Why vegans are simply better people

[Belz...]

To be a little more blunt, perhaps some people might find pleasure in breeding cows for pets (whose the say they won't?), but its infinitely preferable to stop breeding food animals and allow certain strains to go extinct than continue breeding them for slaughter.

You're going to have to explain that one to me.

Like it or not, there is a difference between humans who can appreciate their free will and act on their hopes and dreams. That we can strip away a humans desire to be free doesn't alter the perniciousness of slavery. We know that slavery is not good for the flourishing of citizens in general and slaves in particular. We don't know that animal husbandry is axiomatically antithetical to either human societies in general or animals specifically.

Eloquent as usual.

I think the ethical arguments against animal husbandry that are the most compelling are those that don't attempt to presume that there are no differences between people and other animals.

The only seemingly-compelling one for me is the sustainability (or something to that effect) one.

 

[Furcifer]

No amount of protein will help me appreciate furcifer's "humor".

I wonder if it works for you.

I never made a "mmm bacon" post in this thread, in fact I suggested dismissing them as usual forum jocularity.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Once more with feeling: Plants, salmonella, ants, AI opponents in video games and such have no mental life. In what way is something harmed if it has no experiences whatsoever? How do you make an argument that being killed or staying alive is in an organisms best interests if it cannot, even in principle, prefer one outcome or the other? What moral characteristics do they have at all? Name just one which makes them comparable to an organism with experiential welfare.

AI opponents in video games are not life - we certainly cannot eat them and reap their nutritional components. They are merely representations of someone's ideas - as abstract as all get-out. Dessi, I recommend you cut that one right out of future arguments.

Plants want to stay alive. We haven't many referents to determine how they quantify their will to survive - but something major is at work. We just don't quite understand it and I doubt we'll get much further with attempts at such. Therefore, it's very easy for us humans to discount their lives and make salads of some of them. Baby spinach leaves? We don't even let them mature - we just chop 'em up and gorge ourselves on them.

I pay a little extra for eggs from what's described as "cage free" chickens. I suppose if we didn't have so many Huge Landowners gobbling up so much property - many of us could have a little plot of ground and keep 3 or 4 chickens and let them be happy while at the same time supplying us with those ultra-nutritious eggsters. Well - I don't own a single square inch of land, and tens of millions of others don't either. So? I take the word of breeders that the chickens on their ranches are treated humanely - and pay a bit more for eggs. Hope they're not lying or I will haunt them.

I'm all for humane treatment of animals, which includes animals raised for food. As someone indicated - the vast majority of folks are in favor.

Fact is - we are not herbivores. We're omnivores, and however we got to that point is out of the hands of you and me. Helluva survival strategy, was that adaptation, during our earlier evolution. And I think you'd have to acknowledge, Dessi, that there is variability in our species as to the assimilation of animal protein for sustenance. I don't do too well if I go too long without it. Others are different. All good, by me. If you do just ducky on a totally non-animal-protein diet? Great! Be happy with it. And allow me to be happy with my dietary habits.

 

[Belz...]

Because the "at least they had a chance to live" mentality is simplistic and naive. Quality of life matters.

And those skinny, starved, scared wild cows surely have a better quality of life.

Who's being naive, now ?

no one would take it seriously in any context if we applied to way we treat humans.

Humans are not like other animals. Or have you failed to notice ?

I'm a vegan because I understand animal rights as a natural extension of the principles that everyone accepts regarding the ethical treatment of humans.

Thank you for your condescension. I, as someone who doesn't understand that, was in dire need of it.

Do you extend the same understanding to plant life ?

 

[Belz...]

No amount of protein will help me appreciate furcifer's "humor".

Perhaps not but it would improve your complexion.

So you find that occasionally doing something evil is a good thing?

After all. if as you say extremes are seldom a good thing, then being extremely good could be considered a bad thing.

Please look up the word "seldom".

 

[Belz...]

I'm saying the argument "animals eat other animals, why shouldn't I" is not a particularly good one for the reasons enumerated above.

You seem to be so dead-set against eating meat that you don't seem to have a particular justification for your position. First, let's try this :

- Because it uses up a lot of ressources
- Because when done in excess it can lead to health problems
- Because it amounts to slavery
- Because of the suffering caused to animals
- Other

Please tell me which of the above is a reason for your objection to eating meat.

