same thing as being preachy or copping a holier-than-thou attitude.

 

[AWPrime]

Whether that's true or not is irrelevant. I didn't say anything about living without shelter.

Yes you did, the function of a house is primary to provide shelter.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes you did,
<snip>

No, I didn't.

the function of a house is primary to provide shelter.

Irrelevant again.

Not living in a house is not the same thing as living without shelter.

You're sure ducking this one.

Please read about the Neolithic Revolution. Prior to that, humans were fairly mobile, hunter/gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years. The change that occurred then is what I'm talking about. By your argument, it was an unnatural change (just as you argue that vegetarianism is unnatural). Yet you surely don't think we should all go back to the paleolithic lifestyle of our ancestors, do you?

 

[AWPrime]

And I am suppose to believe that mankind has stayed they same since that time?

I don't think so.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And I am suppose to believe that mankind has stayed they same since that time?

Since what time? Since the Neolithic Revolution?

We have stayed the same in the sense of still living in more-or-less fixed communities and feeding our population by farming. We haven't gone back to being hunter/gatherers, which is how our ancestors survived for a lot longer time than the way we do things now.

I don't know what you're supposed to think.

I'm merely pointing out that using your thinking (humans evolved to eat meat, therefore not eating meat is unnatural) that since humans lived as hunter gatherers for hundreds of thousands of years, you must consider the Neolithic Revolution (living in fixed communities, houses, and farming for sustenance) to be unnatural.

So my question is, do you think living in houses and fixed communities and farming for sustenance is unnatural or against evolution?

It is a relatively recent thing.

Saying we didn't evolve to live in houses in cities is as valid as saying we didn't evolve to be vegetarians. Saying not eating meat is unnatural is as valid as saying living in houses is unnatural.

 

[theprestige]

Fact: Humans are physically capable of eating meat.

Fact: This does have moral implications, or it does not.

Lonewulf clearly believes it does not have moral implications for him. (I.e., he views the moral implications for him of eating meat to be separate from the physical ability to do so.)

Question: Does Lonewulf believe that eating meat has moral implications for others? (I.e., does Lonewulf believe it is moral or immoral for me to eat meat?)

 

[Lonewulf]

Fact: Humans are physically capable of ingesting heroin.

Fact: This does have moral implications, or it does not.



Fact: Humans are physically capable of murdering another person after raping them.

Fact: This does have moral implications, or it does not.


I'll let the viewer decide, because obviously it's wrong for me to.



Also:

Fact: Just because Lonewulf believes that one can make a moral argument with vegetarianism, does not necessarily mean that Lonewulf is making a strong moral argument.

Fact: It is possible to argue that one can make a moral argument without actually thinking are others are immoral.

Fact: It is still possible to shoot down fallacious or illogical arguments without actually fully subscribing to "the other side".

Fact: No one will ever understand this point, because it's more fun to point and laugh, than for one to try to understand how they're being hypocritical.

Fact: In fact, Lonewulf actually still eats meat, but does believe in lessening meat intake, because of environmental effects of livestock. Lonewulf does not think that he has been immoral, however.

Prediction: theprestige will soon make another post that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the above statements.

 

[GreNME]

This is an internet argument. Stop including so many facts. You'll skew the grading curve.

 

[Lonewulf]

Internet fact: Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore, vegetarians are Nazis.

 

[Cain]

I've never seen Cain make that claim but his contempt for others who don't share his view is rather naked.

It's not reserved for people who do not share my view, but for people who disagree in an unreasonable manner. That is demonstrated in this thread, in the previous thread, and in most other threads.

I am not going to recite again your many problems here and now, but suffice it to say that you could not reach down into your pants, count how many balls you have and come up with the same number more than once.

As I have maintained, I'm not much interested in classifying other users as "moral" or "immoral." Let's just discuss the issue at hand free from personality, which is whether there is something wrong with consuming animals in the context of other available options. I am reluctant to attribute to malice what can easily be attributed to ignorance or stupidity.

