|
|
|
|
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 10/28/2009 7:33:52 AM | I would probabley verge a "yes" were they actually advocating and practicing a vegan lifestyle (although it depends what you term as "moral", but I would assume compassion and empathy for other autonomous beings as well as enviromental responsibility goes some way into this)
But then, I remember, most of them are complete hypocrits, especially PETA.
PETA says: We're more moral because we don't like to exploit other lives for our pleasure.
PETA does: Terrorism and infringment upon other's property/saftey/freedom to put their point across. Advocating compassion and respect with violence and disrespect, that's ace.
Were they advocating LAWS, as in YOU MUST DO THIS. I wouldn't have such a problem, the problem is they're advocating something that is a CHOICE, as in we can either decide to do this, or not. To accept the methods PETA deploy is like saying religious terrorism is OK. Here we have people using violence against others because "their choice of life is apparently more moral than ours".
Sheepskin or ski-mask, a terrorist is a terrorist.
I don't have too much of a gripe with Vegans/vegitatarians. My brother is a vegitarian. I only have problems when a few characteristics emerge which instantly stop the possibility of them being moral agents.
1) Preaching their choice as superior. Nobody's choice is better. This shows as lack of respect for my freedom of choices, which is one of the most moral freedoms you can observe and preserve.
2) Vegis/Vegans who eat Quorn products etc. I'm sorry, but all of my compassion/acknowledgement towards your choice as great willpower goes out the windows when you eat something that has been made to look exactly like cooked/prepared animal. Oh, but it isn't, it still kinda defies the point. Surely a vegi/vegan objects to the entire process, so eating something reminiscent of that process is somehow ok? :S
If they are a vegitarian merely because they hate the taste of meat, fair enough. But I can't tolerant the ones who preach i'm satan because I hate on the animals as they stuff their faces with quorn burger and sausage. In this scenario, to me, we're both showing a lack of respect towards animals. Me perhaps more so because I actually eat meat, but I am open about it, whereas their moral stance is made ambigious and wierd.
3) the ones who use PETA ideaology. There are far better ways to get your point across. If you stand for non-exploitation and non-violence, why not use those methods. If PETA rallied their numbers and actually petitioned, set up animal and land-conservation, compaigned to have land set aside for agriculture farming (to reduce need to using animals) I would tip my hat off to them. But no, they do not offer a solution, instead they say "you're wrong, so we will do this to you".
These aside, I actually have respect for the vegis/vegans who manage to solicit themselves to their choice, and do not feel the need to wish burning meteors upon everyone else's head. They're the moral guys because they show respect for PEOPLE and ANIMALS. This in my opinion makes these few who observe moral behaviours more moral.
--
I'm a meat eater myself, but to those who keep saying we're carnivores. We're not, we are omnivores. If we were carnivores, we would not eat anything but meat period. Vegitarianism would not be a choice, it would be a method of suicide. Carnivores live on diets of purely meat because usually they have need for high amounts of energy, which protein in the form of meat contains lots of (easily ready energy). Carnivores never eat vegatables. If they do, they become omnivores.
Carnivores also prey on the animals they eat. A farmer who raises animals and eats meat only could be described as a carnivore, as he's doing the hunting. Mr Smith who "nets" his prey for a cool £2.99 at Sainsbury would be described better perhaps as something else. Maybe detrivore applies. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 10/28/2009 8:59:06 AM | First, Jiperly, I could tell you wrote your response with a furrowed brow. Take it easy buddy!
"Oh, I realise it. And I choose to eat meat. If its an option, who are you to judge? Aren't you showing a grave ammount of hubris to dicate morality on personal opinions and choices?"
Everyone talks about 'choices' when it comes to eating meat. But really, is it a choice? If your 'choice' didn't mean the suffering of innocent animals without thanks or remorse, or the devastation modern agriculture poses on our planet, then I would tell you to eat your little heart out. But your choice does affect me, it affects all of us. It can be likened to the battle against smokers, or drunk drivers. Your choice affects me, therefore I care.
"And what if you were raised a Vegan? Wouldn't the same argument conclude that you must eat meat?"
No one is talking about 'you must' anything. I'm talking about how one is raised. A vegan child will question their veganism a lot more thoroughly than the typical 'meat eater' child and their diet, and that is the difference. When you are a norm in society, it's easy to get comfortable being like everyone else. Thinking outside the box hurts!
"Oh get off your crucifix. "
Why the hostility? It's how I, among many others, feel. It's called compassion and the ability to think outside one's self. It's very real.
"Thats all you have to say on this? "anger"
Yes, that's all I have to say about it. You're assuming the whole organization is built of radicals and those seeking revenge. There are many more dedicated, peaceful activists who are doing a lot of good for animals and our planet, it just doesn't make Fox news headlines (where it seems like most people get their information from?).
And cut it out with the dramatic 'terrorist' spiel. Yikes.
"we must either agree with their beliefs, or they will hurt you .... And that goes against everything our country stands for."
Tell this to the Native Americans, or the Japanese, or or or.... I can't even begin to touch on this sentence.
"Anyone notice they announced they are right, and yet at no point explains WHY they are right?"
Suffering is wrong. Can you deny this?
If you could help reduce the suffering in the world by your actions every day, wouldn't you?
Nothing can ever justify suffering, and I won't let my taste buds dictate my morals.
"Because children make the best choices in life. Thats why we give them the freedom to smoke or not until they've reached 5- then they're courrpted forever...."
A child won't pick up a cigarette and start smoking it unless he is influenced through trust or fear. Not sure where you're going with that.
A child still has the ability to feel compassion, live adventurously, live in the now,and question every thing. Over time, most of us lose these abilities due to social pressures. A child does not have the ability to reason like us, but they do have the ability to feel much much more.
It sounds like it wouldn't hurt for you to do some research on animal rights, and modern agriculture. Maybe you won't be so angry and defensive against this 'choice' of yours.
I realize I'm just feeding the 'anti vegan' flame, and I know I won't be changing your mind about anything. Just couldn't leave your response unanswered.
