Vegetarian: Arguments For and Against Vegetarianism

[Red3]

Thank you for your constructive input. In most ways, I agree with where you are coming from. I am all for personal responsibility; nonetheless, the effects produced by corporations and their assembly-line production of farm animals is another big problem.

I agree. But how would you feed the population of the earth? I myself am skeptical when it comes to the ethical standpoints of the big corps, but their ability to function within dubiously malleable ethical boundaries - in some respects - again comes from the species' apathy and unwillingness to take on the less pleasant jobs society asks of us. If someone's willing to take on the not very pleasant job of mass slaughter, then you have an ethical problem; do you leave them to it or call them for all their mistakes and moral blackspots? And if you do call them, what would be the repurcusions? The issue of whether to eat meat or not goes a lot deeper than health and ethics, it's a choice of survival for most folks. If you ask someone if they would raise, kill, prepare their own meat, the answer would be no; purely for the fact that they don't know how, and that it would risk theirs and their family's lives trying. Most anti meat people will not look at the issue objectively, and will more than likely have some woo belief about death - that seem to conveniently or callously miss the human equation - or some quasi-religious "enlightenment" ********. If you can think of a realistic, workable solution to end huge scale cattle farming and feed the world I'd be all for it (as I think it has environmental, ethical and health issues) but until then, we're pretty much stuck with what we've got. We live in a f&*ked up time in the world where we have to settle for less than what's ideal. We can only expect small changes.

If the vegesquad want it their way - us all eating non animal foodstuffs - then they need to think about the question of human survival...A hell of a lot of people would die without meat/dairy, simple as that. The majority of this world have not the time, resources nor the know-how to sustain a healthy vegetarian diet.

Like I said earlier, the more important issue is supplying people with information about healthy diets and looking after themselves. We eat far too much meat & dairy and the rate of disease associated with it proves this. But imo vegetarianism, in this day and age would be a disaster (unless you advocate mass human deaths). Cutting down on consumption instead of creating "converts" is the answer for now.

Edit: The issue of self reliance is ludicrous; vegetarian or no, if I was stuck for food in the wilderness for example, the first thing i would look for is meat.


beeksc1, I noticed your "introduce yourself" post, where you mentioned consciousness studies; I was wondering what that entailed? And what do you think of Dean Radin? (off topic I know).

 

[jadey]

Ooops All animals eat other (previously) living things.

I don't know of any animal that doesn't feed off of living or previously living organisms. Are there some?

Well in post #39, it was "no animal can survive without killing things". In #81, all animals eat other previously living things. In this post, #84, it's feed off of living or previously living organisms. 81 was a correction to 39, so that's fair. But 84 is different than 81.

So you are saying that:
"eat" is not the same as "feed off of"
and/or
"living thing" is not the same as "living organism".

Okay. So would the following response/question be better?

I don't know of any animal that doesn't eat other (previously) living things. Are there some?

PixyMisa's example was certain parasites.

It's kind of nit picky, but there's an actual point here... which is that eating doesn't entail killing anyway. If eating is wrong "because" of killing, then really the eating per se isn't the thing that's wrong, but rather, the killing.

Besides, I don't think you're really addressing the general moral argument for vegetarianism. They aren't against killing living things--they're against killing a subset of them that they consider particularly special. So ignoring the fact that not every animal kills living organisms (unless you're going to count individual cells or something), the point that they do is sort of a straw man.

So the argument is that it is immoral for a human to kill (and/or eat) deer because there are many animals that don't kill and/or eat deer? Is it then immoral for all animals to kill/eat deer, or just for humans?

 

[arthwollipot]

As usual vegetarianism is just another way to say holier-than-thou.

It doesn't have to be. But some people seem to want to make it so.

 

[yy2bggggs]

So you are saying that:
"eat" is not the same as "feed off of"
and/or
"living thing" is not the same as "living organism".

No, I'm saying that "eating another living being" is not equivalent to "killing another living being", and doesn't even require the other living being die for that matter. It could be feeding off of a currently living thing, as opposed to a previously living thing.

This is critical for a number of reasons. First, if it's the killing that is wrong, that's what the focus should be on--so if you don't eat the meat, but you kill the animal, that would be equally as wrong for the same exact reason (e.g., you shouldn't set terminal mouse traps). Second, if it's the killing that's wrong, and we find a way to eat meat without killing, then it cannot be condemned. Either way, putting the focus on the eating of flesh is at best a rule of thumb, and at worst a distraction from the real problem.

