| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/9/2009 10:09:32 PM | | I killed a chicken once. Couldn't eat meat for about a week. Got over this and wonder what is the purpose of cattle? If you don't eat beef or pork, do they all become pets? Maybe we should eat all the cattle, pigs, etc. and then just raise dairy cows. Just wondering why food is the ticket to some prized intelligence? Intelligence is transitory and subject to history and your place in the scheme. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/10/2009 8:03:49 AM | I haven't read the entire thread, so someone may have already pointed out that Hitler was a vegetarian. Guess that ends the debate on whether being vegan imparts more ethics on someone. He was also strongly anti-smoking, so all you smokers out there can tell people who want you to quit to stop trying to turn you into Hitler  | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/10/2009 8:34:46 AM | ^^^^
Sounds more like Hitler was into ethical eating more than he was into ethical governing. Just because he was the primary mover behind the 'final solution' doesn't mean that he was a total demon. I also heard that he was nice to his dog and a half decent artist.
I hope actually that your post was a joke. | |
|
| |
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/10/2009 8:49:11 AM | I hope actually that your post was a joke.
It definitely was a joke ( PoF should have anoption so joking/sarcastic posts are italicized or a different colour).
But it does show that being vegan doesn't automatically make the person more ethical and moral than society. And the thread title implys that becoming vegan somehow removes the vegan from society rather than making them a different facet of society.
If we weren't meant to eat meat, we wouldn't have incisors and canine teeth. You can choose to not eat meat ( more power to you, that'll leave more for the rest of us). | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/10/2009 12:43:14 PM |
Given that most, if not all, vegans have cats...I'm confused as to what they feed them.
Maybe nothing...but I'll bet there aren't many birds or mice around the house.
Cat's are not omnivorous, so for a vegan to deliberately not feed meat to their cat would be a no-no. Then again, who says they have a right to keep a cat as a pet? Doesn't the cat have any say? Why not? | |
|
| |
| |
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/10/2009 8:56:49 PM |
Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society
This question cannot be answered without defining morality.
If you claim it is immoral to cause unnecessary suffering, then one must conclude that vegans and peta are indeed more moral and ethical than society.
Unless you claim that animals can not be included in the definition of morality. I can see no other argument other than this one in countering the claim that vegans are more moral.
So this entire argument has to be centered around the question of whether or not causing unnecessary suffering to animals is immoral.
It seems that the majority of people clearly believe that it is not immoral to cause unnecessary suffering to animals, regardless of the fact that we are ourselves animals. This observation, in my opinion, answers many questions about the underlying causes of human suffering including wars, pollution, and atrocities throughout history. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/10/2009 9:07:52 PM |
It seems that the majority of people clearly believe that it is not immoral to cause unnecessary suffering to animals, regardless of the fact that we are ourselves animals. This observation, in my opinion, answers many questions about the underlying causes of human suffering including wars, pollution, and atrocities throughout history.
Or it could just simply sum up to the way nature works.
You know....... little fish eats algae, bigger fish eats little fish, biggest fish eats bigger fish..... then AncientMuse comes along with a fishing rod and worm, catches biggest fish, then AncientMuse takes a picture of biggest fish and gets master angler award, then throws biggest fish in frying pan with lots of garlic butter, and then proceeds to eat biggest fish. Note: If AncientMuse happens to be fishing in cougar country, AncientMuse may very well end up as cougar dinner.
Or something like that. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/10/2009 9:52:54 PM |
AncientMuse may very well end up as cougar dinner.
With or without garlic butter?...Ethical people want to know! Do you think it's OK for the couger to kill & eat you as long as he "respects" your sacrifice? Is garlic butter a sign of respect or disrespect?  | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/10/2009 10:02:10 PM | As far as I'm concerned garlic butter is definately a sign of respect toward any living being that's about to sweep across my palate........ And herb potatoes as a side dish just proves my love and worship that much further.
Should the cougar get his chops on me, he had bloody well wash me down with the garlic butter and herb potatoes, lest he be sacriligious !
 | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/10/2009 10:13:22 PM | In my own case, I'm allergic to garlic, so the garlic butter would be a sign of disrespect to me.
In the event I'm ever killed by a cougar, do you think I should keep a Dukky L'Orange recipe (with serving instructions) in my wallet, so he could cook me with proper respect? | |
|
| |
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/11/2009 6:41:16 AM | Or it could just simply sum up to the way nature works.
The question I asked is:
Is it immoral to cause “unnecessary” suffering to animals.
Eating meat is not necessary.
You can’t just make the claim that lions do it so why don’t we. Lions need to kill animals to survive. Humans do not.
And certainly factory farms are not within the natural order of things. They are an aberration and exist merely for convenience, and lifestyle choice of the people that support them.(meat eaters)
So again, in answer to the OP question. Yes, Vegans and PETA are more moral and ethical than society. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/11/2009 6:52:18 AM | >>>Is it immoral to cause “unnecessary” suffering to animals.
Define Necessity.
>>>Eating meat is not necessary.
Hate to challenge your generalizations, but for some people, yes, it is. Its either eat meat or die.
Which, of course, begs to question- if the only way to reach that morality is to die yourself, what kind of morality are you offering? What kind of morality offers only death to those who follow? | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/11/2009 7:12:22 AM |
And certainly factory farms are not within the natural order of things. They are an aberration and exist merely for convenience, and lifestyle choice of the people that support them.
