Why vegans are simply better people

[Furcifer]

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."

True, but we don't rip apart our food and eat it alive either. We've evolved beyond the hunt, but even then we've established humane standards of conduct. So there's a bar, it's just a matter of where it's been set.

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?

I don't "discount" the vegan lifestyle. In fact I think it's admirable in terms of making a conscious choice to "be a better person". I just don't feel trying to rationalize it will get you anywhere. It's a personal choice to be a better person, but you have to realize not everyone is going to see it that way.

 

[EvilQuest]

When I watch people who smoke, I often ask myself how can they do it. What is it that makes these people tick. They deliberately engage in a vice that they know will probably hasten their own death.

Is it because they really don't enjoy life and dying early is OK with them.

Is it because they don't believe in the science that shows how dangerous smoking is?

Or it it because they are selfish. They think of themselves and their enjoyment and don't worry about the consequences until they occur. They don't care that smoking arround their kids infuences their kids to smoke. They don't care that others often have to foot the medical bills in the form of higher insurance premiums, and they don't care about secondary smoke.

I believe that people who don't smoke are better people than those who do. Because I believe those who smoke do it for the last reason.

Now lets talk about meat eaters. That veal you ate last night. A young holstein bull calf was taken from its mother at day one. Kept in a cage to prevent him from moving and fed bucket milk for a few days until he was butchered. A newborn highly evolved consciousness was bought into this world to be tortured basically, a torture we would not perfrom on a prisoner of war, all for your veal.

Chickens kept in cages, debeaked to prevent pecking each other after they go insane from not being able to move for the short one year life span they are given to furnish you your eggs.. the list goes on.

Heart disease. We now know the cause. Meat and oil do not just contribute to heart disease, they are the cause. thats right they are the cause.

I dare you meat eating smart asses to actually take time to read this link:

http://www.thechinastudy.com/PDFs/ChinaStudy_Excerpt.pdf


When you go out into public, it is impossible not to see fat slobs wherever you go. Basically fat footballs with a head on top. Why are they such, just like the smokers.... they eat excessively because they enjoy it and will worry about the consequences later.

They are ugly. Not just because they are obese. But their fat, disgusting bodies are a testimony to their own extreme selfishness and complete lack of discipline. Their bodies are testimony to the worst afflliction one can posess....selfishness, glutony, overindulgance, lack of empathy, and refusal to set an example on how to live well for others, especially our children.....whatever you want to call it...if its bad,,,,baby you go it.

Its been known for years now how dangerous sugars and simple carbs are,,,but I bet your reading this with a dougnut stuffed in your mouth and one in your kids...,now our overindulgance in meat and oil has become our biggest killer. But that won't stop you from eating damn well what you want will it and taking the kids for a bigmac later too. After all, its all about you. And if all this ***** about nutrition is true, you worry about it later.

Thats why vegans are better people...we aren't you.

again....http://www.thechinastudy.com/PDFs/ChinaStudy_Excerpt.pdf

I dare you to read it...

wow. arrogant, insulting, and self-righteous. cool! you tick lots of boxes here my friend, well done!

If you truly believe that your particular eating habits (which are indeed different to mine) actually make you a "better" person than me because of that, then I can only pity you. Some vegans can be awful people too (honestly). It's not just us knuckle-dragging meat eaters. I'd like to say lots more but for some bizarre reason the JREF rules stop me from swearing (which i must find time to complain about!)

In any event i'll leave you in your ivory tower. i wouldn't after all want to tarnish your obvious state of perfection and enlightened state of being by my primitive and undesirable presence.

EQ

 

[EvilQuest]

oh by the way i forgot to add that i smoke like a chimney.

just so you know lol

 

[Unabogie]

Sort of echoing Kevin Lowe above, I'd like to hopefully break the issue down into something much simpler. The fact is, most of us would agree that all things being equal, it's better to not kill or harm animals than it is to kill them or harm them. This being the case, the question for me becomes "can we eat and live comfortably without eating animals"?

The answer, if you live in a first world country, is unquestionably yes. You can. You can live and eat and be happy on a plant based diet. Thousands of people have been doing it for many years. So the issue for me is not so much that you kill the animals in a humane way. It's that killing them at all is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. You didn't have to kill them to sustain yourself. You could have eaten a veggie dog instead of a hot dog. Or a veggie burger instead of that burger. You could have eaten cashew cheese instead of that dairy. Your body would be perfectly nourished without harming that animal. It's all right there at the supermarket. Just move your arm 3 feet over and grab the veggie ground round instead of the beef. Done!

So in absence of a NEED to kill the animal, the only justification is that it tastes good. Or maybe just tastes better than the vegan version of the dish. In which case, yes, moral judgment should be brought into the equation. Because at this point, you're making the argument that needless killing is ok as long as it tastes better than the vegan dish.

And as Dessi points out, if taste is all that matters, you could just as easily argue for eating humans. The fact that you don't is an example of you putting ethics above taste buds, which is the argument for veganism.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

She listed both the fallacy and the argument. I was talking about the argument, but perhaps I should have made that more clear.

