Why vegans are simply better people

[RandFan]

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!"

[devil's advocate] Lions and other animals eat their young. Should we care about people who kill their babies? Why?[/devils advocate] Go easy, I'm a meat eater.

 

[myowninvention]

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.

Here's what I think it comes down to. . .ignoring the animals=people. Some people believe that, beyond how the animal is treated while it lives, simply the act of killing an animal without necessity is cruel. Couple that with the belief that there is no harm to be taken by not eating meat or using animal products, ie, that eating meat is unnecessary, and you have the belief that raising animals to eat is causing them to die unnecessarily, and is therefore cruel.
I don't personally agree- I think that the animal's quality of life is far more important then when and why it dies, and I have further discovered that it is not a certain fact that all people in the modern world can live well without eating meat (I mentioned my son's dietary restrictions in an earlier post) My thinking, when I was vegan, was more to the effect of this: I know that a large portion of meat and dairy on the market today comes from farms who's practices I disagree with, and, especially when I was in the city, it was far easier for me to simply not support these farms by not buying any meat or dairy then it is to actually track down the source of my meat and find out what sort of life the animal is leading.

Much easier to do that now- I live in farm land most of the time, and it's rare I don't know the name of the farmer who raised animals I eat.

 

[BravesFan]

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

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

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

The maybe thing was me just writing the rather goofy way I talk.. I do this quite a bit in normal forums, but I forget this place can get a little lingusitically nitpicky... my bad

 

[myowninvention]

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

Ditto here. Well, not rabbits, but chickens. . .and I don't know about you, but I have a hard time having too much empathy for chickens- especially after a particularly mean hen constantly tried to peck my fingers off. I was feeding her, mind you!

 

[RandFan]

Ditto here. Well, not rabbits, but chickens. . .and I don't know about you, but I have a hard time having too much empathy for chickens- especially after a particularly mean hen constantly tried to peck my fingers off. I was feeding her, mind you!

I hear ya brother. I had to clean the poop out of their water trough and in the winter time carry out a 5 gallon bucket of water to melt the ice that formed at the top of the trough (this was in Utah). I often paid a price. Never mind coop maintenance, gathering eggs, cleaning, etc. Then there was shots of antibiotics and lice powdering. My father frequently let the chickens out into our fenced yards and the one that did not return to the coop in the evening I had to round up. I didn't grow up with a hankering to raise chickens I'll tell you.

 

[RandFan]

The maybe thing was me just writing the rather goofy way I talk.. I do this quite a bit in normal forums, but I forget this place can get a little lingusitically nitpicky... my bad

Cool.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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

Here is a hint: petitio principii

And now you are throwing out logic terms with no explanation... in Latin.

Progress ?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

[devil's advocate] Lions and other animals eat their young. Should we care about people who kill their babies? Why?[/devils advocate] Go easy, I'm a meat eater.

I don't think we should care it it's just the local stud male, taking over the pride and getting rid of the offspring of their predecessor/s ..
Oh, and providing the meal includes an appropriate wine .. I think a medium dry Chablis would probably work.

If they just kill them for no good reason, and waste all that meat, then that deserves a thread of it's own ..

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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.

The problem is, as many vegans show, animal slaughter is a needless harm. Food is a basic need, but there are plenty of different kinds. Animal meat is no more a necessity than human meat, or broccoli .

 

[RandFan]

I don't think we should care it it's just the local stud male, taking over the pride and getting rid of the offspring of their predecessor/s ..
Oh, and providing the meal includes an appropriate wine .. I think a medium dry Chablis would probably work.

If they just kill them for no good reason, and waste all that meat, then that deserves a thread of it's own ..

Just to be clear, we shouldn't care if people kill their babies if it's "the local stud male"? Okay.

 

[ConspiRaider]

[devil's advocate] Lions and other animals eat their young. Should we care about people who kill their babies? Why?[/devils advocate] Go easy, I'm a meat eater.

Nah, it's a good point. We simply know that, in the case of lions (and apparently feral domesticated cats too), a male lion taking over a pride will kill all of the cubs (if he can) so the lionnesses will need to mate again - but with HIM. Talk about ego! "Get alla these babies outta here! You want babies, I'll give you babies!!!"

Works for lions/cats. Not for us crazy two-legged human beans. We're very civilized, noble, proper.

Holy living HELL, Skep-Greg beat me to the punch!!! Where's my javelin???

 

[RandFan]

Nah, it's a good point. We simply know that, in the case of lions (and apparently feral domesticated cats too), a male lion taking over a pride will kill all of the cubs (if he can) so the lionnesses will need to mate again - but with HIM. Talk about ego! "Get alla these babies outta here! You want babies, I'll give you babies!!!"

Works for lions/cats. Not for us crazy two-legged human beans. We're very civilized, noble, proper.

Holy living HELL, Skep-Greg beat me to the punch!!! Where's my javelin???

Cool, personally I see no need to look to nature for the source of my morality, at all, ever. Aside from having to deal with the whole naturalistic fallacy thing you have to explain why some cases are exempted and some cases are appropriate. I think people make everything far too complicated. But, that's just the way I roll.

 

[Bill Thompson]

Uh huh. Is it unethical to force an omnivoure to be a herbavoure? Is that not cruel to such an animal?

 

[Belz...]

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.

Oh, absolutely. If it's a moral code, then I expect them to expect me to follow it, too. That's why I disagree with them, though, because I have a different moral code. Mind you, I don't expect them to follow mine.

Vegans who have this diet based on other reasons are usually less preachy.

 

[Belz...]

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?

Are you kidding ? That would be... ick... consistent !

If vegans liked consistency, they'd eat meat ! (that was a joke, by the way)

 

[Belz...]

And now you are throwing out logic terms with no explanation... in Latin.

Damn. I'm sure that's only funny to me.

See, there's this TV series in France (Kaamelott, based on the Arthur legend but it's a 3 minute comedy segment show) and one character keeps saying things in latin to impress other people but the phrases are nonsensical, as he himself admits each time.

 

[Complexity]

But there is something wrong with saying "ain't".

No, there's not.

 

[Dessi]

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?

Nevermind the fallacious appeal to nature, the argument cuts both ways: adult lions kill infant lions all the time, why should an adult human feel sympathy for killing an infant human? Humans have an incredible capacity to be cruel to one another, why should they have to break their instinctual drive to kill one another for self-protection, self interest, and tribalism? If lions have no sympathy when they kill other lions in cold blood, why should a man feel sympathy when he kills another man?

Animals kill each other all the time. Its hard to take moral inspiration from them as a model of human behavior without reducing all humans -- rational or non-rational -- to the status of animals.

 

[Dessi]

Oh, absolutely. If it's a moral code, then I expect them to expect me to follow it, too. That's why I disagree with them, though, because I have a different moral code. Mind you, I don't expect them to follow mine.

Suppose I steal your identity, take massive loans out in your name, trash your credit, and empty your bank accounts. You may object, which is perfectly reasonable to do, but what exactly do you expect to come of it? Property rights are subjective. Obviously, taking your money doesn't offend my moral sensibilities. What are you going to do about it? Have me arrested, coerce me into returning the money, force me to adhere to a moral standard I clearly do not hold in the first place? Or are you going to sit down, shut up, and just accept it as a brute fact that something happened to you that you don't like?

 

[Furcifer]

Nevermind the fallacious appeal to nature, the argument cuts both ways: adult lions kill infant lions all the time, why should an adult human feel sympathy for killing an infant human? Humans have an incredible capacity to be cruel to one another, why should they have to break their instinctual drive to kill one another for self-protection, self interest, and tribalism? If lions have no sympathy when they kill other lions in cold blood, why should a man feel sympathy when he kills another man?

Animals kill each other all the time. Its hard to take moral inspiration from them as a model of human behavior without reducing all humans -- rational or non-rational -- to the status of animals.

I think the fallacy is yours though Dessi, because you presume that humans get treated like humans because they are human. Humans that don't act like humans; that kill their kids or succumb to their animal urges, get treated like animals. The reason we don't kill them {and maybe eat them} is because [some] humans have the capacity for change.