• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Why vegans are simply better people

Kevin_Lowe said:
Is this hypothesis falsifiable?

Here's a counter-example: The animal liberation movement started in the mid-Seventies and rapidly grew in strength from there. It has made radical changes to the laws about how animals maybe treated, in the home, commercially and scientifically. What technological or social improvement drove this change? I can't think of any technological or social innovation that is clearly related to animal welfare, started around 1970 and has been on an upward trend ever since.

Here's another counter-example, and a more general one: Any kind of social progress which doesn't defy the laws of physics given our current technological level which hasn't happened yet. There's no technological barrier that makes sexism, racism, classism, economic stratification and lack of class mobility or whatever other issue gets your personal goat a necessary part of the world, but they all still occur. If technological and social progress were the real cause of moral progress why didn't these things all vanish the moment it was technologically possible for them to vanish?

The conventional theory that the animal welfare movement was driven by reason, and that an increasing number of people are too rational to maintain an artificial division between how they think it's moral to treat one group of mammals (humans) and how they treat every other mammal seems to explain the animal welfare phenomenon much better.

I suspect what's going on here is just that progress which is socially or technologically impossible doesn't happen, because it's impossible. That doesn't mean that technological and social improvements cause the change, they just make certain changes possible.

In a way your theory is wildly optimistic. It assumes that humans are such wonderful creatures that they automatically do the most moral things possible within the constraints of society and technology. I wish that were true but I'm pretty sure it's not.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Well, agreement can happen. What can I say.
 
Last edited:
This last discussion reminds me of people who claim vegans and their ilk are white yuppies who are looking down from the lap of luxury on the working poor. It is helpful to point out that "our" history is not the only one. The Jains are particularly notorious for their animal loving and they have been doing it since 500 BCE.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
<snip>

The conventional theory that the animal welfare movement was driven by reason, and that an increasing number of people are too rational to maintain an artificial division between how they think it's moral to treat one group of mammals (humans) and how they treat every other mammal seems to explain the animal welfare phenomenon much better.

<snip>
Click to expand...


Was that a deliberate double-edged use of the word 'rational'? I found your point interesting on an additional level as quite a few religious [ie non rational] people spoke out against the animal welfare movement and demanded exemptions under UK law so they could continue to kill animals in the same barbaric and cruel manner that they had used for centuries as 'that's the way we've always done it' and 'god says we need to kill like that' (a loving god?) even though, by then, there were less cruel methods of slaughter.

I know people who eat meat, but who avoid the more cruel forms of it and opt to buy from places with more humane methods of rearing etc. I think people are much more aware of what they are eating now, although AgriBusiness still hides a lot from the public.

cheerz

joolz
 
dafydd said:
Where is our drive-by vegan? Probably to weak to struggle to the computer.
Click to expand...

He could be gassing his apartment/house/mobile home due to bean overload and the cops had to check if there was a leak in the mains due to that tell tale rotten egg smell.

Being of low income, I have done precisely this. I am not vegan, however beans come cheap but prepare to be friendless, especially if you add a cabbage to the pot.
:eek::boxedin:
 
I only wonder if vegans who put so much effort in seeking a moral confirmation of their decision to be vegan, do so because deep down they feel guilty about not eating all that meat..... or feel bad about something else and need to reivindicate themselves on the fact that they are vegan so their self esteem can stabilize itself... something like that. But then again, I'm no Freud.
 
The OP states that producing battery farmed eggs, necessiatate de-beaking the Chickens. I have visited three battery farms in my time (bloody awfull places to be avoided) and have seen this to be false. How on earth would they eat?
De-beaking would never succeed the Chickens would have to suck-seed for success.
 
Last edited:
My thoughts upon the opening of this thread are as follows:

Typicalreaction.gif
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Is this hypothesis falsifiable?

Here's a counter-example: The animal liberation movement started in the mid-Seventies and rapidly grew in strength from there. It has made radical changes to the laws about how animals maybe treated, in the home, commercially and scientifically. What technological or social improvement drove this change? I can't think of any technological or social innovation that is clearly related to animal welfare, started around 1970 and has been on an upward trend ever since.

Here's another counter-example, and a more general one: Any kind of social progress which doesn't defy the laws of physics given our current technological level which hasn't happened yet. There's no technological barrier that makes sexism, racism, classism, economic stratification and lack of class mobility or whatever other issue gets your personal goat a necessary part of the world, but they all still occur. If technological and social progress were the real cause of moral progress why didn't these things all vanish the moment it was technologically possible for them to vanish?