The idea that differentiating humans and animals is "special pleading" is simply incorrect.

Humans are animals so proposing the exception to any rule applied to animals, but not to humans is special pleading.

Special pleading means putting forth a rule and then attempting to insert an exception to that rule.

Correct.

Vegans are not putting forth any rule which veganism requires special exceptions to.

Incorrect. As I said much of the argument revolves around humans being animals that shouldn't act like animals.

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.

That's special pleading, which is exactly what I said was the problem. You've lost me.

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.

Again, this is special pleading which presumes humans are animals but shouldn't act like animals. This is exactly what I said is the problem with this argument.

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.

They aren't mutually exclusive however.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Excuse me, I don't understand a single word you're saying. Could you at least make a small effort, please ?

wow. arrogant, insulting, and self-righteous. cool! you tick lots of boxes here my friend, well done!
.....

FYI, reverebison left the thread on page 1...

 

[Johny2x4]

e!

So in absence of a NEED to kill the animal, the only justification is that it tastes good. Or maybe just tastes better than the vegan version of the dish. In which case, yes, moral judgment should be brought into the equation. Because at this point, you're making the argument that needless killing is ok as long as it tastes better than the vegan dish.

The fact that it tastes good it´s all the justification I need. Tofu or other veggie stuff tastes like c***. Doens´t make me feel bad at all.

And well, any of you guys are people who I never met or will meet in my life, and vice versa, so you don´t really have any basis to make calls on my morality. Anything else is being self righteous.

 

[Unabogie]

The fact that it tastes good it´s all the justification I need. Tofu or other veggie stuff tastes like c***. Doens´t make me feel bad at all.

Aside from your subjective tastes, you've just posited a very unconvincing defense of meat eating, which is why I think my argument distills the issue down nicely. In the end, the only argument for killing when you absolutely don't have to, when the killing can be completely avoided with no harm to yourself or those you love, is that you feel like it and there's nothing physically preventing you from satisfying your urges.

But this is such a weak argument, I don't even have to list all the many other things that you would not do using the same argument as an excuse. A dozen probably just popped into your head. "Because I can" isn't a good reason to anything.

 

[Johny2x4]

Aside from your subjective tastes, you've just posited a very unconvincing defense of meat eating, which is why I think my argument distills the issue down nicely. In the end, the only argument for killing when you absolutely don't have to, when the killing can be completely avoided with no harm to yourself or those you love, is that you feel like it and there's nothing physically preventing you from satisfying your urges.

But this is such a weak argument, I don't even have to list all the many other things that you would not do using the same argument as an excuse. A dozen probably just popped into your head. "Because I can" isn't a good reason to anything.

And your point is? It´s exactly that because I can. It doens´t however affect my morality as person. Like I said, you don´t know nor are you important in my life (well, just the fact that you come as I said above, self righteous). I don´t need to validate myself in front of an anonymous person that is unimportant, but the fact that I choose to eat meat because I like it, is irrelevant. You of course know that Hitler was a vegetarian, right? I assume that has no impact on his morality.

You can have you impotent posts at me, and try to sound as pretentious as you want, but the fact is you can´t stop me, and probably is what tear some of you "preachers" inside. You´re powerless to stop me and you know it.

 

[citizenzen]

And your point is? It´s exactly that because I can. It doens´t however affect my morality as person.

What we choose to do "because we can" is a direct reflection of our moral character.

 

[Johny2x4]

But do you know me? No. Here´s the thing, can I be an awesome guy wiling to help, that´s loving and caring? Can I be a tremendous d-bag that cares only about himself? You don´t know me. Fun fact, I would put the life of my dog first than of many, many humans. But I can also be a tremendous d-bag like this thread shows (tho the point is subjective), tho is more to see some people here acting with their impotent fists. Like I said I don´t have patience for preaching. None at all.

The fact is you don´t know.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Sort of echoing Kevin Lowe above, I'd like to hopefully break the issue down into something much simpler. The fact is, most of us would agree that all things being equal, it's better to not kill or harm animals than it is to kill them or harm them.

Who is most of us?

This being the case, the question for me becomes "can we eat and live comfortably without eating animals"?
The answer, if you live in a first world country, is unquestionably yes. You can. You can live and eat and be happy healthy on a plant based diet.

FTFY

Thousands of people have been doing it for many years.

Only thousands ? Not much of a data set, or a very good argument that omnivores should give up meat.

So the issue for me is not so much that you kill the animals in a humane way. It's that killing them at all is COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY. You didn't have to kill them to sustain yourself. You could have eaten a veggie dog instead of a hot dog. Or a veggie burger instead of that burger. You could have eaten cashew cheese instead of that dairy. Your body would be perfectly nourished without harming that animal. It's all right there at the supermarket. Just move your arm 3 feet over and grab the veggie ground round instead of the beef. Done!

So in absence of a NEED to kill the animal, the only justification is that it tastes good. Or maybe just tastes better than the vegan version of the dish. In which case, yes, moral judgment should be brought into the equation. Because at this point, you're making the argument that needless killing is ok as long as it tastes better than the vegan dish.