These arguments are absurd. EVERYTHING that we do and every process or invention that we have created is 'not within the natural order of things'. Assembly lines, washing machines, atm's, the wheel, and even cultivating plants are all unnatural and 'exist merely for convenience'. I can't help but notice that these two particular arguments don't seem to dissuade you from using your computer or the internet..... | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/11/2009 7:33:36 AM | These arguments are absurd. EVERYTHING that we do and every process or invention that we have created is 'not within the natural order of things'
True, however my response was to the argument of comparing us to lions in that eating meat is natural, so therefore moral.
There is nothing natural about factory farms. The comparison is not valid.
Technology in itself is neither moral nor immoral, how it is used can be either.
You are attempting to cloud the question.
Is it immoral to cause “unnecessary” suffering to animals?
Hate to challenge your generalizations, but for some people, yes, it is. Its either eat meat or die.
You are grasping at straws Jip.
Very few in the western world are in the position you describe. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/11/2009 7:40:06 AM | I guess that would depend on your definition of 'natural'. I would put eating meat in the 'natural' category because we were doing it long before we used technological advances, that were unavailable to other species, to procure the meat. That we NOW use unnatural methods of collection or production, does not make the act of humans eating meat 'unnatural'.
IMO, whether something is 'moral' is independent of whether it is 'natural'. If that was your point, then I agree. Although by your conclusion that vegans are more ethical.....I didn't feel that was all your implying by your comments about factory farms.
I would also argue that the distinction between unnatural and natural is arbitrary at best, but that's a discussion for another thread. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/11/2009 6:22:54 PM |
I guess that would depend on your definition of 'natural'. I would put eating meat in the 'natural' category because we were doing it long before we used technological advances, that were unavailable to other species, to procure the meat.
Also if we weren't meant to eat meat we wouldn't have incisor and canine teeth. Since we do, eating meat is perfectly natural for humans. How you acquire that meat ( factory farm or free range for example) is the issue. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/11/2009 9:08:53 PM | Sorry Susan, but humans are far more adapted to a vegetarian diet.
Meat-eaters: have claws
Herbivores: no claws
Humans: no claws
Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores
Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat
Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater
Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits
Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains
However the main indication we are not meant to eat meat is the number of diseases attributed to eating meat:
high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, gallbladder disease, obesity and resulting osteoarthritis, food poisoning and cancers of the colon, lung, ovary and prostate
In fact, an analysis published in the current issue of Preventive Medicine, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Health Foundation, a nonprofit organization devoted to research on preventive health measures, estimated the health costs of the nation's current omnivorous diet at $28.6 billion to $61.4 billion a year, comparable to that of smoking.
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/11/21/science/health-cost-of-meat-diet-is-billions-study-says.html?pagewanted=all | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/11/2009 9:22:11 PM | | You left out omnivores, which are quite variable. You ignored non-human primates, which are most definitely omnivorous, including predation on other primates. Your comparative list turns out to be fairly meaningless because most, if not all, of the "herbivore" characteristics are present in omnivorous primates other than humans. Additionally, the carnivore traits are widespread in species which ALSO happen to eat...vegetation. Surprise, surprise. Nice try at flogging the agenda though. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/11/2009 11:29:27 PM |
These arguments are absurd. EVERYTHING that we do and every process or invention that we have created is 'not within the natural order of things'. Assembly lines, washing machines, atm's, the wheel, and even cultivating plants are all unnatural and 'exist merely for convenience'. I can't help but notice that these two particular arguments don't seem to dissuade you from using your computer or the internet.....
Not absurd at all. Clearly there is a difference between the inanimate objects you've mentioned here and animals which have central nervous systems, feel pain and fear, and suffer confinement in many cases.
While I do feet that some vegetarians/vegans have adopted moralizing language to stigmatize non-vegetarians, on the whole I still believe that they are generally more likely to be moralistic than the general population. From a moral standpoint, actions that harm others are not matters of personal choice.
I haven't read the entire thread, so someone may have already pointed out that Hitler was a vegetarian. Guess that ends the debate on whether being vegan imparts more ethics on someone. He was also strongly anti-smoking, so all you smokers out there can tell people who want you to quit to stop trying to turn you into Hitler
It's been a while since we've seen Godwin's law invoked here in this thread - thanks for that.
Tootles....... | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 12:01:28 AM | However the main indication we are not meant to eat meat is the number of diseases attributed to eating meat:
high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, gallbladder disease, obesity and resulting osteoarthritis, food poisoning and cancers of the colon, lung, ovary and prostate
But then we evolved for a nomadic hunting life filled with constant and often strenuous activity, not a life spent sitting watching TV, sitting 8 hours a day at work, sitting playing video games. Don't blame the eating of meat for health problems that arise from a sedentary lifestyle.
Eating meat doesn't cause obesity, eating potato chips while engaging in no physical activity does.
Sorry Susan, but humans are far more adapted to a vegetarian diet.
We can't digest hay.
Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue
Herbivores: perspire through skin pores
Humans: perspire through skin pores
This proves that we are a better adaptation than meat eaters.
Meat-eaters: have claws Herbivores: no claws Humans: no claws There are several marsupial herbivores with claws so this argument is void. Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding
Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding
Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding Our canines are sharp, perhaps not as sharp as a wolf's or cats but they are sharp. Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.
Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits
Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits Which is why we are omnivores, and can eat meat as well as some parts of plants. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 9/12/2009 12:06:10 AM |
It's been a while since we've seen Godwin's law invoked here in this thread - thanks for that.
My post was only borderline Godwin's law; I didn't compare anyone to Hitler ( which is the main thrust of the Law) I pointed out a fact ( he was a vegetarian) and suggested that anti smokers could be called out ( jokingly) for trying to make others more like Hitler.
In any event, the fact he was a vegetarian would seem to me to prove that being a vegetarian doesn't mean you are more moral or ethical. | |
|
Home
login 
