Why vegans are simply better people

[Tsukasa Buddha]

And with that, I leave you to your veganism and judgmentalism. Hope it serves you well.

I actually thought it was a quite measured response to your repeated, mocking, drama llama posts about plants.

 

[ConspiRaider]

I actually thought it was a quite measured response to your repeated, mocking, drama llama posts about plants.

There you go!!! Got yourself a hero there, gives you someone to look up to!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You snipped so much of what I wrote I'm not sure what your point is or what the context should be. But how is explaining the ethical case for veganism, and explaining my opinion that our choice of foods involves value, moral, and ethical judgments the same as me claiming to be superior? Perhaps we can get back to the improved topic of the thread, instead of the dumb trollery of the OP, but if you're seriously arguing that by merely making the case for ethical choices in food, I'm making you feel inferior, then I guess I made my point pretty well.

Here is what you said:

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.

For most people who eat meat, choosing not to eat human meat, probably involves a lot more than putting ethics above taste buds. First of all, they would have to knowingly taste human meat in order to make that decision.

However, you state that it is an example of putting " ethics above taste buds " ( a moral decision ) and an argument for veganism.

What are you saying, if not that vegans make superior ethical choices than do meat eaters ?

 

[citizenzen]

What are you saying, if not that vegans make superior ethical choices than do meat eaters ?

Within the narrow framework of what is consumed to sustain our lives, vegans do make superior ethical choices. Their diets consume less natural resources and decreases the suffering of sentient beings.

However, if you can argue that omnivores are equally or more ethical in their food choices, I'd be happy to entertain the notion.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

For the record, as a omivore, I'd say that eating humans might actually be a good solution to what to do with our ever growing number of limited space for burial. Recycling and all that. However the problem of diseases is even worse than with pigs and since most die of old age, our meat would probably not taste that well. Perhaps in meatloaf or as dog/cat food I guess.

Insects would be a good source of meat proteins as well, from what I've heard they can be quite tasty.

Both foods run into a deep-grained aversion in our psyche though, which would preclude them from ever being knowingly and recognizably served in my lifetime I suspect (and yes, I DO know how much insect stuff is used in overall food, especially certain sweets and no they never tasted worse for knowing it).

For the vegans here, would insect protein be against your principles too? And no, I don't mean the whole insects we ingest on a yearly basis in our sleep or when we walk trough a cloud of mayflies and the like, but rather insects specifically grown and maintained for food purpouses. What is your personal line of cognition that one refuses to eat?
Clearly vegans have no problem with plants or single celled organisms, but where is the line drawn for one personally? There are free-moving organisms out there (mostly sea life) that are eaten, but that actually are less complex than the average plant (jellyfish, sea cucumbers etc).

Not having these principles myself I always find it interesting to know where someone draws their own line.

For myself it would probably be that I wouldnt eat animals that are/were my own pets or those of friends/family, though if I were in certain countries I might try cat or dog. Recognizable insects I'd find too creepy to eat, though I would knowingly eat rat even if I could still see what it looks like. The rest of my food likes/dislikes runs on taste alone. I really do like a lot of vegan and vegetarian dishes and often make them, but I generally use them as a sidedish to go with meat.

 

[RandFan]

...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.

What are you saying, if not that vegans make superior ethical choices than do meat eaters ?

Unabogie, I think the two sentences problematic. In the first, I'm not sure that the conclusion follows from the premise. In the second, I think you are question begging. I'm not sure. I think you have a point I just don't think it made particularly well. I think there is a hidden presumption there.

 

[tsig]

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?

Nice strawman there with a touch of "everybody does it" (Tu Quoque).

 

[tsig]

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 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.



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.



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.

So there's no difference between eating a steak and cannibalism?

 

[Agatha]

How is alcohol or tobacco "non-vegan." I understand why it's unhealthy, but I thought you were specifically addressing the definition of vegan.

Some wines and beers use isinglass as an ingredient, thus rendering them unsuitable for vegans.

Pointless anecdote: one of my cousins is vegan and most of my family (including one of my children) are vegetarian. Most vegetables, fruits, quorn, soya, pulses and grains make my Crohn's disease worse, so vegetarian or vegan is not an option for me.

 

[tsig]

Correctly identifying an argument as fallacious is refuting it.



Total nonsense. You are deliberately misinterpreting the vegan position so you can make a false charge of special pleading. Vegans are perfectly clear that they have different moral expectations of humans and non-human animals because humans differ from non-human animals in having the kind of mind that can engage in moral philosophy. That's not special pleading.



Of course humans are animals that shouldn't act like non-human animals.



This string of words makes no sense in context, hence this is all the response I can give it.



That's not a problem unless you actually hold the incredibly stupid position that humans should act like non-human animals.

It's sure handy for you that everyone who disagrees with you is incredibly stupid.

 

[tsig]

I don't know why you keep repeating this when it's so obviously completely wrong.

It would only be special pleading if vegans all argued "All human and non-human animals should be treated exactly equally in all respects" and then tried to argue that there should be higher moral expectations of humans.

Since they don't to this, you are attacking a straw man and egregiously abusing the term "special pleading" which I'd really prefer was kept in reserve for addressing things that actually were special pleading.

This illustrates the difference I alluded to earlier between rationalists who actually understand and can appropriately use the tools of reason, and "skeptics" who repeat tribal memes like "special pleading!" without actually understanding their meaning and without being able to apply those tools to new content. Issues like these differentiate the cargo cultist "skeptics" from the people who actually understand how planes work and can make them land.

Your last sentence makes no sense, what does piloting a plane have to do with this discussion?

 

[ConspiRaider]

Within the narrow framework of what is consumed to sustain our lives, vegans do make superior ethical choices. Their diets consume less natural resources and decreases the suffering of sentient beings.

However, if you can argue that omnivores are equally or more ethical in their food choices, I'd be happy to entertain the notion.

Please keep in mind that you are an omnivore. You may be trying to convince yourself that you - and everyone else - are herbivorous, but it simply isn't so.

This idea about consuming less natural resources and decreasing the suffering of sentient beings: How far do you wish to extend that idea? Rice paddies expel huge amounts of methane, a gas that is 23 times more efficient than CO2 at trapping atmospheric heat. We're already seeing how global warming is beginning to apply its stress points upon life forms.

Corn? Corn fields? Huge expenditure in water and fertilizer to keep them productive.

If you're going to turn 500 acres of wild land into 500 acres of cultivated crop such as corn, wheat, beans, peas, apples, potatoes, grapes, cabbages - you first have to displace the entire ecosystem within that 500 acres. Which means a diversity of plant life, fungi, bacteria, worms, insects, birds - all the way up to "sentient" beings such as rodents, foxes, wolves, deer, bears or whatever are going to be destroyed, or displaced.

When you plant your crop, you know that insects and birds and rodents are going to want their fill. You have to stop them. Cause them some suffering, even death, because the food is right there but you're going to take measures to deny them that food. Insects and birds and rodents are animals - where do we draw the line on their sentient-ness? Folks who know of crows, for example, can attest to their high intelligence, their cleverness - their ability to remember and correlate meaning.

I don't believe there's any delicate method to feed ourselves on this planet - you're going to adversely affect something, vegan or no. Ethics? All depends upon one's point of view - and how far back one wishes to step during the viewing. You'd have to travel far and wide to find fellow omnivores such as yourself - but who include meat in their diets (the vast majority of humanity) - to favor deliberately cruel treatment of animals in the food production cycle. Therefore you need to find those odd, few individuals and preach ethics to them.

 

[tsig]

Ya know, the more I read all of this stuff and consider it.... The more I come to the conclusion that humans are really really stupid.

We are the only species on the planet who would change our DIET due to some delusional ideas about the treatment of our food....... No other species would ever do this. The ability to read ,write and have debates not withstanding, it's diet..... It's the fundamental base of our existence. Yet , the more technological we get and the more "developed" we become, the more often we will do strange things like this.

Now , don't get me wrong, it's your right to do whatever you want, but it's just such a remarkable concept to me. Having such a strong opinion that one would change something like their diet.

Some have starved to death with pigs running underfoot.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Within the narrow framework of what is consumed to sustain our lives, vegans do make superior ethical choices. Their diets consume less natural resources and decreases the suffering of sentient beings.

However, if you can argue that omnivores are equally or more ethical in their food choices, I'd be happy to entertain the notion.

You seem to be assuming it is a given, that not eating meat is more ethical than doing so, regardless of the amount or source of the meat, and regardless of what un-ethical practices may be involved in/behind putting a vegan meal on the table.

That might be a notion for you to entertain.

P.S.

I see ConspiRaider did a good job of pointing out a few of the problems with the assumption that vegans are automatically more ecco friendly than meat eaters..

 

[Unabogie]

Here is what you said:



For most people who eat meat, choosing not to eat human meat, probably involves a lot more than putting ethics above taste buds. First of all, they would have to knowingly taste human meat in order to make that decision.

However, you state that it is an example of putting " ethics above taste buds " ( a moral decision ) and an argument for veganism.

What are you saying, if not that vegans make superior ethical choices than do meat eaters ?