So the argument is that it is immoral for a human to kill (and/or eat) deer because there are many animals that don't kill and/or eat deer?

The general argument isn't against killing things, but is against killing certain kinds of things. What particular kinds depends on what more particular sorts of arguments are drawn up--usually it's "things that feel pain" or "sentient beings" or something along that nature.

Is it then immoral for all animals to kill/eat deer, or just for humans?

Well, that implication is a leap as well. If you grant that killing the particular kinds of entities is immoral according to one of these arguments, that doesn't automatically lead to other animals killing it being immoral. So if you were to use this argument, I would say that would be a straw man as well (furthermore, even if it were argued to be immoral for a cat to kill a mouse, I don't see what that changes... the cat's still going to kill the mouse, and it would still be immoral, so I'm not even sure how you could connect this to anything).

 

[Cimerian]

As intimated in my last post, fat also creates fat in humans. There is probably a very good (almost certainly, actually) evolutionary reason for this. Care to guess? Cold? Adaptation? Anyone?

Well, the membranes of all your cells (and actually, of all cells we know) are made out of fat, the oily nice one. All structural cell components are mostly fat (lipids), proteins and some carbs (sorry, forgot the ribonucleic acid).

If you actually meant adipose tissue (cell the store cells) it is extremely useful to store energy. Fat has as nearly as twice energy as proteins or carbs, so if you want to store energy, fat is your choice. Of course I am talking about a world where you have to hunt or collect your food from the woods, and famine starvation is the rule.

Adipose tissue also holds our guts in place, and fills spaces in some joints (knee for example), so it is an important structural body component too.

Cold, definitely yes, great heat insulator and babies (and some adults too) have something called brown fat which actually produces heat from the fat.

 

[thesyntaxera]

I eat meat, but after reading book like "The Omnivores Dilemma" I was forced to ask what may be a better question:

Is it ethical to herd animals into unsafe, dirty, unnatural conditions because it makes it easier for us to kill and eat them?

Anyone here ever have to annually behead chickens? What about in a factory setting where you see 2000+ cattle per day getting a metal rod slammed into their skull, and their bodies dressed while the muscles are still twitching? Then there is the bush meat trade, and the tendency for some cultures to eat any kind of animal...like boiled alive kittens who have their skin flayed off while they still draw a breath.

The fact is that if most of us had to actually kill any of the meat we ingested we probably wouldn't be eating a whole lot of it on a regular basis...at least compared to the level of consumption we have now.

I think persons who immediately write...

Yes, and yes. End of thread.

...probably only think of meat as that red and pink and white stuff in the plastic wrap at a grocery store.

You could argue that free range is more in line with nature and thus more acceptable(thats usually what I do), but in most cases free range means a shed with access to the outdoors that isn't always available depending on the needs of the animal farmer.

Yes, life feeds on life. So does that make all of our farming practices hunky dory because there is no easy or super rational/ethical explanation as to why we shouldn't be eating meat?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

The fact is that if most of us had to actually kill any of the meat we ingested we probably wouldn't be eating a whole lot of it on a regular basis...at least compared to the level of consumption we have now.

Viewed over any span longer than, say, the last century I'd have to think that many if not most people had indeed done their own killing, and cleaning, and butchering. At least enough to be very clear about what was entailed. Even in times as recent as that the practice is hardly rare. If you include fishing it's downright common. It really isn't all that much more gruesome to kill and clean a bunny than it is a bass.

I see no reason why the cessation of a practice for a handful of decades would make it that difficult for people to begin again should the need arise.

I think persons who immediately write...



...probably only think of meat as that red and pink and white stuff in the plastic wrap at a grocery store.

<snip>

I think you're making assumptions without evidence.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Viewed over any span longer than, say, the last century I'd have to think that many if not most people had indeed done their own killing, and cleaning, and butchering. At least enough to be very clear about what was entailed.

Sure, but I wasn't talking about a span of 100 years. I am talking about posters in this thread and people currently living in our contemporary era where animal farms are actually an environmentally degrading fact of reality.

Even in times as recent as that the practice is hardly rare. If you include fishing it's downright common. It really isn't all that much more gruesome to kill and clean a bunny than it is a bass.

Bunnies, Bass and Straw. We are talking about the wholesale creation amd mass destruction of multiple species. Like I said, have you ever stood in a factory line and killed 2000 cows every day? It's just not quite the same as catching and cleaning a bass.

I think you're making assumptions without evidence.

That may be. I am not really sure you actually know what I am talking about though.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

The fact is that if most of us had to actually kill any of the meat we ingested we probably wouldn't be eating a whole lot of it on a regular basis...at least compared to the level of consumption we have now.

<snip>

Sure, but I wasn't talking about a span of 100 years. I am talking about posters in this thread and people currently living in our contemporary era where animal farms are actually an environmentally degrading fact of reality.



Bunnies, Bass and Straw. We are talking about the wholesale creation amd mass destruction of multiple species. Like I said, have you ever stood in a factory line and killed 2000 cows every day? It's just not quite the same as catching and cleaning a bass.



That may be. I am not really sure you actually know what I am talking about though.

Well you got me there. I doubt that very many posters in this thread are eating 2000 cows a day.

Wait. Shemp posted in this one, didn't he?

 

[thesyntaxera]

Well you got me there. I doubt that very many posters in this thread are eating 2000 cows a day.

Nor do they work in one of the thousands of meat processing centers around the world, which is what I was getting at.

 

[quadraginta]

Nor do they work in one of the thousands of meat processing centers around the world, which is what I was getting at.

See? There's where I made my mistake. 'Cause when I quoted you as saying ...

The fact is that if most of us had to actually kill any of the meat we ingested we probably wouldn't be eating a whole lot of it on a regular basis...at least compared to the level of consumption we have now.

... I made the silly mistake of thinking that I was responding to the part of your post that I quoted. Especially that itty bitty "any" part.

Certainly you can understand my confusion.

 

[six7s]

Anyone here ever have to annually behead chickens?

Yes - although it's typically a weekly or fortnightly activity... and humanely killing poultry is as easy as a very, very easy thing

I actually catch a few fish, too

Fresh is best

 

[jadey]

No, I'm saying that "eating another living being" is not equivalent to "killing another living being", and doesn't even require the other living being die for that matter. It could be feeding off of a currently living thing, as opposed to a previously living thing.

This is critical for a number of reasons. First, if it's the killing that is wrong, that's what the focus should be on--so if you don't eat the meat, but you kill the animal, that would be equally as wrong for the same exact reason (e.g., you shouldn't set terminal mouse traps). Second, if it's the killing that's wrong, and we find a way to eat meat without killing, then it cannot be condemned. Either way, putting the focus on the eating of flesh is at best a rule of thumb, and at worst a distraction from the real problem.

The general argument isn't against killing things, but is against killing certain kinds of things. What particular kinds depends on what more particular sorts of arguments are drawn up--usually it's "things that feel pain" or "sentient beings" or something along that nature.

My position is that eating animals is not immoral/unethical. Therefore, killing them for that purpose is not immoral/unethical.

You question seems to be "assuming that it is immoral, which part is immoral, the killing or the eating (or both)"? Would that be a correct assessment?

Well, that implication is a leap as well. If you grant that killing the particular kinds of entities is immoral according to one of these arguments, that doesn't automatically lead to other animals killing it being immoral. So if you were to use this argument, I would say that would be a straw man as well (furthermore, even if it were argued to be immoral for a cat to kill a mouse, I don't see what that changes... the cat's still going to kill the mouse, and it would still be immoral, so I'm not even sure how you could connect this to anything).

Agreed. Animal behaviour is no justification for human behaviour.

If you look about the animal kingdom, you see that life feeds upon life; both animal and plant. It seems unfair, but it is certainly the way nature works and I am willing to accept that it is natural behaviour in humans. I realize that this is rather weak logic because there are other animal behaviours that I couldn't justify among humans.

If one were to presume that killing animals for food is immoral, I would be interested to hear at what point in our evolution it became so.

 

[Rasmus]

If one were to presume that killing animals for food is immoral, I would be interested to hear at what point in our evolution it became so.

At the point where an alternative became possible and it was understood to be so, of course.

 

[Drudgewire]

At the point where an alternative became possible and it was understood to be so, of course.

So the day it's possible to grow a cheeseburger that tastes like Fuddruckers rather than Boca burgers (

) I'll feel bad about eating meat.

 

[Symbol]

The ethics thing.

There has been some comparison here between the eating habits of animals and humans, and I think that's quite shaky ground to use as a platform to argue for eating meat.

Yes, we are part of the animal kingdom, technically, but there is a reason that your animal neighbours living in the house next door aren't hyena or chicken families. We have a level of consciousness (yes I know, don't go there) and concern with ethics and improvement of human society generally, or our own localised societies, that has seen human society evolve for the better over time.

So ethics aren't absolutely "right or wrong" laws of the universe, but rather ways to be better animals at our current stage of animal development.

A simplistic example: in animal herds, like in some ancient human tribes, the elderly of the species are considered useless to the survival of herd or tribe, and left to die, or certainly not cared for. While in most 21st century societies we venerate the elderly, or at least try to increase their life spans, or keep them comfortable until they die.

So ethically (not absolute "right or wrong" ethics, but "best practice at being a human" ethics) when faced with a choice of "Mom and dad, you're old and useless now, go and live under a bridge, goodbye" or providing healthcare and love and continued respect and confirmation of shared memories, well, we tend to feel, collectively, that it's more ethical to do the latter.

The relevance to the discussion on killing other animals to eat is this: no, it's not technically unethical to eat another previously living animal, and in fact this extends to all living animals, so we can't rationally pronounce "wrong" about kittens casserole, roasted monkey, grilled dog, horse mince or other animals dishes that upset some Western sensibilities.

But at another level of ethics, let's call it being-better-humans-because-we-CAN ethics, that level at which we know not to leave our aging parents out in the snow to die, we have to debate whether it is truly necessary to kill to live, for us, right now, in whatever society we currently live.

I propose that for most of us here it's not necessary for our healthy survival, and any step towards reducing support of killing-for-food industries is a step in a more evolved direction.

 

[Hux]

Spam got a bum rap. If it wasn't so flavorful and delicious that the Brits were offended by it then it never would have gotten all that bad press.

Spam has saved hundreds of thousands of Boy Scouts from death by starvation while lost in the impenetrable forests.

(Out of curiosity. If a forest is "impenetrable" how does someone get into it to get lost in the first place?)

Where the hell did you get that stupid idea from? We yield to no one in our love of Spam fritters. Some kids were brought up on Spam. Little kids thought a Spam was a particular animal. Dont get so self righteous

 

[quadraginta]

Where the hell did you get that stupid idea from? We yield to no one in our love of Spam fritters. Some kids were brought up on Spam. Little kids thought a Spam was a particular animal. Dont get so self righteous

It's Monty Python's fault.

 

[Rasmus]

So the day it's possible to grow a cheeseburger that tastes like Fuddruckers rather than Boca burgers (http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/barf.gif) I'll feel bad about eating meat.

Yes, because we all know things are ethical no matter what, as long as they are fun.

 

[Tiktaalik]

I eat meat, but after reading book like "The Omnivores Dilemma" I was forced to ask what may be a better question:

Is it ethical to herd animals into unsafe, dirty, unnatural conditions because it makes it easier for us to kill and eat them?

Anyone here ever have to annually behead chickens? What about in a factory setting where you see 2000+ cattle per day getting a metal rod slammed into their skull, and their bodies dressed while the muscles are still twitching? Then there is the bush meat trade, and the tendency for some cultures to eat any kind of animal...like boiled alive kittens who have their skin flayed off while they still draw a breath.

The fact is that if most of us had to actually kill any of the meat we ingested we probably wouldn't be eating a whole lot of it on a regular basis...at least compared to the level of consumption we have now.

I think persons who immediately write...



...probably only think of meat as that red and pink and white stuff in the plastic wrap at a grocery store.

You could argue that free range is more in line with nature and thus more acceptable(thats usually what I do), but in most cases free range means a shed with access to the outdoors that isn't always available depending on the needs of the animal farmer.

Yes, life feeds on life. So does that make all of our farming practices hunky dory because there is no easy or super rational/ethical explanation as to why we shouldn't be eating meat?

This is the crux of it for me.

Does our desire to eat things that taste good overwhelm the ethics of factory farming?

I am not a vegetarian. I occasionally eat chicken and fish, and even more occasionally turkey. I have not eaten beef, pork or lamb in more than 25 years. This was originally because of digestive problems, but the more I consider, given that 60 - 90% (depending on species) of American meat comes from factory farms where animals live in deplorable conditions for short and tortured lived, the less able I am to reconcile my desire for a chicken sandwich with what I have been taught, and accept, about living things.

If I was regularly able to get meat from a family farm where I could see that the animals lived reasonable-quality lives until slaughter, and where I could be assured that slaughter methods were as humane as possible, I would have no qualms about eating some meat. but I can't, even though I live in a rural ranching area.

As has been noted above, we're omnivores. That means we're quite capable of surviving on vegetable matter, not that we have to eat meat.

Add to this the production and pollution issues, and I'm grading closer and closer to complete vegetarianism, if not veganism.