Vegetarianism - silly idea or moral obligation?

Remove all ads!

Oh that is undeniably true that we see human faces where they don't exist. But emotions? Human emotions? You're not saying that other animals don't have very similar emotions as humans?

Humans do have the uncanny ability to read the emotions of their pets, farm animals and even animals of the wild. The closer we are to these animals in development, the easier it is to understand them.

Pain and the fear of pain are the most common denominator of every sentient being, meaning a being that have an ability to feel something and to react upon the feeling. These feelings might even be argued as a rudimentary self-awareness. Recognizing both of them is essential for survival with animals. Recognizing them in other animals is not only very human, but a quality that other animals have as well. The evolutionary benefit of such quality should be obvious enough.

 

Yes, we are empathic, as are dogs, monkeys, and really any social mammal (probably all mammals to some degree.)

I do not think a butcherer of animals is incapable of understanding justice or compassion. I think the butcherer is just closer to a fact which abstract thinking emotional beings have trouble accepting: fairness does not exist.

What is fairness anyway? I would think it to be two reasoners having the exact same thoughts at the same times always. That is impossible. Fairness is impossible. Or if they did have a difference, the superior reasoner never acting upon his/her superior grasp of reality. That is called faking fairness. We can try to fake it...and many have, such as the appeal to the magical 'soul' being the ultimate singular unit of being (and all souls are defined as equal), or we can try to impose the abstract notion of fairness upon human society (think communism).

You brought up the cuteness factor. Animals that are cute are on our team. I know animals that are on my team. My guinea pigs, and my mom's dogs and cats (although not the birds because they are in fact pure evil trumpeted loudly) are all on my team. Try to hurt them, and I'd defend them bodily. But dairy cows and chickens are not on my team. I know that their pain exists. I know this. But I also know they taste great. I balanced my two emotional reactions, and eating them won. I have a similar feeling towards abortion. I know that it is the murder of a defenseless human being. I know this. But it is a very small human being, and not yet considered part of my team. A couple years ago I was happier that my ex killed mine for me. I'm still happier. I'd hate to have a kid right now. I'm happy not having one. That doesn't mean that I don't have an emotional response to the situation, and I do...it's sad because the situation is not as joyful as it possibly could be; but I also don't beat myself up for making the decision. I'm not perfect, and neither was the situation. It was the right decision. Balance and ---> my abortion is OK in my mind...and since I recognize that others may feel the same way towards their particular situation ---> abortion should be legal.

OK...how I tied abortion into this...probably got outside the box on that one...sorry.

But: eating animals. Yeah. Do what makes you happy. Empathy is good. I'm often happy for making others happy, and I'm sad when others are sad. But I don't expect existence to be without suffering, and if it makes me happier to do so, I will cause others to suffer for my benefit. It just so happens that I am very rarely happier for making another human being suffer (even without the consequences of the law). Chickens on the other hand---> yum.

Dairy cows I try not to eat for other reasons, namely health related. Remember, I'm into making myself happy.

 

Yup, and that's the way it is. Life's not fair.

I have a confession to make, kind of.

I ate a lot of meat last weekend. And boy did it taste good. But since I've been a vegetarian for a year now, it gave me serious indigestion.

Serves me right.

So I'm not going to eat meat in a long while after last weekend. But yeah, do what feels right for you. I know I do. In most cases. It might not be perfectly right, but it might not be perfectly wrong either. That in mind, keep your mind open, and don't think that what's right for you right now would be so always, or that you'd necessarily be in the right.

 

OK, please don't think I'm nit-picking...even though I might be.

Here's the thing about that statement: there is no alternative reality possible that is fair which 'life' can be. There are alternative possible realities, but none of which can violate the simple fact we are not all exactly the same. So to say that it is sad that reality is not this other reality, which is of itself impossible to exist, is creating unnecessary sadness. It is like being sad because 1+1 cannot equal three.

And be careful with the word 'life'...I missused that word for years and years as a young man (in my own head.) 'Life' is like the word 'reality', or 'universe'...or whatever other word we use to encompass everything. They lead to trouble. And yes I just used the word 'reality' a few times in the preceeding paragraph. Use with caution I suppose.

 

Hehe, I don't think there's any misunderstanding here...but I don't necessarily agree on your view of fairness. This qould deserve another topic entirely: 'What is Fair?'

 

Heh. I've been gone for quite some time. There are a lot of things in this thread to which I'd like to respond and, to save time and space, I'm not going to bother quoting most of them, save one.

Anti-Freeze is also quite tasty. So are Twinkies.

Regarding what we humans should or shouldn't subsist on, there is actually a very simple answer. We don't know, and we never will. It is inarguable that we are able to survive, even thrive, on a diet containing meat (although a purely meat-based diet will kill us in short order). That we are able to digest meat and benefit from its inclusion in our diets, however, does not connote the necessity of its consumption or that we were meant to consume it. We know that man has historically eaten (some) meat in his diet, but that, too, is not evidence that we are meant to eat it. Cows and Bunnies are also able to subsist on flesh (as proven by modern factory farming feed practices and the label on the bunny food at my neighbors house), yet no one is about to argue that nature intended for either species to subsist on flesh in any but the most extreme circumstances. Studying our physiology to find the answer tends to only lead to more questions since we lack not only many "omnivore" traits but also many "herbivore" traits. I won't go into any detail about this one, because I doubt anyone would actually find it interesting.

The big issue with which I have a problem is this sticky "choice" concept. I think invoking "choice" actually sidesteps the entire debate. For one who has made an ethical judgement, "choice" simply isn't a valid reason to do or not to do something. Most vegetarians have not done so out of a moral obligation, but an ethical one. The difference is quite a bit bigger than it looks at first blush. For something to be unethical, there must be some sort of victim. To be immoral, a victim is not unnecessary. Hence, arguments against homo-sexuality** or pre-marital sex are always framed as moral arguments as (consensual) sex victimizes or injures no one (unless you're into some really rough sex).

In other words, to a vegetarian, it isn't about you or your freedom. It's about the animal you are going to eat for lunch and its freedom. Invoke choice all you want, but, to most vegetarians, the question that follows is generally framed like this: "How, pray tell, does your choice to eat an animal supercede its choice to not be killed and eaten?" When a tiger kills a wild boor or an ancient Kshatriya looking for his first blooding, it does so because it must eat meat to survive. In the case of the tiger, the decision is one of "either you or me". It must eat meat or die. Therefore, the tiger's choice to kill clearly overrides the choice of it's victim to, uh, not be killed and we have nature in all its brutal glory....survival of the fittest. We, however, are not tigers, and have no need of animal flesh in order to survive. Choice is relative.

Regarding balanced diets. There is a common misconception about how hard it is to get enough protein without animal products in one's diet. The simple truth is that, unless you eat the exact same food all the time (a bad idea for meat eaters, too), it's actually quite hard to not get all the amino acids and nutrients that you need. Most of the vegetarians who have inadequate protein intake are either starving due to poverty or are just using "vegetarianism" to mask an eating disorder. If you ever meet a "vegan" who eats nothing but salad and raw veggies, get that person help. That "vegan" is probably anorexic and using "veganism" as a cover. Or just really, really, stupid. Either way, get help. Real vegans don't eat salad.

** Unless the ethicist is trying to argue that it is unethical not to reproduce....which would also make celibacy unethical (unless you have a turkey baster and aren't afraid to use it).

[ February 19, 2007, 18:57: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

One odd question here, not sure if it belongs or is off topic, but what is the vegan stance on honey? As far as I know honey has many good properties associated with it, yet it is an animal product (the bees' excretion or saliva, I'm not 100% sure what one). I think it probably goes along the same lines as milk but perhaps since it's from an insect and not an animal per se it could be a grey area.

 

Hey, if they're not fast or smart enough to run away, then they deserve to be dinner. My dinner.

I'm pretty sure vegans don't like honey, since it's still an animal product.

Also,

Eeeurgh.

 

well you could turn it around, when i eat part of a pig, one pig has been killed, when i eat any plant product 100s of insects die, when i eat grain, i know at least one field has been harvested, that field had it not been harvested would have been home to small animals (mouse,rats,rabbits) which are either killed in the process or die afterwards, thousands of insects die either do to the lack of a home or because the farmer sprays his field, does insects was the diet of the nearby birds who now cant life...
even the most ecological farmer kills when he harvests.

my point is not that eating vegestebles is evil, just that you cant eat without killing, no mather what. its just what you choose to focus on, why to many vegetariens turn a blind eye to thier own killing or deny its excistence and on the same time points a finger at meat-eaters for being cruel to animals.

 

As far as I'm concerned, there is no moral obligation to become vegetarian- it may give some a warm fuzzy feeling, but it is down to the individual whether they go for it.

I should point out that I am vegetarian, not because I dislike animals being killed, but simply because it is how I was brought up. I'm quite tall, healthy and in a reasonable state of fitness- so I can confidently say that not eating meat will necessarily harm you. You are only going to harm your health and growth if you eat a stupid diet (eg salads and not much else).