Now, even assuming vegetarians/vegans are, on the whole, arrogant or elitist or whatever -- I personally think a stronger case can be made for the general arrogance of atheists, but who cares -- then what does it matter? It's an ad hominem non-argument, so move on. If the intended purpose is to serve as a distraction from otherwise weak and long-refuted arguments -- OMFG, evolution made us omnivores, then I suppose it has a certain use-value for a few people.

I think the original post in my thread did a much better job of framing the discussion. Reluctant as I am to talk about "rights" it's typically the only way people seem to make sense of these issues.

 

[theprestige]

Fact: Humans are physically capable of ingesting heroin.

Fact: This does have moral implications, or it does not.

Fact: Humans are physically capable of murdering another person after raping them.

Fact: This does have moral implications, or it does not.

I do not dispute your facts. I take it you do not dispute mine:

Fact: Humans are physically capable of eating meat.

Fact: This does have moral implications, or it does not.

Am I correct?

Fact: Just because Lonewulf believes that one can make a moral argument with vegetarianism, does not necessarily mean that Lonewulf is making a strong moral argument.

I don't dispute this fact either. But it does raise a question: Are you making a "strong moral argument", or not?

Fact: It is possible to argue that one can make a moral argument without actually thinking are others are immoral.

I don't dispute this fact either. But it does raise a question: Do you think others [who eat meat] are immoral, or not?

Fact: It is still possible to shoot down fallacious or illogical arguments without actually fully subscribing to "the other side".

I don't dispute this fact either. But it does raise a question: What does it have to do with making a factual observation without attaching a moral argument to it?

Fact: No one will ever understand this point, because it's more fun to point and laugh, than for one to try to understand how they're being hypocritical.

I dispute this fact, on account of I understand this point quite clearly, and on account of I don't find it more fun to point and laugh than to try to understand how I'm being hypocritical.

Certainly I haven't pointed and laughed at you.

And I would be very interested if you could demonstrate how any of the facts I have stipulated, or questions I have raised, are evidence of any kind of hypocrisy on my part.

To the best of my knowledge, I am trying to get a better understanding of exactly what facts you're willing to stipulate, and exactly what moral arguments--if any--you're making (whether fact-based or otherwise).

If you believe you have some deeper insight than I do, into my motives, please show me where in my remarks I have provided evidence of such motives.

Fact: In fact, Lonewulf actually still eats meat, but does believe in lessening meat intake, because of environmental effects of livestock. Lonewulf does not think that he has been immoral, however.

Given this new information (another fact I am happy to stipulate), I withdraw my claim that you find it immoral to eat meat. Do I take it that you are therefore not making a moral argument against eating meat? And that you therefore also do not think it is immoral for others to eat meat?

Prediction: theprestige will soon make another post that shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the above statements.

What's to misunderstand? It all seems very straightforward to me, as far as it goes. Did I miss anything in particular?

 

[Lonewulf]

I do not dispute your facts. I take it you do not dispute mine:

Am I correct?

I consider the way you phrase it amusing, to be frank.

The naturalist fallacy is a fallacy purely because it's a pointless argument. Using evolution as a moral argument is pretty much falling straight into the same fallacy that creationists do...

But you take it one further, and don't just mention evolution, but mention "can" do something. Just because we "can do" something, does not make it "right". This goes for anyone, anybody, anywhere, and I demonstrated that pretty simply. We can kill people. But that does not have any bearing on whether or not killing people is right or not. So it really doesn't matter what other people think.

I don't dispute this fact either. But it does raise a question: Do you think others [who eat meat] are immoral, or not?

I fail to see how this is really all that relevant, honestly. I think that eating meat without restraint or thought can cause negative consequences, and thus, the ignoring of such consequences can be seen as immoral. Many are willing to ignore them -- for instance, they entirely ignore the wealth of evidence that livestock contribute a very decent portion of global warming gasses as "ludicrous", and do not bother to do even the smallest bit of research before entirely ignoring what's there. This I believe is immoral, or at the very least, irresponsible, and not the way a reasonable human being should act.

To the best of my knowledge, I am trying to get a better understanding of exactly what facts you're willing to stipulate, and exactly what moral arguments--if any--you're making (whether fact-based or otherwise).

Fair enough.

Facts I'm willing to stipulate: Those in America eat nearly 1.57 times as much beef, chicken, and pork as the average person in the average developed country, and specifically eats nearly 1.375 times as much meat as the average German.

Meat is not a necessary part of the diet, and certainly is not needed in the overall consumption of the American diet.

Livestock, notably cattle, contribute around 15% of global warming gasses in the forms of methane and nitrous oxide. This in a large part due to manure that is spread out on large fields.

Thus, just by cutting down on average meat intake, or moving from beef to other sources, or undertaking methods to mitigate these effects, we can mitigate the negative consequences of global warming.

Moral arguments:

Naturalist arguments should not be accepted by anyone unless one is to argue that we should also be allowed to hump legs, rape, eat the young of, and murder those of our own species because animals also do it.

Argument that eating meat vs. not eating meat is a "lifestyle choice", and is independent of moral argument, is one that is steeped more in meme, and cannot be objectively demonstrated in any meaningful way; there is no reason to assume that one cannot make a moral argument in the question of eating meat, especially when the consequences of such meat eating is brought to light.

The welfare of the animal should be considered, and torture never allowed, period. The needless harsh treatment and torture of animals should not be ignored. Many laws in developed countries agree with me, in the form of Animal Welfare laws. Abuse of animals is not a "lifestyle choice". This includes using animals in fights for entertainment and the like.

Other arguments:
Calling someone a fundamentalist because they think that it should be possible to argue morality of an issue is silly. Society would never have progressed anywhere if we thought of all morality as a "lifestyle choice", whether people like it or not.

I don't believe I've forgotten anything, but if I have, someone please point it out, please.

Given this new information (another fact I am happy to stipulate), I withdraw my claim that you find it immoral to eat meat. Do I take it that you are therefore not making a moral argument against eating meat? And that you therefore also do not think it is immoral for others to eat meat?

I do consider it immoral to ignore the negative consequences. However, there are meat eaters that do recognize those consequences, and have already proposed methods to lessen those consequences, or prevent them entirely. As such, I do not think that those people are immoral, and thus, the simple action of eating meat carries no moral action in and of itself.

Taking responsibility for one's actions is a fundamental moral value, however, and being indirectly responsible is still being responsible.

 

[theprestige]

I consider the way you phrase it amusing, to be frank.

LOL. Okay.

The naturalist fallacy is a fallacy purely because it's a pointless argument. Using evolution as a moral argument is pretty much falling straight into the same fallacy that creationists do...

Where have I used the naturalist fallacy as an argument?

But you take it one further, and don't just mention evolution, but mention "can" do something. Just because we "can do" something, does not make it "right".

I never said it did.

This goes for anyone, anybody, anywhere, and I demonstrated that pretty simply. We can kill people. But that does not have any bearing on whether or not killing people is right or not.

We can empathize with animals. We can devise moral frameworks to justify some actions and repudiate others. But that does not have any bearing on whether or not empathy and morality are right or not.

The rest of your post is also full of interesting ideas well worth discussing, but I think this one is pretty fundamental, so I'll stop here.

You say that your capacity for moral reasoning is important, but on what basis? Obviously it's not simply your ability alone that validates its use, any more than your ability to eat meat alone validates doing so.

Is it simply a question of convenience? You describe meat-eating in excess as irresponsible--dangerous to individual humans and to humanity as a whole. So in the long term, it would be inconvenient to persist in this course of action.

But in that case, it is not immoral to murder or rape, only inconvenient if you get caught.

Is it a question of what other people think? But that's just argumentum ad populum. Or, as you put it, "Many laws in developed countries agree with me", which is really just an argument from authority: Many laws in many countries prohibit gay marriage, so obviously simply having some laws on your side doesn't justify your opinion as moral.

So what does justify your opinion as moral? What exactly, is the difference between meat and murder?