Second :

- Animals do it, why shouldn't I ?
- I've gotta eat something
- They taste good
- We can keep the suffering to a minimum
- Humans are omnivores and need to eat meat as well
- Mind your own damn business

Please tell me why each of the above counters are not good responses to your objection.

Third, do you consider that a lion is immoral when killing its prey ?

 

[Belz...]

Fact is - we are not herbivores. We're omnivores, and however we got to that point is out of the hands of you and me. Helluva survival strategy, was that adaptation, during our earlier evolution. And I think you'd have to acknowledge, Dessi, that there is variability in our species as to the assimilation of animal protein for sustenance. I don't do too well if I go too long without it. Others are different. All good, by me. If you do just ducky on a totally non-animal-protein diet? Great! Be happy with it. And allow me to be happy with my dietary habits.

That just raised a point in my head. And since we've already seen alien invasion hypotheticals, I don't feel bad for voicing it :

If humans were obligate carnivores, would we have preachy vegans trying to get us to eat vegetables and protein supplements ?

 

[Dessi]

In your opinion the justification isn't good.

Why these broad jumps from a discussion of cows to "the same arguments fundies use when they say homosexuality is immoral..." These two thinfs have nothing to do with each other? You have assigned a moral compass to a type (that you have created in your mind) and then anyone who you view expresses this "type" you then view through these blinders.

Apologies if I come across as rude. I don't think you know what its like to be on the other side of these discussions. I've been participating in science, atheism, and skeptics forums for years, and I really enjoy doing so because so many people have a really amazing perspective on things, everyone is so rational, and so informative, usually way more intelligent than me by a wide margin. There are some people who I really envy because they have this incredible way with words, saying the things eloquently in a way I never could.

The whole animal rights topic, unfortunately, is a really stark exception. We spend so much time fighting against woowoo ignorance and illogic, we really pride ourselves in knowing the gamut of logical fallacies. But then, the subject of animal rights pops up, and BAM! you see every fallacy laid out like its a law of nature. Naturalistic fallacy ("we evolved to be omnivores"), appeals to nature ("animals eat other animals, why shouldn't I"), strawman mischaracterizations ("vegans only care about cute animals"), appeals to force ("humans are a supreme predator, of course we eat animals"), false dilemmas ("you either support animal testing, or you want babies to die").

It's really frustrating to watch, but its a staple of these discussions. Really bad logic that, in any other discussion outside animal rights, would be called out by 100 different people. You don't have to be a fringe animal rights nutter to see the problem here.

I know, even on the JREF, hot button topics like this are going to prompt knee-jerk reactions even out of the most die-hard critical thinker. Its still hard not to be frustrated by it all.

I can make a statement that it's morally justifiable to kill vermin when the infest a residence. That doesn't mean that because Hitler may have used a similar justification for the holocaust I am now immoral for not wanting disease carrying vermin in my house!

Well, you certainly can make an argument that sort, as long as you've correctly identified the underlying moral principle for killing vermin infestations, and can show that such a principle is logically comparable to the justification behind the Holocaust.

At the moment, I don't think the scenarios are particularly comparable. The Holocaust was justified as a pseudo-religious belief that Jews others were collaborating to consciously destroy Europe. There is also a very strong essentialist message that fair-skinned races were "inherently" superior or "moral evolved" than others.

Now, should a person justify killing vermin one for those reasons, such as the suggestion that humans are "more evolved" than vermin invading their homes, I could see how the argument is logically equivalent to the Holocaust.

If someone made a serious comparison between killing vermin and the Holocaust, even if it sounds completely moronic and offensive, I would not dismiss it out of hand without at least understanding where the comparison comes from.

I think that your post reeks of what i call "marginalized vengeance" . Often when people feel marginalized as kids/teens they grow up and become great defenders of all things marginal. Yet they seem to not understand the basic foundations of the mainstream because they view the world with a sort of vengeance viewpoint for marginalizing them to begin with (and it's understandable).

I was routinely bullied for being visibly queer, socially awkward, being "the ugly kid", and being unwilling / unable to fight back. And lots of personality quirks, maybe one or two OCDs which seriously impaired my ability to maintain friendships, the sorts of things which made me stand out in negative ways. I'm so glad I'm not the same person I used to be.

I think I have a perspective that most other people don't have access to, though I'm not really sure how it affects my opinions on veganism.

However, it makes having discussions with said people difficult because everything seems to be stated in absolutes, affirmations and strange correlations in morality and ethics between marginalized subjects that aren't connected. (like say Veganism and the persecution of gay people by fundies).

See context: the connection is between veganism ("its ok to eat animals because we're omnivores") and anti-gay persecution ("homosexuality is unnatural and therefore immoral") is the really uncompelling use of appeals to nature, a type of argument which occurs over and over again. There's sort of a weird love/hate relationship with appeals to nature on this board -- its ok when its used to defend eating meat, not ok when its used to defend gay persecution.

I'd say lousy logic is lousy no matter if it supports your side or not. If I saw a vegan saying something idiotic like "vegans are better than meat eaters because meat eaters are all fat", you best believe I'd knock him down a peg in a heartbeat.

 

[Meed]

Plants want to stay alive. We haven't many referents to determine how they quantify their will to survive - but something major is at work. We just don't quite understand it and I doubt we'll get much further with attempts at such.

Do you have any evidence? "Want" is only treated in science as a mental/neurological process that is a function of the brain. And plants certainly do not have brains.

 

[Earthborn]

Once more with feeling:

Ethical vegans will almost universally acknowledge that life, in and of itself, isn't valuable. Its not biological life that matters, but biographical life and life which has an experiential welfare -- like the capacity to feel pain, pleasure, satisfaction, suffering, see one's self over time, have wants, expectations, and so on.

Plants, salmonella, ants, AI opponents in video games and such have no mental life. In what way is something harmed if it has no experiences whatsoever? How do you make an argument that being killed or staying alive is in an organisms best interests if it cannot, even in principle, prefer one outcome or the other? What moral characteristics do they have at all? Name just one which makes them comparable to an organism with experiential welfare.

This is not a controversial point of view. I'm quite certain that you support abortion up to a certain point, likely support non-voluntary euthanasia for people in a permanent vegetative state -- you might have your talking point reasons in debates, but if you're anything like me, you've probably wondered what moral characteristics early term fetuses or vegetative humans even have, how do you even harm something without a mental life in principle?

What you claim is not a controversial point of view is a controversial point of view. Many people do not support abortion or non-voluntary euthanasia for people in a permanent vegetative state. People who don't support these things believe that humanity is a moral characteristic, experiential welfare is not. It is an arbitrary distinction between what is and isn't morally relevant, but your distinction based on "experiential welfare" is no less arbitrary.

Assuming humanity is a moral characteristic has a huge advantage over your moral distinction, though. At least it is usually clear what is human and what is not. It is not at all clear when an organism has "experiential welfare". You mention abortion; and claim that early term fetuses do not have this characteristic. 9 months later they probably do. That means that during that time they smoothly transitioned from "no experiential welfare" to "experiential welfare" and at some point in time occupied every point in between. There is no biological demarcation between the two, and it can even change during the lifetime of an organism.

Maybe it is not such a problem when dealing with human fetuses, as long as we all make sure we don't take getting pregnant and getting abortions too lightly, but it is a rather complicated issue when we ask ourselves which organisms we should eat and which organisms we should allow to live. How much "experiential welfare" is too much to eat, and why not somewhat less or somewhat more? How do we measure or even define such a term?

You say that ants don't have it. Does that mean you have no moral objections to eating insects?

 

[ConspiRaider]

Do you have any evidence? "Want" is only treated in science as a mental/neurological process that is a function of the brain. And plants certainly do not have brains.

Splitting hairs, I guess. Call it what you will, Corn.

Something rather amazing is going on in the survival game when a plant such as the bristlecone pine carries on for 1,000 years or longer. Why not just live long enough to propagate its species and then croak? Hell if I know. Not sure if botanists know - maybe they do?

We do know that plants are born, live, have sex (some of them), produce substances that attract certain life forms (some of them), produce substances that repel certain life forms (some), die, decay.

No brains, and yet somehow they are dialed into the game of survival just as desperately and jealously as ourselves. I don't know how that mechanism works, but there it is. And we eat 'em up good, just as we do brainful species.

 

[BravesFan]

Apologies if I come across as rude. I don't think you know what its like to be on the other side of these discussions. I've been participating in science, atheism, and skeptics forums for years, and I really enjoy doing so because so many people have a really amazing perspective on things, everyone is so rational, and so informative, usually way more intelligent than me by a wide margin. There are some people who I really envy because they have this incredible way with words, saying the things eloquently in a way I never could.

The whole animal rights topic, unfortunately, is a really stark exception. We spend so much time fighting against woowoo ignorance and illogic, we really pride ourselves in knowing the gamut of logical fallacies. But then, the subject of animal rights pops up, and BAM! you see every fallacy laid out like its a law of nature. Naturalistic fallacy ("we evolved to be omnivores"), appeals to nature ("animals eat other animals, why shouldn't I"), strawman mischaracterizations ("vegans only care about cute animals"), appeals to force ("humans are a supreme predator, of course we eat animals"), false dilemmas ("you either support animal testing, or you want babies to die").

It's really frustrating to watch, but its a staple of these discussions. Really bad logic that, in any other discussion outside animal rights, would be called out by 100 different people. You don't have to be a fringe animal rights nutter to see the problem here.

I know, even on the JREF, hot button topics like this are going to prompt knee-jerk reactions even out of the most die-hard critical thinker. Its still hard not to be frustrated by it all.


Well, you certainly can make an argument that sort, as long as you've correctly identified the underlying moral principle for killing vermin infestations, and can show that such a principle is logically comparable to the justification behind the Holocaust.

At the moment, I don't think the scenarios are particularly comparable. The Holocaust was justified as a pseudo-religious belief that Jews others were collaborating to consciously destroy Europe. There is also a very strong essentialist message that fair-skinned races were "inherently" superior or "moral evolved" than others.

Now, should a person justify killing vermin one for those reasons, such as the suggestion that humans are "more evolved" than vermin invading their homes, I could see how the argument is logically equivalent to the Holocaust.

If someone made a serious comparison between killing vermin and the Holocaust, even if it sounds completely moronic and offensive, I would not dismiss it out of hand without at least understanding where the comparison comes from.


I was routinely bullied for being visibly queer, socially awkward, being "the ugly kid", and being unwilling / unable to fight back. And lots of personality quirks, maybe one or two OCDs which seriously impaired my ability to maintain friendships, the sorts of things which made me stand out in negative ways. I'm so glad I'm not the same person I used to be.

I think I have a perspective that most other people don't have access to, though I'm not really sure how it affects my opinions on veganism.


See context: the connection is between veganism ("its ok to eat animals because we're omnivores") and anti-gay persecution ("homosexuality is unnatural and therefore immoral") is the really uncompelling use of appeals to nature, a type of argument which occurs over and over again. There's sort of a weird love/hate relationship with appeals to nature on this board -- its ok when its used to defend eating meat, not ok when its used to defend gay persecution.

I'd say lousy logic is lousy no matter if it supports your side or not. If I saw a vegan saying something idiotic like "vegans are better than meat eaters because meat eaters are all fat", you best believe I'd knock him down a peg in a heartbeat.

Yes it's gone quite a ways from how this thread started (what a jerkwad eh?)

I see the same moral comparison in my varmint/holocaust model and your veganism/treatment of gay people model (not in how our two models relate together, but that we have both made claims of moral equity which i find to be falsehoods).
Hitler used propaganda to "verminize" (and yes I just made that word up) the Jews in Germany. By the time the Ghettos were opened the Jews were considered to be disease spreaders, child molesting enemies of moral decency. We think of rats in similar ways. (hence my argument showing that though the morality appears on the surface to be equitable in actual practice my killing of rats is not equitable to the holocaust).

i hope I don't sound condescending but try and remember that we are all just people , none of us are perfect and much of what we do is stupid. The fact that you have made choices in regards to your personal diet is not really cause enough to be judgmental of the choices of others (which I think sounds like something you have plenty of negative experience with on the receiving end). That's what I mean by marginalized vengeance. It's a reverse marginalization of the masses by those who feel marginalized. Just because we don't make the same choices as you doesn't mean we are out to get you (or that we need to agree with your point of view )

I reckon there is room for all of us at the inn !

 

[Earthborn]

Not sure if botanists know - maybe they do?

They do know. Plants are brainier than you think. The news that plants "certainly do not have brains" has been greatly slightly exaggerated...

 

[Furcifer]

The whole animal rights topic, unfortunately, is a really stark exception. We spend so much time fighting against woowoo ignorance and illogic, we really pride ourselves in knowing the gamut of logical fallacies. But then, the subject of animal rights pops up, and BAM! you see every fallacy laid out like its a law of nature. Naturalistic fallacy ("we evolved to be omnivores"), appeals to nature ("animals eat other animals, why shouldn't I"), strawman mischaracterizations ("vegans only care about cute animals"), appeals to force ("humans are a supreme predator, of course we eat animals"), false dilemmas ("you either support animal testing, or you want babies to die").

They're only fallacies if you prove them to be false.

You probably see the same "fallacies" laid out like clockwork because veganism suffers from being logically inconsistent. This usually results in 2 things; special pleading whereby humans are animals but not allowed to act like animals and exposing the hypocrisy of vegans benefiting from the suffering of animals in numerous ways other than consumption. Examples of which typically involve leather products, make-up, pharmaceuticals and my favorite public transit.

There's really no way for a vegan to resolve these inconsistencies without admitting to the subjective manner in which we all evaluate "life". We all set the bar(s) at different levels. Ultimately veganism is about setting the bar much higher than everyone else, but only when it comes to certain things.

Have I missed anything?

 

[citizenzen]

Have I missed anything?

I'm afraid quite a bit.

1. Regarding "special pleading whereby humans are animals but not allowed to act like animals ..."

It seems to me that people take a lot of pride considering themselves better than animals. In fact, some posters here and one animal expert I quoted claimed this superiority was a fundamental reason that we could justify owning and using animals for our purposes. So it appears to me that it's not just vegans, but virtually everyone who hold the expectation that humans are indeed capable and have the responsibility to use our more complex and evolved brains to not merely "act like animals."


2. "There's really no way for a vegan to resolve these inconsistencies ..."

If you're going to require 100% consistency in anybody's life, you'll find very few people who'll qualify and most of them I suspect will be idiots. This world, human beings, and the issues we face are too complex to boil down into simple maxims that we live by every second of the day and apply to every situation.

If you're going to discount vegan lifestyles over their inconsistencies, then (if you're consistent) you're forced to discount every other person and lifestyle as well. What are you left with Furcifer?

What are you left with?

 

[ConspiRaider]

They do know. Plants are brainier than you think. The news that plants "certainly do not have brains" has been greatly slightly exaggerated...

Very illuminating, Earthborn, enjoyed it immensely!

 

[Estellea]

I've come to expect these kinds of unlettered responses.

Then please express yourself cogently and I'm happy to respond.

I only warn you against using the FBI's definition because you will make yourself appear the fool. But you're right -- too late for that now. If violence against property makes a person a terrorist, fine. They join a noble history of terrorists.

Thank you for considering my appearance. The aforementioned animal rights groups have committed terrorist acts upon more than just property; they target humans. Although property destruction is meant to incite terror so I really can't see how or why you would draw the line at property destruction...okay and denying that humans have been targeted.

I have also benefited from theft, murder, and probably -- reaching far enough back into history -- rape. So now you have your fallacy of sunk costs.

It is not a fallacy merely because you proclaim it so. I somewhat delight in the hypocrisy of those arguing for animal rights while benefiting off the backs of animals on a near daily basis. Now if you want to do this right, you've committed a false equivalence or false analogy by equating past random acts with ones you consciously make in the present. Your welcome.

I do in the same sense that you reject the many medical advances gained by non-consentual human experimentation.

You can only reject it in name but not act so it is essentially meaningless to reject any benefits derived from animal testing when you do in fact enjoy the benefits thereof. And comparing those examples of horrific human rights violations (to say the least) to animals is really pathetic, fallacious (see above) and add to that appeal to emotion, which your arguments have been based upon. But a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy right?

Este

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Except that homosexuality DOES happen in nature.

Saying that eating meat is not morally wrong because we are biologically omnivore is not a fallacy, because unlike murder, rape, slavery, etc. and other "might makes right" arguments, you do NEED nutrients to survive, and some of those nutrients are more easily obtained with meat. Sure, now with modern technology and with significant effort, you can obtain those nutrients without meat, but that was not always true in the past. If you want to argue that technology has made a (historically) morally neutral action into a now-immoral one, well, I suppose that's your prerogative...

I can't see anything at all wrong with arguing that.

You can't morally condemn someone for not doing something which it would be impossible for them to do. Ought implies can, as the philosophers are wont to say.

Technology expands the domain of the things we can do, so technological progress changes what we should do. With additional power comes additional responsibility.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

They're only fallacies if you prove them to be false.

Actually they're fallacies if you prove them to be fallacies. That's the whole point of having a list of canonical fallacies. You can identify and label bad arguments so we can move on. These bad arguments are always bad as long as they fit the fallacious argument-form.

Dessi is absolutely right that the veganism topic rapidly differentiates the "skeptics" whose "skepticism" consists of repeating tribal memes from the actual critical thinkers.

You probably see the same "fallacies" laid out like clockwork because veganism suffers from being logically inconsistent.

You don't need fallacious arguments to demolish an inconsistent position. If you need to use fallacious arguments to attack a position that should be a huge, flashing warning sign that you do not have any rational arguments to attack that position with.

This usually results in 2 things; special pleading whereby humans are animals but not allowed to act like animals and exposing the hypocrisy of vegans benefiting from the suffering of animals in numerous ways other than consumption. Examples of which typically involve leather products, make-up, pharmaceuticals and my favorite public transit.

The idea that differentiating humans and animals is "special pleading" is simply incorrect. Special pleading means putting forth a rule and then attempting to insert an exception to that rule. Vegans are not putting forth any rule which veganism requires special exceptions to.

Your argument is also directly self-defeating since if there is no reason to treat humans differently from animals, and it's okay to kill animals for the pleasurable sensation caused by putting their cooked body parts in your mouth, then it's okay to kill humans like you for the same reason.

I suspect you would object on moral grounds if I tried to murder you for the pleasure of eating bits of your corpse, when I had easily available alternative dietary options.

There's really no way for a vegan to resolve these inconsistencies without admitting to the subjective manner in which we all evaluate "life". We all set the bar(s) at different levels. Ultimately veganism is about setting the bar much higher than everyone else, but only when it comes to certain things.

This is a move beloved of the postmodernists - "this is a little bit subjective, therefore it's utterly subjective". What they don't grasp is that there is such a thing as an error bar, but that there is also such a thing as rationality and consistency.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Second :

- Animals do it, why shouldn't I ?
- I've gotta eat something
- They taste good
- We can keep the suffering to a minimum
- Humans are omnivores and need to eat meat as well
- Mind your own damn business

Please tell me why each of the above counters are not good responses to your objection.

Third, do you consider that a lion is immoral when killing its prey ?

1. Do you normally apply exactly the same moral standards to animals and humans? If not you are being inconsistent in presenting this argument. If you do then you should be arguing either for giving sheep the vote or for reintroducing slavery.

2. You can live perfectly well on non-animal products if you live in a First World country. The trade-off is between your convenience and your sensual pleasure on one hand, and the ethical issues on the other.

3. The pleasure you get from sticking something in your mouth is not usually taken as being morally overriding. We do not normally think of it as being a legitimate response to an accusation of theft, murder or whatever to say "But I wanted the taste sensation of something yummy in my mouth! I was entitled to do whatever, because I got that sensation!".

4. Less suffering is good, and I think we can all agree on that. However no suffering at all is better still.

5. This is just a repetition of #2. The same response applies.

6. This too is not normally seen as a morally overriding defence. You can't get out of a charge of theft, murder or whatever by saying "Mind your own damned business! I do what I want!".

7. (The lion thing). This is just a repetition of #1. The same response applies.