I see where you were confused. I was saying this in response to the suggestion that we should eat meat because it tastes good or better than vegan food. You maybe didn't read what I was responding to. In answer to that charge, I pointed out that we should not use that as a yardstick, since you could make the case that eating humans tastes good as well. Why would you not? Because you rightly realize there are other questions involved beyond how food tastes. Once you come to that point in your ethical development, you can better understand why vegans propose that eating be done in as ethical a way as possible.

Nowhere in what I just wrote did I say I was "better" than you. But the poster I was responding to didn't have a very good argument. Hopefully now you'll better understand my point.

 

[citizenzen]

Nice strawman there with a touch of "everybody does it" (Tu Quoque).

See I would have thought the straw man was "Unless you live by a 100% consistent viewpoint, then your point is invalid."

But that's just me.

Because I don't think many of us could align our opinions and find they all fall in a 100% consistent way. For instance, I'm anti-war, anti-death penalty, but pro-right to die, and pro-choice. So according to Furcifer (and you perhaps), any opinion I have in these four issues is invalid because they are not 100% pro-life or pro-death.

Furcifer tried to stretch this even further by claiming that the transportation one used could invalidate their pro-vegan stance. I'm surprised he didn't break it down to a minimal miles per gallon requirement.

My response was in essence, "if you wish to invalidate vegans by finding any inconsistency in their life, then you must be prepared to invalidate all opinions based on any inconsistencies people hold. And since most sane and rational people have some degree of inconsistency, you then are in essence invalidating all opinions held by nearly all people."

If you think that's a straw man, that's fine.

I think you're wrong.

 

[Furcifer]

Because I don't think many of us could align our opinions and find they all fall in a 100% consistent way. For instance, I'm anti-war, anti-death penalty, but pro-right to die, and pro-choice. So according to Furcifer (and you perhaps), any opinion I have in these four issues is invalid because they are not 100% pro-life or pro-death.

Furcifer tried to stretch this even further by claiming that the transportation one used could invalidate their pro-vegan stance. I'm surprised he didn't break it down to a minimal miles per gallon requirement.

My response was in essence, "if you wish to invalidate vegans by finding any inconsistency in their life, then you must be prepared to invalidate all opinions based on any inconsistencies people hold. And since most sane and rational people have some degree of inconsistency, you then are in essence invalidating all opinions held by nearly all people."

If you think that's a straw man, that's fine.

I think you're wrong.

I don't know where you got this notion it was "invalidated"? They're all valid, for you because you are prepared to accept the inconsistency created by your subjective moral evaluation. OTHER PEOPLE AREN'T. You have to accept that, or realize trying to change other people is only going to come by attacking their morality, which quite frankly is going to make you sound preachy.

 

[Johny2x4]

Interesting thread. Anyways, I´m having meatloaf for the dinner tomorrow and enjoying it even more thanks to this thread. You guys rock!

 

[citizenzen]

You seem to be assuming it is a given, that not eating meat is more ethical than doing so, regardless of the amount or source of the meat, and regardless of what un-ethical practices may be involved in/behind putting a vegan meal on the table.

That might be a notion for you to entertain.

P.S.

I see ConspiRaider did a good job of pointing out a few of the problems with the assumption that vegans are automatically more ecco friendly than meat eaters..

ConspiRaider did an excellent job at describing some of the resources needed to grow crops. And if vegans were the only ones who ate those crops, while meat-eaters munched only on meat I might be more sympathetic.

However, meat-eaters eat everything a vegan eats and meat. People have mentioned tortured carrots ... well meat-eaters torture carrot and animals. It's that pesky word "and" that is a key difference here.

Yes humans use natural resources to live. Meat-eaters use more. Farms require that some land be taken from it's natural state. Meat requires more.

If we were living on a planet of endless abundance this would be less of an issue. Unfortunately, we live with the reality that the climate is changing due to man, that petroleum resources have likely seen their peak and energy will become more expensive, that the world's population continues to increase, putting greater pressure on our food supplies, energy needs and need to care properly for the planet we inhabit.

Veganism is a step towards addressing and alleviating these issues in one very real, everyday way ... by more wisely choosing what we put in our mouths and subsist on. It doesn't make vegans saints or meat-eaters sinners. Nobody is asking you to don a sackcloth and hobble yourself with a pebble in your shoe.

But it would be refreshing to see a few people acknowledge reality.

That would sure be a nice change of pace.

 

[Furcifer]

Yes humans use natural resources to live. Meat-eaters use more. Farms require that some land be taken from it's natural state. Meat requires more.

Unfortunately no, not always. Some of the grazing land for cattle simple can't be used for anything else.
Would it be OK if I ate them? I'd shoot them myself, very humane I promise.