Cheers. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 10/28/2009 12:14:25 PM | >>> But really, is it a choice?
Yes, it is. You said so in your first post, remember?
"Many people who have yet to go vegan just don't realize that it's an option."
>>>If your 'choice' didn't mean the suffering of innocent animals without thanks or remorse, or the devastation modern agriculture poses on our planet, then I would tell you to eat your little heart out.
In that case, is electricity really a "choice"? After all, there is no form of developing electricity that doesn't require us to destroy the enviroment, and kill untold number of animals.Gas, Coal- these kinds pollute the air and water, and may attribute to massive unnatural global changes. Nuclear creates dangerous cancer causing agents. Hydroelectric floods land that may once have been home to thousands if not millions of animals. And Wind kills birds- and all these forms of electricity require you mine metals from the Earth, further destorying habitats and creating death.
Admit it- you cannot act like you are somehow above the suffering of animals if you are sitting there on your PC. The power it drains and the resources it is made of could only have been made through the death and destruction of animals and nature- and while you find it completely unacceptable to raise animals to eat, you find nothing wrong with killing animals so you can entertain yourself on a dating website.
>>>A vegan child will question their veganism a lot more thoroughly than the typical 'meat eater' child and their diet, and that is the difference.
Oh really? That seems like a rather broad generalization. Isn't the opposite equally possible? And what is a "typical 'meat eater'"?
>>>It's called compassion and the ability to think outside one's self. It's very real.
You feel sorry for animals- that doesn't mean you feel phsyical pain. You're acting like you are taking on the lashes for our sins- and you're not- you're not even willing to turn off your lights.
>>>You're assuming the whole organization is built of radicals and those seeking revenge.
Not at all- but you are acting like individuals who commit acts of violence are merely peeved off- they're not- they're insane. Nothing- NOTHING gives them the right to act as they do, regardless of how much compassion they feel. If a Jewish man feels compassion for all the people eating Shellfish in the world, does that mean its okay for him to get angry and begin burning down grocery stores? If a Christian is mad that Evolution is becoming a more popular theory than Creationism, does that mean its okay for them to start burning down schools?
>>>And cut it out with the dramatic 'terrorist' spiel. Yikes.
Why? Its apt- These people are committing acts of violence because other people won't agree to do as they say. Thats the very defination of terrorism.
>>>Tell this to the Native Americans, or the Japanese,
I don't recall any Japanese being killed in the camps, although I could be wrong. And do our countries stand for these ideals now? Is Canada the same Canada it was in the 1700's and 1800's?
>>>Suffering is wrong. Can you deny this?
Can you deny your lifestyle is devoid of suffering?
Shit, G2G- I'll discuss the rest when I can :P | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 10/28/2009 6:59:15 PM | Ok, while you're away then, I'll start where you finished off :)
"In that case, is electricity really a "choice"? ....."
I fail to understand the association with electricty and harvesting animals for unnecessary consumption. One does not justify the other. Modern agriculture results in almost as much waste and destruction as oil/gas companies. This doesn't mean it gives you grounds to contribute to it. And if it be said, veganism is a great way to show you care for the planet re: climate change.
There are forms of power that won't contribute to the amount of destruction the oil and gas industries do. I think all other sources of power would, actually. Nuclear power is a clean source of energy, and with the intelligence and science that we hold today, a nuclear power plant failure (which would result in your cancer claim), is drastically reduce. It's too bad we have so many fear-mongers in society saying otherwise. It's been said that nuclear power might be our only realistic hope at combatting climat change. Anyways.
"Admit it- you cannot act like you are somehow above the suffering of animals if you are sitting there on your PC"
I don't understand this logic, yet again. So because many lives were taken from the result of building computers/internet, I should continue to take lives because I want to? We should continue to rape and harvest the natural world for our own self interest, because we always have? Traditionalism in today's world gets us no where.
"And what is a "typical 'meat eater'"?"
Someone who doesn't take into consideration what they are eating. They do not, or can not, at this time, assocation what they're eating with mind/body/soul and the natural world.
"You feel sorry for animals- that doesn't mean you feel phsyical pain. "
Do not tell me how I feel. There would not be animal rights activists if we did not feel pain for the animals we are trying to save. It's a deep, mental pain that goes beyond body. You don't understand it, your replies are evidence.
"NOTHING gives them the right to act as they do, regardless of how much compassion they feel."... and.. "Why? Its apt- These people are committing acts of violence because other people won't agree to do as they say. Thats the very defination of terrorism."
I already said anger helps no cause, even if it is noble. Have you heard of greenisthenewred.com ? It might be worth it to take a peak. No one in the Animal Rights movement have taken a life (in the last 30 years, on record). If you call arson and theft, and desire for freedom, then I'm sad to say that a lot of people are terrorists, in your definition.
"Can you deny your lifestyle is devoid of suffering?"
Unfortunately, I can't. But I can tell you that I do my very best to eliminate as much cruelty and suffering in my life as possible. And that is what veganism is about.
:) | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 10/28/2009 7:33:42 PM |
I fail to understand the association with electricty and harvesting animals for unnecessary consumption
I don't understand this logic.......
That's because there is no logical approach used here. It's the standard tactic by the poster to try very hard to continually set the truth adrift, by burying it under every conceivable obfuscation, followed by piles of bullshit thrown on top of that.
Because there are so many truths espoused by many of the vegetarian posters, critics constantly use these obfuscating tactics, such as the applications and abuses of agriculture and electricity, etc., in an attempt to strip the gravity from the argument. You're correct, your well-structured and coherent arguments are too tough to tackle with head-on logic, so chicanery must be used to trick you into wasting time and providing endless links to prove your point. You'll notice as time wears on that they won't provide you with the same courtesy.
Most people see it for the transparency that it is.
Namaste........ | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 10/28/2009 10:24:55 PM | critics constantly use these obfuscating tactics, such as the applications and abuses of agriculture and electricity, etc., in an attempt to strip the gravity from the argument.
SOME do. Not all.
Jiperly makes some valid points, although they stray a bit far from the point to be useful, and could be considered fallacious.