And as Dessi points out, if taste is all that matters, you could just as easily argue for eating humans. The fact that you don't is an example of you putting ethics above taste buds, which is the argument for veganism.

And once again, we have a vegan claiming to be morally superior to meat eaters..

Are you morally superior in all other areas of your life ?

 

[Drudgewire]

FYI, reverebison left the thread on page 1...

He showed up again on page 8 or so, called people stupid in between making punctuation and grammar errors then went back down the rabbit hole... presumably to eat carrots with them.

 

[joolz]

And your point is? It´s exactly that because I can. It doens´t however affect my morality as person. Like I said, you don´t know nor are you important in my life (well, just the fact that you come as I said above, self righteous). I don´t need to validate myself in front of an anonymous person that is unimportant, but the fact that I choose to eat meat because I like it, is irrelevant. You of course know that Hitler was a vegetarian, right? I assume that has no impact on his morality.

You can have you impotent posts at me, and try to sound as pretentious as you want, but the fact is you can´t stop me, and probably is what tear some of you "preachers" inside. You´re powerless to stop me and you know it.

Wrong. Discussed earlier: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7856629#post7856629

 

[The Big Dog]

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"),

Applying logical fallacies to scientific facts is a fool's errand.

I will also note that your posts have more than a little begging the question and shifting the burden of proof. They also have a bit of the evangelical, but you probably knew that.

 

[Johny2x4]

Wrong. Discussed earlier: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7856629#post7856629

My bad, I didn´t read that exact post.

 

[citizenzen]

But do you know me? No. The fact is you don´t know.

You're right. I don't know you and never pretended that I did.

I simply said that the choices we make define our morality.

I didn't say anything about how your choices define you.

But like Dessi said earlier ... it's kind of hard to have a calm and rational discussion on this topic.

 

[Johny2x4]

Sure you didn´t, but some people on this thread did, and well, I really don´t like people making assumption on my morally basing on what I eat. I don´t make views on their morality on what they eat and I want people to act in kind. When they don´t, I turn my a-hole mode on.

If they want to be vegans, more power to them, just don´t try and shove their beliefs down my throat. If that happens, it´s guaranteed you won´t like my reaction.

 

[ConspiRaider]

Who speaks for plant rights?

What about those thousands of generations of plant species that inhabited an area, nice symbiotic relationships going with insects and birds and other plants - everything's jake. Ain't life grand?

Then these lousy, no-good, binocular-visioned two-legged folks come along, plow you to smithereens and plant acre upon acre of rice, beans, wheat, corn and whatnot so they can feed their silly-looking faces. They destroyed all the carefully constructed symbioses to the point where the Silly Beings have to bring in honeybees from other areas - REMOVING THEM BUZZERS FROM THEIR OWN NATURAL HABITATS - to pollinate these foodstuffs. Oh and get this: Then they cry like babies when the transplanted honeybees start dying off for no reason. Hoo boy SHEEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dessi]

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.

All of those people believe experiential welfare is a moral characteristic. None of them believe that humanity - as a state in and of itself - is moral characteristic, I believe their view is more nuanced than that. These statements can be quickly confirmed by feeling out their moral beliefs:

- almost all of them accept a distinction between performing open heart surgery on an anesthetized person and an unanethetized a person, a distinction which only makes sense by reference to a person's experiences undergoing the operation.

- almost all of them accept a distinction between spanking a child for stealing cookies and beating the child to a bloody pulp for stealing cookies, a distinction which is can only be made by reference to the degree of suffering experienced between the two forms of discipline.

- almost all of them accept a distinction between burying a deceased person and burying a living person, a distinction which can only be made by reference to a person's experiences in the process of being buried.

The last item is interesting, because its not so much being human, as a state in and of itself, they care about, but "something special" which depends on being human and biologically alive at the same time -- perhaps a spirit, a god-given soul, humors, uniqueness, some abstract meaning of "humanity" which depends on vitality. Whatever this "something special" is, its not equivalent to species membership, its absent at the point of brain death, and it marks a very important difference between living people and dead people.

My experience with the anti-abortion crowd suggests that do not reject experiential welfare as a relevant in moral distinctions, but rather, they hold that view in addition to the view that humanity (the "something special" about it) is a moral characteristic. That's why you have them accepting all manner relevant distinctions that depend on experience, while simultaneously objecting to abortion when those experiences are absent. The moral value of humanity "picks up" where experiential welfare leaves off.

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?

In these sorts of discussion, I really dislike saying things like "we need to value animals at such and such a level". The only thing I really want or care about is to guide people in the direction toward being consistent with their own principles, whatever they are.

I think that's the view held by vegans like myself, Cain, citizenzen, Unaboogie, perhaps a few others on the forum. Most of us feel that we shouldn't inflict suffering on animals if we wouldn't be comfortable inflicting the same suffering on non-rational humans, especially if that suffering is easy to avoid. Its really about being consistent with our own principles regarding the way we think of human and non-human welfare.

I have a feeling you're going to ask me why I should care at all about whether people are consistent. I don't have a good answer. But enough people respond to my posts to defend their position that they evidently think its important.

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

Probably not.