Why vegans are simply better people

[varwoche]

What died to create the street?

Lots of things. But that's in the past. The decision I make today to walk in the forest kills animals.

Life is a moral quandary, death and suffering are inevitable, no matter what path you tread. The choice of which path is your and yours alone. I've hiked a bit, not in North America, but I'm having a hard time imagining a forest so overcome by spiders that you can't be mindful enough to move around without carelessly taking life.

LOL! Please come visit me in western WA state sometime.

But I have the same problem walking on the pavement at night during the rain, I inevitably hear the sickening crunch of a snail. I'm not going to not walk to the shops at night just because I might kill a snail but if I see a snail I won't purposefully step on it.

Does that make sense?

Totally.

 

[David Swidler]

The following does not necessarily represent the opinion of the author: http://wp.me/pSXPz-wU

 

[Dessi]

The following does not necessarily represent the opinion of the author: http://wp.me/pSXPz-wU

Ok, that made me laugh

 

[citizenzen]

Thanks. (not sarcastic) But isn't this where we're at?

Buddhists recognize both the relative and absolute states of existence.

We may "all be one" ... and we are all separate beings too. And while Buddhists vow to "save all sentient beings" I don't believe we save them by trying to change their behavior. We save all sentient beings by acting impeccably and compassionately with those beings.

So, no ... I'm not going to try to stop you from killing spiders. I believe that sooner or later, you'll figure out a less destructive way to enjoy the forest.

 

[Belz...]

I really don't care if you (or anybody else) agree(s) with me or not.

And yet you felt it necessary to answer my post, for some reason.

 

[Belz...]

As someone toying with the idea of going from vegetarian to full-blown vegan I would say that I would make the choice based on health (see the Harvard thread) , ethics (I believe animals and humans should be equals), karma (I happen to subscribe to Buddhism as a worldview so accept the logic of karma, my choice not something I'm interested in arguing over), and environmentalism (methane etc).

I believe that one day humans will likely have diff rent moral values that closer align to the vegan view of how we relate to animals than today.

But I in no way think that anyone should have to think like I do, I've made a value judgement that is mine and mine alone. I'll argue the case from my perspective but I don't think anyone should agree with me. People need to make their own value judgements in everything they do in life. I'm not afraid to say that I think such a diet would be healthier or better for the world but I can't make anyone believe what i do.

I hope the vast majority of people who adopt a particular dietary choice shares the same sentiment and that the view you have of vegan/vegetarians is mostly stereotyping.

That's fine. I did say "in general", please notice.

 

[Belz...]

Buddhists recognize both the relative and absolute states of existence.

The what ?

 

[varwoche]

Buddhists recognize both the relative and absolute states of existence.

We may "all be one" ... and we are all separate beings too. And while Buddhists vow to "save all sentient beings" I don't believe we save them by trying to change their behavior. We save all sentient beings by acting impeccably and compassionately with those beings.

So, no ... I'm not going to try to stop you from killing spiders. I believe that sooner or later, you'll figure out a less destructive way to enjoy the forest.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I didn't think you were trying to get me to stop killing spiders. In fact, that's partly why I thanked you. And either you didn't answer my question or else it's a zen sort of thing that I'm not following so I'll try again:

Both of us consciously cause death, for the purely selfish reason that we enjoy the forest, correct?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

"It is only when the author takes down the analogy on a point that has no relevance to the original argument that it is fallacious."

Hmm, "outrageous" (your "label" not mine) claims of pepper spraying old women and rape are relevant then you are saying?

Interesting. By the way, I giggled when you rewrote your analogies to completely remove the obvious fallacies.

"Look my logic is rock *********** solid when I exchange the obvious fallacious arguments with a couple more that are more subtle."

Who can tell me what the fallacies are in the following:

"C. I can set aside the morality of animal slaughter and eat meat to survive.

....

B. Following our biological design overrides moral claims."

Begin!

/begin, that is hilarious!

I... have no idea what you are trying to say .

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

That said, I strongly disagree with vegans in general because they try to make a moral (and not objective) argument that, ultimately, they feel everybody else should agree with. I'm trying to discern exactly where Dessi stands on all this, but unfortunately she has apparently marked me as a troll.

Well, I tend towards the prescriptivist school of non-cognitivist ethics, which interprets moral statements as imperatives for all to follow. So for me it just makes sense that vegans act that way. Like, if you thought popping balloons was immoral, would you just keep that to yourself? Think about all the poor balloons . Like, if they believed in relativism or nihilism then it would be rather strange. But if they believe in utilitarianism or deontological ethics than it just follows that they are making universalist arguments.

 

[BravesFan]

Hmmmm, now wait a second here.

By stating that you feel animals and humans are equal (and hence developing this equivalent morality in regards to the eating of them) aren't you putting yourself in the moral corner of having to decry thee eating of animals by other animals?

If we are all equal and on the same moral footing why is that these rules of engagement in regards to sustenance only applied to humans? Is it because we are smarter and "know better". If that's the case wouldn't that then eliminate your theory of moral equivalence due to our nature of being smarter and different? Why do humans have to break their instinctive drive for self protection, self interest and tribalism if all the other animals get off scott free?

If an eagle feels no sympathy for the rabbit and the spider none for the fly, why should a man feel sympathy for the cow it eats?

 

[The Big Dog]

I... have no idea what you are trying to say .

Not surprised that you can't see your own logical fallacies.

Here is a hint: petitio principii

 

[myowninvention]

If an eagle feels no sympathy for the rabbit and the spider none for the fly, why should a man feel sympathy for the cow it eats?

Personally, I don't think there's any 'should' about it- we simply do. We are highly empathetic creatures, even beyond our own species. Further, we have the ability to see cause and effect, to rationalize and reflect. It is not particularly surprising that many people find eating meat to be cruel and unnecessary.

That said, I do find this whole animals and humans being of equal value to be a pretty impossible belief. I can't quite get my head around how one actually believes that.

 

[Cain]

Cain, there's something I've wanted to get your take on ever since that old Rob Lister thread.

I often take a hike in a nearby forest*. It's impossible not to wipe out lots of spider webs that cross the trails, especially when one is the first hiker of the morning. I assume that some (all?) of those spiders are killed by my actions. Whereas I could choose to walk on the street and not kill spiders.

Do you see this as a similar ethical situation as eating animals? (I do. A little worse actually, because my DNA isn't driving my behavior.)

* During which time, I'm almost invariably pondering, what would Cain think? (True, despite the wink.)

I see it as similar to eating animals in that you're balancing your interests against other creatures, but I'm not sure those competing interests matter enough (if at all) to warrant taking another path. The relevant question is, can spiders even experience pain? Maybe. Suffering? I assume those crushed under foot would die instantaneously anyway.

I think you should spare the spiders one day a week, give them the benefit of the doubt, and walk through the town. Call this Socrates day: If the opportunity arises to engage one of the townsfolk in a non-crazy/non-creepy discussion of your alternative route, then you should pursue it!

 

[RandFan]

I'm a little bit confused. As a meat eater I am capable of empathy for other animals. I honestly thought that was typical of most people. I would never unnecessarily cause an animal suffering and if I saw someone beating their dog that would disturb me. Now, having empathy for other animals and not wanting them to suffer doesn't IMO, translate into not eating animals. However, it seems that some are saying that empathy for animals is irrational, is that right? I don't mean to straw man but I'm honestly not certain.

Am I correct that there is nothing irrational about caring for the general welfare of animals?

 

[BravesFan]

I'm a little bit confused. As a meat eater I am capable of empathy for other animals. I honestly thought that was typical of most people. I would never unnecessarily cause an animal suffering and if I saw someone beating their dog that would disturb me. Now, having empathy for other animals and not wanting them to suffer doesn't IMO, translate into not eating animals. However, it seems that some are saying that empathy for animals is irrational, is that right? I don't mean to straw man but I'm honestly not certain.

Am I correct that there is nothing irrational about caring for the general welfare of animals?

No that's not what I said. I said that if one draws a moral equivalency between people and animals (as that they are equal and should be treated as such) then why do the animals not face a similar judgement for their eating choices? My statement of eagles and rabbits as compared to man and cows is not a matter of empathy due to suffering but a matter of some sort of dietary guilt due to their food choices.(and honestly guilt is what this is all about)

I don't think that people shouldn't be empathetic to needless suffering. Nobody of sound mind could hear the story about Michael Vick's dogs and not feel empathetic. However, the methodical raising of animals for the explicit use of humans for food,clothing...etc Isn't needless suffering. it's an industry created for the express purpose of providing the basic needs of society. If an INDIVIDUAL treats his livestock poorly then said INDIVIDUAL should face discipline for this. But to condemn the slaughter of animals for food as innately cruel is,well its naive and silly.It's no more cruel than said eagle taking a rabbit in flight or a spider eating the fly from it's web.

 

[RandFan]

No that's not what I said. I said that if one draws a moral equivalency between people and animals (as that they are equal and should be treated as such) then why do the animals not face a similar judgement for their eating choices? My statement of eagles and rabbits as compared to man and cows is not a matter of empathy due to suffering but a matter of some sort of dietary guilt due to their food choices.(and honestly guilt is what this is all about)

I don't think that people shouldn't be empathetic to needless suffering. Nobody of sound mind could hear the story about Michael Vick's dogs and not feel empathetic. However, the methodical raising of animals for the explicit use of humans for food,clothing...etc Isn't needless suffering. it's an industry created for the express purpose of providing the basic needs of society. If an INDIVIDUAL treats his livestock poorly then said INDIVIDUAL should face discipline for this. But to condemn the slaughter of animals for food as innately cruel is,well its naive and silly.It's no more cruel than said eagle taking a rabbit in flight or a spider eating the fly from it's web.

Thanks. I agree it's not innately cruel. But there is a difference. Unlike the eagle and spider we can and do feel empathy for the source of our dinner. As long as that is understood then I'm cool.

ETA: I confess I had read that post but it wasn't the only one that prompted my response. If it was I would have responded to you directly. I responded because I detected a pattern, perhaps unfairly and wanted to make it clear that even though cats and killer whales might cruelly play with other animals (see Pinker Blank Slate) it doesn't make it okay if we do it.

 

[ConspiRaider]

No that's not what I said. I said that if one draws a moral equivalency between people and animals (as that they are equal and should be treated as such) then why do the animals not face a similar judgement for their eating choices? My statement of eagles and rabbits as compared to man and cows is not a matter of empathy due to suffering but a matter of some sort of dietary guilt due to their food choices.(and honestly guilt is what this is all about).

Yeahp Logic, hey, I got this concept the first time through, loud and clear. This is a two-way street. I want to hear a cheetah admit:

"Golly, that bad bad Nature, it evolved me to run at 60 miles per hour so I can chase down my dinner on the savannah and kill it and then eat it. Bad, you Nature you! I hate you! I am now very ashamed and will run no faster than 32 miles per hour - and plus I am changing my diet to (Holy Hell) BRUSSELS SPROUTS as a kind of penance, then!"

 

[BravesFan]

We can maybe feel empathetic if they are treated poorly. I doubt many of us feel much empathy for them while we are eating them.

I have thrown a hundred pounds of life crawfish in a boiling pot before. I felt no empathy for them. I was waiting for the feast that awaited. I've had to eat fairly gross things while doing survival training in the army years ago (yuck I won't elaborate). I felt no empathy for what i ate. I was friggin hungry and required calories.

Here's an interesting thought experiment/ question for the vegans. Would you find any moral dilemmas if forced into a survival situation? Or would you refuse to eat animals at the risk of starvation?

 

[RandFan]

We can maybe feel empathetic if they are treated poorly.

I don't understand the "can maybe" in light of your statement about Vick's dogs.

I doubt many of us feel much empathy for them while we are eating them.

None. I might if I knew the animal were tortured for my enjoyment.

I have thrown a hundred pounds of life crawfish in a boiling pot before. I felt no empathy for them. I was waiting for the feast that awaited. I've had to eat fairly gross things while doing survival training in the army years ago (yuck I won't elaborate). I felt no empathy for what i ate. I was friggin hungry and required calories.

I grew up slaughtering chickens and rabbits. I WOULD feel badly about boiling alive a chicken or rabbit.