The OP asked for a generalization. There really is only one answer to that, and it is "no". Neither PETA nor vegans alone can be considered more "moral", and in combination, PETA drags everyone into the gutter. A long winded post a page or two back, regarding the origins of the term "vegan", and related matters, brings additional fallacious arguments. Veganism is a dietary choice, but that post presented it as if it were a homogenous culture or religion. Since it isn't, the entire post is moot. Vegans do not, by any stretch of the imagination, adhere to all the same beliefs and actions, and they do not BECOME vegan for the same reasons. Even vegan 'ideals' are of questionable morality and ethics. Individuals and practice are just as unethical and amoral as any other average chunk of society.
Another problem is that the claims of ethics and morality arise almost exclusively from issues related to the use of animals. Since when are ethics or morality exclusively concerns for human relations with animals? One can maintain a strict vegan diet and still be a mass murderer, racist, slumlord, or Amazonian gold miner. Would such a person have "superior" morality simply because they are kind to animals? Nope. More fallacy. Not only do PETA and vegans fail collectively and separately as groups, simply on animal-related grounds, but they also fail the question because there are additional standards which are never even addressed.
Hypocrisy abounds, and it negates any claim of superior ethics. PETA would seem to be defined by hypocrisy. Morality is another matter. It seems to be defined almost entirely by those who claim superiority. Being subjective, it's a bit pointless, but again PETA and no shortage of vegans are all too happy to violate their own standards. By definition then, they rule out any superiority. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 10/31/2009 1:42:41 PM | Bah- Frogo made such excellent points, it really discouraged me from continuing my arguments, since they look like crap in comparison lol
Nonetheless;
>>>I fail to understand the association with electricty and harvesting animals for unnecessary consumption.
I'm arguing that electricity and computers are an unnessary consumption of resources and causes animals to suffer and die. Just as you do not need to eat animals- that using animals as livestock lowers their standard of living- you do not need to surf the net, or own a computer.
You're arguing that raising animals for consumption is unfair, and cruel, and that you are morally superior because you do not cause animal suffering in this regard. I'm arguing that destorying animals habitats for the production of electricity and the extraction of resources it takes to construct such things as computers, wires, and pipes, is wasteful, and equally cruel, and unfair- and you are not morally superior, but rather, are on the same moral pretense as the rest of us.
Basically, refusing to cause animals to suffer on one issue does not negate the fact that you are causing animals to suffer on the premise that it inconviences you if you don't. If you were truly as saintly and morally superior as you claim and wish for others to believe, you wouldn't so calliously throw away the lives of animals so you can surf the net.
>>>And if it be said, veganism is a great way to show you care for the planet re: climate change.
Howso? Don't heavy farming equipment, such as combines, use a great deal of gas and oil? And, again, if the greatest contributor of climate change is electricity and cars, then why aren't you renouncing those?
Its as if you, I, and all our friends go around starting forest fires- but you believe you are morally superior because you stamp out the fire if it touches weeds. It isn't about saving the planet- you're destorying it, just like everyone else- and it isn't about saving lives- because you're not willing to save lives if it means you can't visit Facebook. Its about you trying to feel better about your impact- morality has nothing to do with it.
>>> Nuclear power is a clean source of energy
This I actually agree on- I just assumed you'd be anti-nuclear, so I didn't feel the need to present it as an alterative and open that can of worms.
>>>So because many lives were taken from the result of building computers/internet, I should continue to take lives because I want to?
No, you don't get it- lives are continuely being taken for the production and maintaince of these products. Its not as if we have all the plastic in the world now, so the damage is done- the damage is still being made, and every time your tax dollars pay for pipe repairs, cable repairs or upgrades or extentions, and, of course, resources, from silcon to plastic to metal to wood- whenever you turn on a light, a computer, a TV or charge your cell phone- all of these cause the death, disease and destruction of animals and their habitats
>>> We should continue to rape and harvest the natural world for our own self interest, because we always have?
Again, statements like those is why I feel my arguments are justified. When you wrote "rape and harvest the nautral world", you intended its use to mean the consumption of animals- I feel the rape and harvest of natural resources is equally an important issue, if not a more important one- and I find it offensive that you would attempt to gain a sense of superiority, while claiming others are your inferiors, because of ideals that only go so far as to not inconvience you.
>>>Someone who doesn't take into consideration what they are eating.
You honestly believe that everyone who eats meat has never considered where that meat comes from? That seems to be a very niave way to look at the world- that either someone agrees with you, or they simply haven't thought about it. Is it impossible that people could simply disagree?
>>> It's a deep, mental pain that goes beyond body.
Ha! Try telling that to someone whose suffering third degree burns that your pity for animals is greater than their pain.
>>>I already said anger helps no cause, even if it is noble.
I'm not talking about anger- I'm talking about violence- and violence in the name of any ideal is never noble.
>>>No one in the Animal Rights movement have taken a life (in the last 30 years, on record)
How do you know this? And why is murder bad, but death threats are good? Telling someone that you will kill their children on their way to school because their family eats pheasent- thats okay- but if you actually do it, thats not? Why the distinction? Isn't violence violence? Isn't terrorizing people for disagreeing with you still terrorism? Why should people who simply have different ideals have to live in fear of vegans? What kind of morality justifies such immoral actions? | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 10/31/2009 2:37:12 PM |
Coming from both ends of the spectrum, (eating a 'normal' diet for 21 years, and vegan for almost 1 year), I can say with some experience that yes, those who omit animal products from their life are more ethical and moral than those who *know the cruelty of the meat industry/factory farms, and the environmental impact of their so called 'choice' yet continue their baseless consumption without remorse*. I can not fault those who continue to eat meat based on ignorance, as I too was one of them. Didn't read the whole thread but I bet there's some interesting discussion, anyway my thoughts: Look in your mouth....there are teeth in there called "canines" Taken from their similarity to Canines no doubt. Dogs I think are omnivores (they eat plants & animals). Why do we have these teeth and not the type of teeth strict vegetarian animals have? You can't deny nature.
Many people who have yet to go vegan just don't realize that it's an option. It's an option but for many not a good one. Sorry but I have came across many vegans/vegetarians and I'm sorry to say that a good portion of them are a bit 'unfocused' mentally and I honestly believe this has to do with them not getting enough of certain kinds of nutrients/fats etc their body requires to be satisfied both physically and mentally. There is NO vegetarian thing I have ever tried (and I've tried many) that can compare with the satisfaction (chemical feelings of happiness/satiation) of eating a good rib eye steak or nice piece of fatty salmon. And that indicates to me again (as with the teeth) that we humans are DESIGNED to eat meat and not just plants. | |
|
| |
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 10/31/2009 2:54:07 PM |
Pol Pot was a vegan.
If that's the case he must have had all the goodness boiled out of him. He should have either been eaten raw, or quickly boiled and thrown immediately afterward into ice-water.  | |
|
| |
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 11/3/2009 3:27:38 PM |
The OP asked for a generalization. There really is only one answer to that, and it is "no". Neither PETA nor vegans alone can be considered more "moral", and in combination, PETA drags everyone into the gutter. A long winded post a page or two back, regarding the origins of the term "vegan", and related matters, brings additional fallacious arguments. Veganism is a dietary choice, but that post presented it as if it were a homogenous culture or religion. Since it isn't, the entire post is moot. Vegans do not, by any stretch of the imagination, adhere to all the same beliefs and actions, and they do not BECOME vegan for the same reasons. Even vegan 'ideals' are of questionable morality and ethics. Individuals and practice are just as unethical and amoral as any other average chunk of society.
No, it is not merely a dietary choice any more than the decision to eat only kosher food or observe Ramadan are dietary choices. If your dietary habits centre around a decision to reduce consumption of animals to reduce impact on the environment, or avoid their pain and suffering, that is not merely a “dietary choice.”
I happen to love the taste of meat, and I also love sweets. As a diabetic, I MUST refrain from a diet of sweets as it is a life or death matter for me. I could ignore my doctor’s advice and eat sweets anyway, which would be a conscious dietary choice that would shorten my life. As a vegetarian, I choose to avoid meat because I won’t consciously partake in inflicting suffering, participate in an inefficient use of resources, or consume animals that bear a genetic similarity to myself – i.e. for MORAL reasons.
If I deny myself a food item for a reason other than absolute necessity, weight gain/weight loss, sports training, cardiovascular health, avoidance of cancers, inability to afford meat, eating disorders, or food allergies, you could safely conclude that it is probably due to a taxonomy-based exclusionary diet – a MORAL imperative. Does that make me mo moral than the next person? Perhaps yes, or perhaps not. But the “ideals” themselves will withstand scrutiny.
Another problem is that the claims of ethics and morality arise almost exclusively from issues related to the use of animals. Since when are ethics or morality exclusively concerns for human relations with animals? One can maintain a strict vegan diet and still be a mass murderer, racist, slumlord, or Amazonian gold miner. Would such a person have "superior" morality simply because they are kind to animals? Nope. More fallacy. Not only do PETA and vegans fail collectively and separately as groups, simply on animal-related grounds, but they also fail the question because there are additional standards which are never even addressed.
Ethics are not exclusively concerned with animals, and no one claimed they were. Vegetarians could surely also be mass-murderers and slumlords, but because many of us abstain from meat because animals bear a genetic similarity to us, we are UNLIKELY to murder, rape, or pillage mankind for the very same reason. We also make other decisions to lessen support for cruel or unjust institutions – of humankind. We tend to be morally motivated towards not furthering processes that we don’t support. Even if I could send Dubya down the chute to a very quick death, I would choose to refrain from doing so.
Another mistake is assuming that the philosophy of PETA is synonymous with that of vegetarians or even vegans. Why must vegetarians or vegans align themselves with a specific group? Have you joined a club for foodies? Why or why not? Secondly, why does PETA fail as a moral group? Because they euthanize animals? Because one of their directors is a diabetic who requires insulin? Whether you agree with PETA or not, and many vegetarians and vegans do not, they espouse a philosophy of change – they are not a humane society and therefore not equipped to rescue animals outright. That is merely one reason why their euthanasia rates are so high.
Hypocrisy abounds, and it negates any claim of superior ethics. PETA would seem to be defined by hypocrisy. Morality is another matter. It seems to be defined almost entirely by those who claim superiority. Being subjective, it's a bit pointless, but again PETA and no shortage of vegans are all too happy to violate their own standards. By definition then, they rule out any superiority.
How are vegans violating their own standards? I’m anxious to observe all these omnivores eating a diet consistent with what actual omnivores eat – bugs, for example. Aside from not eating a diet that includes insects, the biggest meat-eating hypocrites I’ve met are those who profess to change their diet so they can bang a cute vegetarian girl. And don’t forget those folks who want to eat meat but are not willing to butcher it themselves - that would likely include most of the peeps in this thread. There is a huge difference between a person who kills an animal because they have no alternative food source and therefore, no other option to survive, and a modern foodie who eats a ham or veal sandwich purchased at a fast food outlet, which required that animals live in deprived or even ghoulish conditions in order to satisfy this dietary preference. Would you like fries with that? Hypocrisy abounds, don’t it? Yeah……..
Most people are hypocritical at one time or another, but you assume that the possibility of a higher moral calling is synonymous with “superiority.” I don’t. I can think of many ways in which I have been a hypocrite, but adherence to vegetarianism wasn’t one of the examples that comes to mind. This is probably due to the fact that there are some issues where the line cannot be crossed. For some people this is premarital sex; for me it is the decision that I won’t eat animals.
I’m sorry that you are so disappointed in what you consider to be logical fallacies from those who approach their diet with compassion. The elimination of suffering in a vegetarian diet is a keystone that any meat eater will have trouble arguing with. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 11/3/2009 4:08:11 PM | A lot of the minerals and vitamins in vegetables and fruit has been bred out of their respective species. More in favour is the shipping abilities, colour, growth rate, maturing time, eveness of ripening, things like that. this is what agro companies want in their produce. This is what they look for. Nutrition and taste are rarely if ever a factor in developing a new breed of, say a tomato, or whatever. Potatoes used to have vitamin A in them. No longer. It has been bred out of them. Vitamin C in tomatoes is only about 50% of what it used to be.
yet...with meats, it is difficult to breed out the wholesomeness and quality it contains. the meat doesn't change. Sure...some growth hormones are added and supplements to make sure it gets to market on a timely basis...but that happens with veggies and fruit too. Far moreso than the average person would even guess at! You don't hear much about "growth hormones" polluting a river, but you sure hear about fertilizer doing so! Natural or chemical! | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 11/3/2009 11:25:54 PM |
People can live on vegetables only. We don't have to eat higher animals to survive; we do it as a matter of choice, but when we stop to think about it, there is some part of almost everyone that would wish killing Bambi wasn't necessary to enjoy a nice steak. Moreover, it may not be as tasty, but by eating vegetables, we don't have to kill Bambi to survive and therefore don't have to cause an animal to suffer in order to survive. We therefore inflict needless suffering on an animal only because it tastes better. (a matter of preference, rather than necessity).
If we consider ourselves moral beings, how do we rationalize the hypocrisy of inflicting needless suffering on an animal simply because it's delicious?
The problem is that this is a learned mentality that is a by-product of not having to take care of oneself in a natural environment. It is a rationalization created by circumstance of not having to kill in order to eat. Prior to civilized society, killing was not seen as something ugly. It was seen as something natural. History is filled with examples of people even killing each other merely for sport (the Roman Coliseum, anybody?). Bullfighting is even still popular in some parts of the world today. But it is the luxury of not having to hunt for one's food and being able to go through the drive through at McDonald's and order a hamburger that has separated us so far from our nature that, while we still have no problem eating meat, we now have developed some sort of moral problem with killing it, ourselves.
The concept of ethics is also an extremely slippery slope. Ethics vary greatly from culture to culture. Hell, they vary greatly from political party to political party here in the United States alone. Ultimately, being "ethical" can be done in a number of ways. It all comes down to being able to explain your actions in terms of consistency even if someone else's analysis shows contradiction. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 11/12/2009 4:48:15 PM | My daughter is Vegan...she wasn't raised this way...but I can tell you ever since she turn Vegan she hasn't been as happy as when she ate meat...People who are Vegan try to turn everyone into their little world...Don't eat this don't wear that...its animal...My daughters boyfriend isn't Vegan...Yee-Haa...when they come for Christmas...Mama is making a BIG MEAT DINNER...and we will chow down...Oh my daughter will fix her Vegan gross food... Now with PETA...I wonder how they feel about the Swine flu...or do they call it...da peta flu... | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 11/14/2009 9:22:35 AM | Cheshire post #337:
or consume animals that bear a genetic similarity to myself
Where and how do you draw the line that dictates what organisms (or even just animals) are similar 'enough'? If someone draws their personal line at 99.9% similarity, does that make them less moral than someone who draws the line at 50%? 85% vs 50%?
Is it less moral to eat a tunicate than it is to eat a lobster?
Maybe it isn't a clear cut 'line'. Is it based on a points system? Is the lower you go on the % similarity equal to how moral your consumption habits are?
Then the most important follow up question to any of the above.......Why? | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 11/14/2009 10:38:45 AM | You know, I can think of very few animals with whom we share 50% or less or our genome, unless you include animals such as sea urchins. We share about 50-70% the same DNA with pumpkins and cabbages so obviously I'm not basing my statement purely on a percentage basis. Clearly, any vegetarian or vegan would argue that it's appropriate to eat pumpkins and cabbages, rather than sea urchins, if presented with that choice, even though we bear less in common with sea urchins genetically. Along a similar vein, pumpkins and cabbages don't possess central nervous systems, and therefore don't experience pain.
I don't make a distinction between eating vertebrates/invertebrates. Nor is there a "points system involved." There is no "line" drawn anywhere. Comparing ourselves on a genetic level is really only a tool that allows us (or me) to come to the conclusion that we really aren't "special." DNA accounts for the diversity of organisms but it also serves to underline common origins, particularly for animals.
On a moral level, those of us confined to or choosing to eat a diet of tunicate might be more moral than those eating lobsters, even though I'm not sure who would eat tunicates anyway. Those who eat lobster might have a moral advantage over those who eat primates. But since the only people eating primates are usually indigenous people capturing them as bushmeat, how practical is your question really? Furthermore, you'd be comparing the "morality" of omnivores, since vegetarians wouldn't eat either of these.
To a vegetarian or vegan, eating either would be wrong. There is a sense of moral relativism sometimes between vegetarians and vegans, but you will surely agree that there is much less so when comparing vegetarians to omnivores. So a reluctance to eat animals that share a common genetic base is really not a system for comparing the morality of vegetarians to other vegetarians (which seems to be how you've framed your question). How else could one interpret it anyway, since omnivores usually eat everything and vegetarians/vegans don't.
It's only one more reason why some vegetarians/vegans would find eating meat repulsive. What gives me the drive to survive also drives animals as well, so we are also united in that conscious will to avoid becoming dinner for something else. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 11/14/2009 12:26:34 PM |
We share about 50-70% the same DNA with pumpkins and cabbages so obviously I'm not basing my statement purely on a percentage basis.
So it's a combination of factors, one of which is DNA similarity.....but it's not that important?
Clearly, any vegetarian or vegan would argue that it's appropriate to eat pumpkins and cabbages, rather than sea urchins, if presented with that choice, even though we bear less in common with sea urchins genetically. Along a similar vein, pumpkins and cabbages don't possess central nervous systems, and therefore don't experience pain. [/qu0te] The same could be said about many members of the animal kingdom, but whether they experience 'pain' is debatable. What makes these animals 'better' than plants? There is no "line" drawn anywhere. If there is no line, how can those who eat tunicates be considered more moral than those who eat lobster? Or those who plants than those who eat animals? Based on your prior comments, I'm going to assume that you actually mean that there is no line OTHER than the one dividing animals from plants. But why put the line there? Are plants better than the animals that have a similar level of consciousness? What level, type, or speed of response to outside stimuli (what level of consciousness) is required for something to be protected from being eaten? On a moral level, those of us confined to or choosing to eat a diet of tunicate might be more moral than those eating lobsters, even though I'm not sure who would eat tunicates anyway. Those who eat lobster might have a moral advantage over those who eat primates. But since the only people eating primates are usually indigenous people capturing them as bushmeat, how practical is your question really? Our lineage has more recently diverged from tunicates than it has from lobsters, why are lobsters 'better'? I'm trying to understand the criteria that you (or anyone) use to rank organisms. Maybe because lobsters can walk? What gives me the drive to survive also drives animals as well, so we are also united in that conscious will to avoid becoming dinner for something else. You stated that it is less moral to eat a primate than it is a lobster. If we are united by our conscious will to avoid being eaten, on what basis do you determine that one variety or level of consciousness is better than another? And what of animals that are not conscious? I don't know what your standard of consciousness is, but if you assume that all plants lack this trait.....then certainly you can agree that there are members of the animal kingdom that are comparable to plants in their ability to respond to outside stimuli or any other proposed definition. And if so, then your dividing line of 'Animals: No / Plants: Yes' is too simplistic. So....what are your REAL criteria? If there is going to be some type of division of what is moral to eat and what is not, I would expect a less generalized justification than arbitrary (and often incorrect) 'similarity'. If we are drawing the line at consciousness, why? If we are drawing the line at ability to feel pain, why? Both of these criteria are not quite as black and white as it appears that many people believe. Pain is a signal from our body to another part of our body, to alert it of damage or potential damage (please let me know if you dispute this definition). By this definition, plants also feel pain. "But wait" you say "plant chemical signals that indicate damage are 'different'. We can't call that pain as well." Why? Is it because they are slower? Use different chemicals? Respond to the signal in different ways? All the same could be said about animals as well. All animals 'pain' responses are not exactly the same as ours, and many animals that people would consider 'conscious' have responses that are not much different (in terms of speed or functionality) to that of many plants. Also, while not 'conscious' by the classical definition, plants have an innate interest in survival. Many take steps, both active and passive, to avoid being predated or to stop predation once started. Does the fact that animals use different methods to avoid predation automatically make their interest in survival superior to that of plants? In other words, does a rabbit's ability to run from a fox make it superior to the plant that secrets poison to stop from being eaten by the rabbit? If so, why not say that certain animals are superior to other animals? Some animals use methods to avoid predation that are more similar to our own, are they better than the ones that don't? If we can't determine that some animals are superior to other animals, why can we determine that all animals are superior to all plants? I guess that I just fail to see how moral divisions, other than 'human vs non-human', are justified. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 11/14/2009 3:01:00 PM |
So it's a combination of factors, one of which is DNA similarity.....but it's not that important?
Clearly it’s not the only factor. Otherwise, I would eat rocks.
The same could be said about many members of the animal kingdom, but whether they experience 'pain' is debatable. What makes these animals 'better' than plants?
Pain is a signal from our body to another part of our body, to alert it of damage or potential damage (please let me know if you dispute this definition). By this definition, plants also feel pain. "But wait" you say "plant chemical signals that indicate damage are 'different'. We can't call that pain as well." Why? Is it because they are slower? Use different chemicals? Respond to the signal in different ways? All the same could be said about animals as well. All animals 'pain' responses are not exactly the same as ours, and many animals that people would consider 'conscious' have responses that are not much different (in terms of speed or functionality) to that of many plants.
Unless you’re a Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain, most of us accept that plants do not experience “pain.” I'm not sure where you got some of the comments you attributed to me either, because I never made any statements about "plant chemical signals that indicate damage are 'different'."
Anyway, back on track - plants do not have a cortex, which is of great importance for pain perception. Having a cortex is necessary to perceive physical pain. Most higher animals are in possession of a cortex, which is all that is necessary to assert that they will feel pain. Animals possessing a neo-cortex show evidence for emotional pain as well. Even if an animal does not possess a cortex, they still exhibit pain avoidance behaviour patterns, emit distress calls, and experience respiratory and cardiovascular evidence of stress. Furthermore, they are also very clearly conscious, by any definition. I don’t know of any plants possessing these characteristics.
If there is no line, how can those who eat tunicates be considered more moral than those who eat lobster?
You are still missing the point. You chose to try to apply a system of delineation to my original statement. This whole “taxonomy” of edible versus inedible animals and plants originated with you, from one line I wrote in post 337. I don’t make a distinction between the consciousness or “virtue” of one animal over another animal because VEGETARIANS DO NOT EAT ANIMALS and a genetic relationship to them is only one rationale of many.
You stated that it is less moral to eat a primate than it is a lobster.
For a vegetarian the question doesn’t apply. There is a greater moral imperative for a meat-eater to avoid eating a primate than a lobster.
Our lineage has more recently diverged from tunicates than it has from lobsters, why are lobsters 'better'? I'm trying to understand the criteria that you (or anyone) use to rank organisms. Maybe because lobsters can walk?
So what? There is no scale. Your statement is applicable only to those who eat animals. See above.
If we are united by our conscious will to avoid being eaten, on what basis do you determine that one variety or level of consciousness is better than another?
I don’t. If they are or were conscious, I won’t eat them. If they run away when I try to shoot them or impale them with a hook, they aren’t appropriate for eating. If they possess a cortex and exhibit pain avoidance, ditto. If they don't exhibit any of these characteristics, they're probably a plant, in which is is perfectly OK to eat them.
And what of animals that are not conscious?
And these would be……….? Blue-green algae? comatose animals? Road kill?
I don't know what your standard of consciousness is, but if you assume that all plants lack this trait.....then certainly you can agree that there are members of the animal kingdom that are comparable to plants in their ability to respond to outside stimuli or any other proposed definition. And if so, then your dividing line of 'Animals: No / Plants: Yes' is too simplistic. So....what are your REAL criteria?
Already explained. But, if you can find evidence of plants with a cortex, I’ll reconsider my assertions.
If there is going to be some type of division of what is moral to eat and what is not, I would expect a less generalized justification than arbitrary (and often incorrect) 'similarity'.
Well, since this so-called dilemma originates from someone who ostensibly has no problem eating practically anything, I’m surprised that you expect a justification from me at all. If anything, the converse should be true – how do you personally justify eating anything? And what do you presume to be incorrect and arbitrary? There is nothing to be gained by continuing to expect a vegetarian to define animal consciousness so that it becomes acceptable to eat some of them and perhaps not others, since we already acknowledge that for us it is wholly wrong.
If we are drawing the line at consciousness, why? If we are drawing the line at ability to feel pain, why? Both of these criteria are not quite as black and white as it appears that many people believe.
If you feel it is morally wrong to inflict pain, however caused, then the answer is clear. If you have no such qualms, then you can feel free to eat practically anything. You might even feel free to DO anything also, if you don’t have an internal compass that suggests that inflicting pain is perhaps something you ought not to do.
What gives you the right to inflict pain, which you clearly do, albeit via the circuitous route of the grocery store or butcher. You could also state that the tendency of many vegetarians to avoid inflicting pain will also give them a decided moral advantage over those who just don’t give a damn. The answers for each of us are (or should be clear) and to imply otherwise is simply an attempt at obfuscation.
Also, while not 'conscious' by the classical definition, plants have an innate interest in survival. Many take steps, both active and passive, to avoid being predated or to stop predation once started. Does the fact that animals use different methods to avoid predation automatically make their interest in survival superior to that of plants? In other words, does a rabbit's ability to run from a fox make it superior to the plant that secrets poison to stop from being eaten by the rabbit? If so, why not say that certain animals are superior to other animals? Some animals use methods to avoid predation that are more similar to our own, are they better than the ones that don't? If we can't determine that some animals are superior to other animals, why can we determine that all animals are superior to all plants?
Mimicry, folding leaves, mechanical resistance, emitting various alkaloids or steroids and other such plant mechanisms all occur without the presence of consciousness or the presence of a cortex/central nervous system.
| |
|
| |
| |
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 11/15/2009 4:40:29 PM |
Unless you’re a Hindu, Buddhist, or Jain, most of us accept that plants do not experience “pain.” I'm not sure where you got some of the comments you attributed to me either, because I never made any statements about "plant chemical signals that indicate damage are 'different'."
I'm sorry if that's how my statements came across. I was not intending to imply that YOU made any statements which you have not already made. I was presenting it as one explanation that I have seen used before, and questioning its validity. Although, considering that you feel that it is ok to eat / kill plants......I don't see how you can disagree with the idea that the responses to damage by plants are 'different' than the responses by animals.
Why do most of us accept that plants do not feel pain? Why do we call the chemical/electrochemical responses by animals 'pain' (many of which, are not very similar to our own response), but not apply the same label to the chemical responses by plants?
Furthermore, they are also very clearly conscious, by any definition
There are many definitions of consciousness, many of which are not applicable to numerous animals. There are some who believe (not that I am one of them) that only primates can be considered truly conscious because other animals do not have a sense of self.
For a vegetarian the question doesn’t apply. There is a greater moral imperative for a meat-eater to avoid eating a primate than a lobster.
I thought there wasn't a scale? Why would there necessarily be a greater moral imperative for a meat-eater to avoid one animal over another? If you "don't distinguish between the consciousness or 'virtue'", on what grounds do you rank a primate differently than a lobster?
Mimicry, folding leaves, mechanical resistance, emitting various alkaloids or steroids and other such plant mechanisms all occur without the presence of consciousness or the presence of a cortex/central nervous system.
So, you are saying that attempting to not be eaten or damaged is one criteria, but only in conjunction with the possesion of a cortex / central nervous system? If methods of deterence by animals without a cortex / central nervous system are indications that they can feel pain, why are methods of deterence in plants not indicative of the same?
If you feel it is morally wrong to inflict pain, however caused, then the answer is clear. If you have no such qualms, then you can feel free to eat practically anything. You might even feel free to DO anything also, if you don’t have an internal compass that suggests that inflicting pain is perhaps something you ought not to do.
Does this only apply to inflicting pain purposefully? Knowingly? Recklessly? Negligently? Is the 'immorality' additive? Is it by number of organisms that are affected? Does the pain of some organisms have more value than that of other organisms?
If inflicting pain is something that we simply 'should not do', how much effort are we required to put forth to guarantee that we are not causing pain unintentionally? If unintentional pain is ok, why?
What gives you the right to inflict pain
Is it a right? Does it need to be?
If anything, the converse should be true – how do you personally justify eating anything?
My survival, and often just my comfort, is more important to me than the lives of the organisms that I damage or destroy. Do you (or anyone) justify your killing differently?
And these would be……….? Blue-green algae? comatose animals? Road kill?
For arguments sake, Sponges. (Or consult the thousands of definitions that include varying portions of the animal kingdom) | |
|
| |
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 11/18/2009 4:36:46 PM | "My survival, and often just my comfort, is more important to me than the lives of the organisms that I damage or destroy. Do you (or anyone) justify your killing differently?"
Does that not in itself make a strong point that ethical vegans are more moral than you, in that they think outside themselves and consider other factors rather than their comfort when choosing what to put in their mouths?
Survival- well, any google search can put that case to rest. You certainly don't need animal flesh or products to flourish, let alone survive.
'If inflicting pain is something that we simply 'should not do', how much effort are we required to put forth to guarantee that we are not causing pain unintentionally? If unintentional pain is ok, why? '
If given the opportunity to decrease the amount of suffering in the world without any harm towards yourself, you are morally obligated to take that opportunity. Do you disagree?
Once you have the knowledge, you have the responsibility. In that, once you have obtained the knowledge of suffering, you are responsible for inflicting it.
And let's touch on the whole 'terrorism' outcry.
Animal Rights Activists are considered 'terrorists' and are being locked up and put away for educating the public on animal abuse, whether it be through web blogs, twitter pages, leafleting, arson, or theft. Why are they all of a sudden pegged as terrorists? Because the multi-billion dollar companies they're exposing are risking public outcry, embarrassment, and most importantly, profit. And people like those who have replied to this post are falling for it. One man who releases thousands of minks who were kept in small cages for their lives solely for their fur will be put to jail, and the company that exploits these animals will continue without repercussion. I have my opinion on who should be labeled a 'terrorist'.
Please educate yourselves on this matter before inflicting your ignorance on others.
An excellent article that might help explain the 'Green Scare' that is escalating in America : http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/green-scare/
An excerpt:
“The No. 1 domestic terrorism threat,” says John Lewis, a top FBI official, “is the eco-terrorism, animal-rights movement.”
The animal rights and environmental movements, like every other social movement throughout history, have both legal and illegal elements. There are people who leaflet, write letters, and lobby. There are people who protest and engage in non-violent civil disobedience. And there are people, like the Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, who go out at night with black masks and break windows, burn SUVs, and release animals from fur farms.
Animal rights and environmental advocates have not flown planes into buildings, taken hostages, or sent Anthrax through the mail. They have never even injured anyone. In fact, the only act of attempted murder in the history of the U.S. animal rights movement was coordinated by corporate provocateurs. Yet the FBI ranks these activists as the top domestic terrorism threat. And the Department of Homeland Security lists them on its roster of national security threats, while ignoring right-wing extremists who have bombed the Oklahoma City federal building, murdered doctors, and admittedly created weapons of mass destruction. | |
|
| Are vegans and PETA more moral and ethical than society?
Posted: 11/19/2009 9:31:21 AM |
I'm sorry if that's how my statements came across. I was not intending to imply that YOU made any statements which you have not already made. I was presenting it as one explanation that I have seen used before, and questioning its validity. Although, considering that you feel that it is ok to eat / kill plants......I don't see how you can disagree with the idea that the responses to damage by plants are 'different' than the responses by animals.
I don’t disagree at all. Responses to damage by plants ARE different than the responses by animals.
Why do most of us accept that plants do not feel pain? Why do we call the chemical/electrochemical responses by animals 'pain' (many of which, are not very similar to our own response), but not apply the same label to the chemical responses by plants?
Plants do not have mechanisms by which we traditionally associate pain, as I’ve mentioned in a previous post. To elaborate on that, plants to not have nerve endings to receive pain stimulus that send signals up the spinal cord to the brain where it gets processed. The neural pathways that receive pain (among other) signals have to exist from the brain on downward. Furthermore, as part of the process of receiving pain signals into the brain, the brain will stimulate the release of endorphins etc. to relieve pain. The limbic brain also stores memory of previous responses to pain.
There are many definitions of consciousness, many of which are not applicable to numerous animals. There are some who believe (not that I am one of them) that only primates can be considered truly conscious because other animals do not have a sense of self.
I agree.
I thought there wasn't a scale? Why would there necessarily be a greater moral imperative for a meat-eater to avoid one animal over another? If you "don't distinguish between the consciousness or 'virtue'", on what grounds do you rank a primate differently than a lobster?
There isn’t a scale. But I was trying to comply with your attempt to rationalize one. But again, you could say that a primate experiences emotions in additional to physical pain. We're fairly safe to say that when a lobster is caught in a trap, it's relatives do not collectively mourn......
So, you are saying that attempting to not be eaten or damaged is one criteria, but only in conjunction with the possesion of a cortex / central nervous system? If methods of deterence by animals without a cortex / central nervous system are indications that they can feel pain, why are methods of deterence in plants not indicative of the same?
You’re making this far more complicated than it needs to be. I’ve given you my definition of animal pain earlier in this post.
Does this only apply to inflicting pain purposefully? Knowingly? Recklessly? Negligently? Is the 'immorality' additive? Is it by number of organisms that are affected? Does the pain of some organisms have more value than that of other organisms?
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Is the immorality additive? Perhaps, but the ethics of merely being alive are probably deserving of their own thread. By driving a car we pour toxic fumes into the air, but perhaps buying a bicycle that is perhaps made by children in foreign sweatshops is worse? Perhaps true morality is unattainable? Again, there is really no scale so long as we are comparing animals.
If inflicting pain is something that we simply 'should not do', how much effort are we required to put forth to guarantee that we are not causing pain unintentionally? If unintentional pain is ok, why?
Pain also transcends animal suffering, which is really only the beginning. Should we eat out of dumpsters or buy only second-hand goods to leave a smaller “footprint?” Is it moral to make a lot of money? Should we feel bad if we don’t send 27 cents to African relief organizations to buy the oral rehydration salts that will save a child from diarrhea? Should we quit work and volunteer our time to third-world relief? Some answers are obvious, and for some people, they are very do-able. But to answer your question, I don’t know the answer to that – do you?
My survival, and often just my comfort, is more important to me than the lives of the organisms that I damage or destroy. Do you (or anyone) justify your killing differently?
I’ll have to let your perspective stand on its own. Or not. When you read it a couple of times, it’s not very pretty though…….your personal experience is the locus of intrinsic value? Your comfort exists independently of nature? In order to be “authentic” one must have the willingness to take responsibility for their choices. I’m glad you aren’t constrained by modern man’s existential dilemma.
No doubt some of the clothes I’ve worn were made in a sweatshop. When my car is worn out, the components will go into a landfill and damage the environment. Just by living and breathing I am harming the environment. Every 10 years I get a tetanus/diptheria vaccination that was cultured in the tissues of an animal. When I was in university, I performed animal vivisection which was distasteful and led directly to my becoming a vegetarian. Now, deliberately, I work in a field of biomedicine that does not require that I use animals.
For arguments sake, Sponges. (Or consult the thousands of definitions that include varying portions of the animal kingdom)
I would agree with you in denying consciousness to sponges. So, you’re proposing that vegetarians could eat sponges? Or that it’s OK to use their skeletons in creating painting techniques on a wall? I’m not sure anymore…… | |
|
|
| Page 14 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