The conventional theory that the animal welfare movement was driven by reason, and that an increasing number of people are too rational to maintain an artificial division between how they think it's moral to treat one group of mammals (humans) and how they treat every other mammal seems to explain the animal welfare phenomenon much better.

I suspect what's going on here is just that progress which is socially or technologically impossible doesn't happen, because it's impossible. That doesn't mean that technological and social improvements cause the change, they just make certain changes possible.

In a way your theory is wildly optimistic. It assumes that humans are such wonderful creatures that they automatically do the most moral things possible within the constraints of society and technology. I wish that were true but I'm pretty sure it's not.
Click to expand...

Well put, Kevin.

Adititionally, examples can be cited where technolgical innovation either has not affected the moral behavior of those in posession of it, or actuaully been driven by their immoral aims.

A few examples:
drug smuggling minisubs
improved armaments in the American civil war, WWI and other conflicts
Nazi gas chambers (forgive me for Godwining)
Walrus hunters droping traditional methods in favor of modern, fully automatic rifles, snowmobiles and boats with gas motors.

I think it is safe to say that technology does not drive moral improvments, but is only a tool; the use of which reflects the moral lsophistication of the user.
 
RenaissanceBiker said:
On December 17, 2011, reverebison started this thread. So far there have been 135 replies, none by reverebison.
Click to expand...

We are now at 252 replies to this thread, none by reverebison.

RenaissanceBiker said:
Responding to this troll is pointless because he/she does not return to defend the OP. You end up debating the topic without him/her. Your efforts will be better spent elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Still true.
 
Hi RB,

You may be correct, but I personally have never unsderstood the need around here for this sort of thinking.

People seem to put a high degree of importance on others answering their arguments and not abandoning their threads. I can comprehend the viseral inclination, but not the importance of it. To me, this means you have won the point.

If someone never adresses a post that punches their own full of holes, it would seem to me to be a defacto admission of error.

In this particular case, it was obvious from the start that the OP was making a lot of flimsy claims in the most unpleasant manner possible. I personally did not feel like it was worth answering from the beginning.

However, the OP does not own the thread, and in their absence, cooler, more rational & more civil heads have prevailed and given it a value beyond the original post. ( I do not mean all the "I want a hamburger" posts) I now see some interesting conversations evolving, and was engaged enough by the points being made that I wanted to post myself.

It is probably good that they have not returned. It would simply engender more unpleasant & pointless bickering. As it stands, we are now having an interesting discussion related to the morals of eating meat. Whatever the OP's intent was is imaterial, the other poster's have given some value to the thread after all.

I do agree with you that it is of little or no value to address the OP at this point. Honestly, I do not think it ever was, nor would it have been if the OP had stuck around.

Regards, Canis
 
Sceptic-PK said:
I am happy to trade my "good person" label for a nice, tasty hamburger.
Click to expand...
Me too, but I'll round my meaty meal off with a nice cigarette too, smoked in the company of fellow smokers, if they care to join me. Anything that stops me becoming as narrow-minded, intolerant and sanctimonious as the author of the OP. ;)
 
Who was it that said 'Vegetarianism fills people with wind and intolerance.' I can't track it down.
 
One for all the "I want a hamburger! Lol bacon!" crowd:

Assuming hypothetically that it is in fact morally better, all else being equal, to attempt to minimise the harm to conscious beings caused in the process of obtaining your food, and further assuming that a vegan diet does minimise this harm, would that make vegans better people than meat eaters?
 
NewtonTrino said:
I really don't get the argument for veganism. Are they going to stop every predator prey relationship? If not what makes us different?
Click to expand...


errr .... what makes us different? Really? Whilst I can't submit evidence that a lion has never been capable of considering a vegetarian/vegan diet, I know that most humans have that power and, after due consideration, they make a choice one way or another.

I've never met a vegan who expects the whole animal kingdom to be vegan, I mean, there just wouldn't be enough tofu for the alligators! ;-)
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
Assuming hypothetically that it is in fact morally better, all else being equal, to attempt to minimise the harm to conscious beings caused in the process of obtaining your food, and further assuming that a vegan diet does minimise this harm, would that make vegans better people than meat eaters?
Click to expand...


Only in that most narrow way it would. Unfortunately for the OP, people are not so easily measured.

Who is a "better" person ...?

  • the vegan who uses porn, or the meat-eater who doesn't
  • the vegan who drives while talking on the phone, or the meat-eater who always stops to make a call
  • the vegan who's cheated on their spouse, or the meat-eater who's remained faithful
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom