Moral basis

Yeah, and that's the reality for the vast majority of meat production, which is reason enough in itself to be veggie for me.

I think you're into a much greyer area morally. It starts to come down to personal ethics. I know many veggies and vegans who'd be happy to eat meat if they'd hunted and killed it themselves. Personally, I wouldn't. I don't require meat to live, and so I don't believe in taking another life just to satisfy my tastebuds. Other people see it differently. Some people would say it's part of nature and so we should just accept it, but then rape and murder are part of nature too.

 

I think we've got to the heart of the issue here. This is why I've gone from one extreme to another; I couldn't just eat meat from the supermarket and not think about its origin, as most people do. I'm actively working to get as close as possible to the source of my food - hence my new job. :-D

I think what it comes down to is whether some lives (i.e. some species) are less valuable than others. Now, the stock veggie reply is "no! all life is sacred!". Which I agree with in a sense, but I think it's a bit simplistic. Obviously there's a difference here between human and animal life. Right? No veggie would say a human life is equal to an animal, would he? Because then who says where you stop the train of logic - ants? Bacteria? Viruses? So, clearly a human life is, in some sense, 'worth' more than an animal life. The only question is, how much difference is there?

p.s. it's good to know there are some people who actually think in detail about this stuff!

 

I think that's a big step in the right direction.

I agree.

This is where it gets difficult. If you assume for a moment that humans are 'superior' to cows and pigs, does that make it right to kill and eat them? If you assume it does, then what about an advance alien civilisation turning up on earth? Would it be ok for them to eat us because they're 'superior'? I tend to think our position at the top of the food chain shoud give us responsibilities rather than rights.

It's nice to discuss these issues with a meat-eater who isn't just out trolling. It's so much more educational when people can discuss things without the need for it to be confrontational.

 

I aggree, you guys rock!!! Congrats on actually getting it done!!

 

steph: yes. rock i most certainly do. ;-D. By the way, are you familiar with Brad Strut? I've got only one track, and I can't find anything else for shit over here. Is he well known in Oz?

doc:
(quote)
This is where it gets difficult. If you assume for a moment that humans are 'superior' to cows and pigs, does that make it right to kill and eat them? If you assume it does, then what about an advance alien civilisation turning up on earth? Would it be ok for them to eat us because they're 'superior'?
(end quote)

Of course, I'm going to say "yes" to that, but I see your point. However, I'd question what "ok" means in this context. Without a religous framework that tells us what's moral and what's not, how do you define morality? Obviously it's completely subjective. I'd ask a different question: If superior alien beings came to earth, would you *expect* them to be nice to us? And who would you blame if the ate us?

The general point is valid though; I have no right to complain if I get eaten by aliens, whereas you do. However, that'll be little use when we're both being digested!

(quote)
I tend to think our position at the top of the food chain shoud give us responsibilities rather than rights.
(end quote)

Absolutely. And, to my mind, the more rights one exercises, the more responsibilities can be levied on one. Therefore, as a meat eater, I have a greater moral responsibility toward animals than does a veggie. Sadly, if you look at a typical meat-eater and a typical veggie, this is usually the other way around. :-(

wow. i wasn't expecting this!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15806870

(pubmed is pretty respectable.)

 

That's virtually impossible to answer without getting drawn into a much wider debate. Clearly, there's no such thing as objective morality, but if we proceede from that position then you may as well say that rape and murder are acceptable too, simply because we have no verifiable external framework by which to measure our actions. I therefore prefer to work from the simple supposition that it's our moral duty to cause as little suffering as possible during our lives. But that's just a personal perspective.

Yes, I'd 'excpect' them to 'be nice' to us, simply because I believe any creature with a moral faculty would understand that it doesn't have the right to exploit another specied for its own pleasure. I'd assume that any species that had been around for a sufficient length of time to master interstellar travel would have had the time to develop a responsible moral framework. Hopefully!

And yes, I would 'blame' them if they ate us, in the sense that I'd consider them morally underdeveloped if they believed they had the right to do so.

On the other hand, perhaps they'll just eat the meat-eaters

 

That's true. But, my family has a fairly large garden where we grow our year's supply of vegetables. And that's all we need to survive. Aside from that, my dad also hunts deer, and the combination of both of those is by and large our food.

No animal has ever died (to my knowledge at the very least) in our garden which we get our vegetables from for most of the year. Also: I said as a vegan, I advocate REDUCING killing as much as possible. As it stands, our society can't survive without farming, but there is a LOT that we could be doing to keep animals out of designated farmland instead of just tearing them up along with the crops.

So you haven't been involved with farming for long, and you're laughing at what I'm saying? ... Well, whatever. Have fun with that.

Are you so sure about that? Ghandi was vegan, and he sure as hell didn't go to the supermarket all the time to get food, he recieved food directly as it was grown. Don't mistake that veg*nism is something that is NEW to society by any means, it's as old as dirt. Many Indians (and I don't mean American Indians either) are also vegetarian, and vegetarianism has a looong history in Asian culture. I mean, TOFU has been around since at least the 1600's, probably longer.

Yes, life means death. You can't avoid it, but you CAN reduce it, and that is my goal. If it's not yours, well ... that shows what kind of person you are deep down.

I wasn't arguing for a moral absolute, I'm talking relatively in terms of reducing as much of the killing as we can. For me, my motives don't really come down to convenience. I'm actually very inconvenienced by being vegan. I've given away countless food items to people for free because I bought them and they turned out to be non-vegan, I've given away all my non-vegan clothes, now I check the ingredient labels on things before I buy them, and I only drive a car if it's necessary. Even while at college, I've actually stood up my parents and refused to get a car because of the damage it does to the environment. No, I'm not morally perfect -- nobody is -- but I try to do the best I can, and for me, convenience just does not come into play. Maybe for other vegans, but I don't know any vegans who allow convenience to affect their morality.

 

When you say something, don't say it unless you mean it.

You are correct there, but I think the point has evaded you just marginally. Killing doesn't cause suffering, but it does cause the end of life. Now, perhaps in your eyes, animals aren't equivalent to humans, but if you think about it ... they've been our siblings who we've inherited this Earth from. You'd think we'd have more respect for their lives, and wouldn't just disregard it and throw it away constantly. I mean, it'd be a lot harder for a bear to come up and maul you, and then for you to die and just go "oh well such is life" and let him finish you off. Now, imagine that we're doing this to millions of animals without remorse. Imagine how they feel!

Also ... I'm not as heavily concerned with death as I am suffering. As you said here, killing doesn't mean an animal suffers. My biggest problem is the way we get milk and things. There is a GREAT deal of ENTIRELY unnecessary suffering. And on top of that, there are even many instances of UNNECESSARY death.

I'm not on a crusade to stop death entirely. It CAN'T be stopped, ever. Or at least not with our current technology/morals. But, it CAN be minimized, that's my goal.

The problem is that the farmers & slaughtermen, as they are now, DON'T care for the animal well. Perhaps as a butcher, you do, so I won't assume that you personally don't. But, many, many other people don't care about how their animals are treated.

Also ... it is one thing to create life, and when you do, you have the right to take it away. It's another thing to facilitate life, and that does NOT give you the right to take it away. While that animal may not have been born without your help, that doesn't give you the right to take it away.

This analogy really fits perfectly. Rape and murder are part of nature, but our government has made them illegal, and now, there is MUCH less of it, and if it happens, there is a punishment for it. It's a better situation now then when we were, say, in the Middle Ages, when things like that were abundant, wouldn't you agree?

This is a good point. Where do we "draw the line," so to speak?

Personally, I try to consider all sentient (self-aware) life as equivalent. I honestly haven't come to a rock solid conclusion regarding things such as ants (which are not self-aware, but rather are community-aware, hive-mind so to speak), and I don't consider viruses to be lifeforms.

About bacteria and insects like ants: It'd be nice if we could reduce the deaths of these animals, but ... no matter how hard we try, that is just never going to happen. Bacteria has a VERY short lifespan compared to many other organisms, and there is no way to "save bacteria" anyway. And it's similar with ants; there is just no way to minimize death of ants.

Neither of these organisms suffer. If you step on an ant, it's dead. If you step on a bacteria, it's probably also dead.

Sentient animals like cows, chickens, etc., however all DO suffer unnecessarily because of how we treat them. That's why we need to stop.

Same back at you, even though I don't agree with your conclusions at all.

I believe in moral relativism; that is, what's moral for one person may not be moral for another. However, there are some things that should be moral for pretty much everybody. There isn't a single culture out there where the golden rule, "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" doesn't exist. That exists in EVERY culture, and government itself was formed as a social bond to preserve life (both human and non-human).

I think we CAN expect all human cultures to consider murder bad. That's murder, not killing, and it doesn't include martyrdom, sacrifice, etc. But, murder is bad in EVERY single culture, so while morals are relative, this moral happens to apply to every culture, and can be expected of every culture. And we do murder animals today.



And I'm going to stop here for today. I just woke up. This is a good discussion so far, we should keep this up until we reach a conclusion.

 

No argument with the rest of your post, but I still think you're misunderstanding the concept of convenience. If it wasn't inconvenient, then you would be morally perfect. Nobody's arguing that you don't sacrifice a lot of convenience by being vegan, but it's a balance.... your veganism is the level of inconvenience that you're prepared to accept. For other people, vegetarianism is the level of inconvenience that they're prepared to accept. For others, walking around with face-masks to avoid inhaling bugs is an acceptable inconvenience. See, you believe in reducing suffering and killing, right? So why not wear a face mask? Because it's a level of inconvenience that you're not prepared to accept.

Again, there's no offence in this. I respect everyone who does their bit to better the world in whatever way. I just think you're missing the point and taking the inconvenience thing as a criticism - which it isn't.

 

PS. I'll have to duck out of this thread for now as I don't have the time to keep up, sorry

 

Great discussion.

 

See ... I'm not concerned with reducing all killing, just the unnecessary ones that are humanity's fault. If a bug flies down my throat ... it was the BUG that flew down MY throat, I'm not going to waste time wearing a face mask, the only purpose the face mask is going to serve is to limit my visibility.

I understand what you're saying about convenience, I just don't think that there is anything (that I can help), not even one, that is too much of an inconvenience to me to prevent me from being as moral as possible. Meaning, if we (as humanity) are doing something to cause unnecessary death and suffering (other than existing and fulfilling basic human functions), and it's our fault, then I think we should try and reduce it. It's our fault, after all, and if it's unnecessary, then we CAN do away with it.

 

(quote)
Yes, life means death. You can't avoid it, but you CAN reduce it, and that is my goal. If it's not yours, well ... that shows what kind of person you are deep down.
(end quote)

As the doctor points out, it's all about convenience; one tries to prevent as many deaths as is convenient. Personally, I was unhappy with this calculus when I was a veggie, and my position now is that there's nothing inherently wrong with killing an animal, as long as it serves some purpose (other than fun!). Now, causing an animal suffering is a different story. I don't think for a second that we have the right to cause animals as much suffering as we like, but I do think that taking their lives is not a moral issue. As you've said, morality is relative, so you're unlikely to agree with this. However, I'm sure we can agree that, for example, feeding a dog a vegetarian diet is idiotic? I know people who do this, and it never ceases to amaze me that people can lose sight of the point of their decisions so readily.

 

(quote)
Mountain plovers
(end quote)

Are they anything like golden plovers?

 

I still disagree on the point of convenience (at least in my case and in the cases of several vegans whom I know), because I have yet to come across any issue that I don't act according to my morals on simply because it's too out of my way. There MAY (and probably are) be places where I'm immoral because I'm ignorant and haven't considered some issue, but for those that I've considered, I've never backed down because it was too inconvenient.

As for animal killing ... you argue it's not a moral issue, but ... it is. This is what we've been talking about for the last 30 posts. Maybe for you it's not an issue, but ... well, here's my argument:

Humans (and animals) are born with a certain attachment to life that they do not want to give up (the will to live), whether it's out of hope or whatever. Because of this, humanity created the government, which has outlawed and set punishments for murder (as well as torture), and is designed to protect the lives of its citizens. Now, in EVERY human culture, the golden rule "do unto others as others would have done unto you" holds true. You'll see this in Western societies, Eastern societies, and (though it's improperly practiced in some societies) pretty much everywhere.

This is a moral that is shared between all people; there would be no civilitiy whatsoever if this moral didn't exist; the foundations of honour, justice, punishment, government, etc. would never have come to exist. After all, government itself is a social contract between people where people sacrifice some of their liberties in order to protect others (including the right to live and the right to be happy, or not suffer). This means, having grown up in a society where this moral value does indeed exist, *you can (and should) be held accountable for failing to uphold this rule.* (though I'm not saying you should be punished for it, you can be held accountable)

My point is ... every being has the right to live if they so desire. Animals DO desire to live. And while morals ARE relative, this moral happens to be relative to EVERYONE (including you no doubt), because the basis of our world and every society is founded on it. If you purposefully take away that right to life of an animal, it is flat out murder. And the United States government DOES punish for animal cruelty (though they haven't acknowledged animals as bretheren to humans because our society is also founded on the mispractice of that golden rule, where somewhere along the line, we stopped needing to kill animals to survive, but we still did it anyway because it never occurred to us morally to stop).

Now, killing out of ignorance is NOT illegal in most governments, though if it's your ignorance that was the major killing factor, you can still be held responsible and be punished. So if there are some animals that can be saved by a farmer's precaution before he harvests, and he doesn't save them, he should be held accountable. If there are some animals that CAN'T be saved (like ants for example, and would saving them even be worthwhile since they have a collective consciousness that doesn't die when a single ant dies?), then that isn't necessary to hold accountable to someone.

So ... murdering an animal is immoral (even by your morals on which you've based every day of your life), and so is cruelty (though you probably aren't even guilty of that). That's how I come to this conclusion. Even though morality is relative, there are some morals that are still upheld in every society, because the basis of any society requires them.

As for feeding a dog vegetarian diet ... studies have shown that it makes the dog healthier. There may be studies that show the opposite as well, but ... why wouldn't you feed your dog a vegetarian diet, if it was healthier? I wouldn't stop a dog from eating meat, but the food I provide wouldn't be meat-based, that's for sure. I'd feed my dog a vegetarian diet not mainly because of morals, though; primarily because of health. And also, because then, any lettuce or scraps that I have extra at the end of the night, I can give to me pup and he'll probably be more likely to wolf it down. Haha.

 

well said hikaru

 

Ah, now I see where we're at cross-purposes. If this is your position, then I'd argue that you're allowing convenience to blind you to the inherent immorality of huge portions of our daily lives.

 

oh ya, i've thought of that. isnt that why there's fruitittarians?