What is an ethical diet?

Fat Bottom Gurl

Hot Tub Hottie
Fat Bottom Gurl
Joined
Jul 1, 2004
Messages
534
Sorry for the blank first post - my computer was not co-operating. I'll try again.

A topic I've been puzzling over for awhile now, and I've read various
opinions on vegetarian ethics groups in regards to "ethical" diets. I
look forward to some interesting opinions from the delightful, diverse
and bright bunch of people on this forum.

What is an ethical diet? Is it one that has contains no animal flesh -
(re: vegetarian)? Is it one that has no animal products such as dairy
(re: vegan)? Or is it one that carefully considers how many animals are
killed directly and indirectly for one's food?

The reason I'm asking is that many people do not consider the indirect
(or collateral) deaths of field animals associated with crop production.
While one's diet may consist of grains and vegetables only, that does
not mean that animals were not harmed for the production of that
plant-based food. Does the death of the field animals such as mice,
birds, rabbits not count? Are they more expendable than a cow or
chicken? Unless one is hand planting and hand harvesting their grains
and veggies, one cannot say for certain that no animals died for the
production of their food. Cheap vegetables and grains are available due
to the mechanization of farm equipment.

It has been argued by some that the more ethical diet would be one that
consisted of grass-fed ruminants and vegetables that were hand
sown/harvested. This would lessen the impact of farm machinery going
into the fields and thus less collateral deaths of animals - obviously
the grass-fed ruminant would count for at least one direct death.

Debaroo
 
I have a high respect for the evolutionary process that put us at the top of the food chain, and honor it by enjoying that position, and doing my best to stay there.

Seriously, what ethic or morality are we discussing here?
 
You'll have to define your terms.

What is "ethical"? Why would it be unethical (or immoral) to kill to eat? It's certainly natural.

It's even more tenuous when it comes to milk products.

It seems to me the whole discussion is quasi-religious, like arguing the fine points of kosher law.
 
I'm new at this forum, so not sure how I'm replying, and am having problems.

I wanted to quote back to reply, but I am having difficulty, so this is my reply to the two posts thus far:

My main concern in regards to an ethical diet is...why is a person who eats meat and vegetables less ethical than one who only eats vegetables? Both diets result in animal deaths. Why is it OK to kill animals for food production, but not OK to eat them?

Debaroo
 
Debaroo said:
My main concern in regards to an ethical diet is...why is a person who eats meat and vegetables less ethical than one who only eats vegetables? Both diets result in animal deaths. Why is it OK to kill animals for food production, but not OK to eat them?
Click to expand...
Yes, this is an interesting question, and one which has incited debate many times over in the past between meat-eaters and vegans. It seems though with meat-eaters that there appears more intent in killing the animals. Certainly you're not going to equate someone who accidentally hits with his car a person crossing the street with someone who goes on a sadistic killing spree. Perhaps it has to be understood, on the other hand, that the deaths field mice, etc. are considered for granted and are thus on some level deliberate. But, back to the hand before, we have to consider whether the moral pursuits of vegans are aimed more at obviating animal suffering or—with a greater regard for pragmatism in mind—minimizing it. I'll let others post before I say anything else.
 
For some vegetarians, it isn't about ethics at all. The idea of eating meat is simply repulsive to them. They may not even care about the death of the animal, and simply not eating the resulting meat is their only concern.

Also there are those who believe they will be healthier if they don't eat meat. Again for this type of vegetarian, there isn't necessarily any ethical concern at all for the death of the animal.
 
I agree with the other posts, you should define your ethical and moral model. What I find confusing about veganism is that vegan foods are grown mostly with animal fertilizer, hence livestock and or dairy. Further compounding this confusion is why if veganism is so morally clear why there are such a diversity of vegan beliefs, for example some do not eat honey etc. And yet, with agriculture, especially for hand harvesting etc, you must exploit human beings otherwise the cost of the crops will be too high and no (rational) person would buy them. So is it more ethical to grow crops, let them rot, and use them as fertilizer to grow a small yield of edible plants (no pesticides!) all the while exploiting human beings as slave labor? What finally bothers me the most about veganism are the kooky new age beliefs associated with it, such as organic foods, quack healing therapies, and their belief that animal products cause most health problems in humans. Most vegans will openly admit it is essentially impossible to be an "orthodox" vegan, but they do anything they can to abate animal suffering.
 
Batman Jr. said:

Yes, this is an interesting question, and one which has incited debate many times over in the past between meat-eaters and vegans. It seems though with meat-eaters that there appears more intent in killing the animals. Certainly you're not going to equate someone who accidentally hits with his car a person crossing the street with someone who goes on a sadistic killing spree. Perhaps it has to be understood, on the other hand, that the deaths field mice, etc. are considered for granted and are thus on some level deliberate. But, back to the hand before, we have to consider whether the moral pursuits of vegans are aimed more at obviating animal suffering or—with a greater regard for pragmatism in mind—minimizing it. I'll let others post before I say anything else.
Click to expand...

That is what puzzles me - why is it ethical (or justifiable) for the field mice to die for the vegan's food production. If one is considering harm and suffering in regards to animal deaths, the field mouse may very well suffer horribly. It could have been maimed and left to slowly die in the field. Yet, this same vegan would object to the humane slaughter of a cow for my food. The cow is killed instantly.

Debaroo
 
My opinion.... an ethical diet is whatever is healthy for me. If I had a metabolic disorder that absolutely required me to eat human meat, I would consider cannibalism ethical. Common law anticipates this with its "necessity" defense.

Vegans don't eat honey. Some people who claim to be vegans do. When a co-worker of mine decided to go vegan, it was surprising to me how many products we use every day involve animals.
 
Discussions of vegetarianism always remind me of Tom Paxton's song, "Please Don't Slay That Potato," sung in defense of "That poor helpless spud, that you yanked from the mud," and suggesting that if potatoes were "cute" like lambs, they would not be eaten.

Perhaps the only "ethical" diets are those reported on the loony web pages--people claiming to subsist on sunlight or colors or other nonsense.
 
pupdog said:
Discussions of vegetarianism always remind me of Tom Paxton's song, "Please Don't Slay That Potato," sung in defense of "That poor helpless spud, that you yanked from the mud," and suggesting that if potatoes were "cute" like lambs, they would not be eaten.
Click to expand...
Or maybe it's because the potatoes don't have central nervous systems.
 
The reason I'm asking is that many people do not consider the indirect
(or collateral) deaths of field animals associated with crop production.
Click to expand...

It's a pointless question. I need to eat vegetables. I don't need to eat meat. Eating meat results in more animal deaths. Therefore, some people wish to reduce the number of deaths they cause. No, you can't go through life without killing something. Is this news? We need to kill bacteria, plants, mites, and other living things in our every day survival. Nobody out there is saying differently, so what's the point?
 
rebecca said:


It's a pointless question. I need to eat vegetables. I don't need to eat meat. Eating meat results in more animal deaths. Therefore, some people wish to reduce the number of deaths they cause. No, you can't go through life without killing something. Is this news? We need to kill bacteria, plants, mites, and other living things in our every day survival. Nobody out there is saying differently, so what's the point?
Click to expand...

Eating meat does not necessarily result in more animal deaths - that is the entire point.

For example - a grass fed cow would produce hundreds of meals. Couple that with one producing one's own vegetables by hand sowing/harvesting, for example, would result in fewer deaths to animals than someone who eats only vegetables which are mass produced by farm machinery. To obtain all the nutrition and calories necessary from a vegetable meal may very well result in more animal deaths.

Producing rice, for example, kills hundreds of animals. So, if the vegetarian eats rice and other vegetables from highly mechanized forms of farming, that is also shipped, they could very well be responsible for more animal deaths than the person who eats grass-fed beef and locally produced vegetables.

And as for "no one is saying differently" - well, one only has to read PeTA and other animal right's propanganda that say if one doesn't eat meat, one is not harming animals. It is dishonest.

Debaroo
 
The thing is that the meat-eating perspective seems to take a defense along the lines of "We can't completely prevent the detriment done to animals, so we might as well screw them all." Why don't we instead try to concentrate on reducing the maiming and killing resultant of crop harvesting?
 
Debaroo said:
For example - a grass fed cow would produce hundreds of meals. Couple that with one producing one's own vegetables by hand sowing/harvesting, for example, would result in fewer deaths to animals than someone who eats only vegetables which are mass produced by farm machinery. To obtain all the nutrition and calories necessary from a vegetable meal may very well result in more animal deaths.
Click to expand...

First of all, one grass fed cow produces hundreds of meals? This interests me. I'd appreciate it if you could please provide a link to that info.

Aside from that, if you personally want to grow your own vegetables and only eat grass-fed cows, awesome. Go for it. What do you have against the rest of us, who try to reduce the number of deaths as much as we are comfortable with? I, for instance, don't eat meat. However, I don't expect other people to do the same -- I expect everyone to do the most that they can. So right now, I'm killing less animals than the average meat-eater. I could go a step further and be vegan, but I'm not comfortable with that.

Producing rice, for example, kills hundreds of animals. So, if the vegetarian eats rice and other vegetables from highly mechanized forms of farming, that is also shipped, they could very well be responsible for more animal deaths than the person who eats grass-fed beef and locally produced vegetables.
Click to expand...

Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to have a link to where you get your info about how many animals are killed producing rice, etc.

And as for "no one is saying differently" - well, one only has to read PeTA and other animal right's propanganda that say if one doesn't eat meat, one is not harming animals. It is dishonest.

Debaroo
Click to expand...

Much as I hate to defend PETA, please show me where they say it is possible to survive without killing something. Oh. They don't. You can say they "mislead" people about it, but if anyone is stupid enough to believe that you can get through life without killing something, well, give me their names and address, I have a bridge I want to sell them.
 
Debaroo said:


That is where I'm having the problem - what is an ethical diet?

Debaroo
Click to expand...

Easy one.

The right combinations of food that enable you to achieve your life goals. If eating meat makes you sad, and being sad gets in the way of your goals, don't eat meat. I feel that way about most squash receipes. I avoid liver at all costs.

Sure, what you're asking is what is the generally accepted ethics concerning diet. That can be important also. Imagine your neighbor's reaction when he sees you skinning a cat...worse, his cat...in your back yard with your grill a-blazing.

Note: even kittens, while more tender, taste nasty.
 
rebecca said:


First of all, one grass fed cow produces hundreds of meals? This interests me. I'd appreciate it if you could please provide a link to that info.

***
Are you questioning that a cow does not provide hundreds of meals?

I cannot find the link to the study done by a man named "Davis" (I believe). Grass-fed cattle are grazing on pasture and not grains. Since the cattle do not eat grains (which require mechanization to produce), this means the tractor is not going into the field to sow/harvest grains.



Aside from that, if you personally want to grow your own vegetables and only eat grass-fed cows, awesome. Go for it.
What do you have against the rest of us, who try to reduce the number of deaths as much as we are comfortable with?

I, for instance, don't eat meat. However, I don't expect other people to do the same -- I expect everyone to do the most that they can. So right now, I'm killing less animals than the average meat-eater.




Perhaps. If that average meat eater is also eating the same vegetables as you. But if that average meat eater eats only locally raised animals (even if they are grain fed) and locally raised vegetables, s/he may not be contributing to as many animal deaths as the typical vegetarian who may be buying their vegetables that are produced in other countries. The shipping alone might be responsible for more animal deaths of a typical vegetarian diet.

This is what I'm talking about - the typical vegetarian may not have even considered that their diet does result in animal deaths. They may very well think that by consuming only vegetables, they have not contributed to animal deaths. I've nothing against vegetarians, but only against claims that a vegetarian lifestyle is cruelity free, or doesn't cause animal deaths.



I could go a step further and be vegan, but I'm not comfortable with that.


But vegan's also fall into the same trap of thinking that if they don't consume or use animal products they are not harming animals. One only has to look at the production of cotton - that harms many animals - yet, cotton is worn by many vegans.

http://www.panna.org/resources/documents/conventionalCotton.dv.html


Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to have a link to where you get your info about how many animals are killed producing rice, etc.


Rice paddies are flooded - the flooding drowns many animals. I've been searching for the link, but cannot find it right now.



Much as I hate to defend PETA, please show me where they say it is possible to survive without killing something. Oh. They don't. You can say they "mislead" people about it, but if anyone is stupid enough to believe that you can get through life without killing something, well, give me their names and address, I have a bridge I want to sell them.

I would say if PeTA is really about the ethical treatment for animals they would write about those farmers who do as much as possible to raise their animals humanely. They would tell people that eating grass-fed cows is better than eating grain-fed, factory farmed cows. They would talk about the collateral death of animals in regards to crop production. Instead they tell people to eat no meat .

Debaroo
Click to expand...
 
What's ethical is people first, animals distant second.

Raise an animal humanely, kill it without suffering and eating it is ethical. Jamming it in a cage and force feeding it before slaughter is not.

Wearing the fur to keep warm in a hostile environment is ethical. Mounting it's head on a wall or wearing it's fur to the opera is not.

Killing a baby seal to stay alive another week is ethical. Doing it to give Paris Hilton another fuzzy hat is not.

I'm not being flippant. I see it as a very easy decision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom