|
|
|
|
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/13/2009 6:00:36 PM | Here is a hypothetical situation for those who prescribe to the somewhat extreme
vegan and PETA philosophy concerning the use of animals.
If you were stranded on a desert island, that had nothing but water supply, inedible trees and nothing to to eat but fish and seals, would you eat the animals or
strave to death. The reason I ask is that I have some friends that are into the PETA
and vegan philosopy, and I have wondered how deep their conviction is.
From what I can understand it is based on the assertion that animals have the same
inherent rights as humans, and therefore it is immoral to eat or exploit them just as it
would be to do the same to a human. If I were in a situation where the only option for survival was to eat another human, I wouldnt do it. I would rather die than cross
that line. A civilized man I have lived, and I would prefer to die as one. So how about it PETAN's and vegans, honestly, what would you do? | |
|
| |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/13/2009 7:18:16 PM | >>>If I were in a situation where the only option for survival was to eat another human, I wouldnt do it.
To be a fair comparison, you wouldn't have to merely eat another human- you'd have to kill and eat them.
Not that I believe in vegantarianism, but merely eating another human isn't a fair comparison- you'd have to kill them too(or the vegans would have to eat these animals without personally killing them) | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/13/2009 7:37:53 PM | --To be a fair comparison, you wouldn't have to merely eat another human- you'd have to kill and eat them.--
I think its a given that you would have to kill and prepare the animal for consumption.
The precedents for survival situation human cannibalism usually involves eating
the already dead, though there have been some extreme situations where the dying
have been dispatched, sometimes, though not always, willingly. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/13/2009 7:56:53 PM | I eat meat, but I don't hunt.
But I'm not stupid enough to think appeasing my taste buds is a necessity.
Eating meat is one of the indulgences I have to partake in, in order to want to go on with my life.
Because I am weak willed. And I'm not going to deny it.
\/ CountIbli, I'd be eating seenitall too, if the only alternative were both of us dying.
Don't fall asleep on that island before me seenitall!  | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/13/2009 7:57:26 PM |
From what I can understand it is based on the assertion that animals have the same
inherent rights as humans, and therefore it is immoral to eat or exploit them just as it
would be to do the same to a human. If I were in a situation where the only option for survival was to eat another human, I wouldnt do it. I would rather die than cross
that line.
I'm neither a vegan nor a PETAist, so I can't answer your question. But what I can say is that this guy on the island with me would meet with an unfortunate accident. | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/14/2009 5:39:44 AM | | I am quite sure that those stray animals would eventually fall under the spears and canines of those hypothetical stranded PETA members. If 'normal' people can turn into cannibals during famine I'm sure that vegetarians will make a little exception to their diets to survive. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/14/2009 9:07:04 PM | | hi... I believe that I was created as a vegetarian yet given permission to eat some animals... I have been able to survive without eating animals but would I eat animals in order to survive as in the case of being stranded??... I know this for sure, I would like to think that I would be convicted enough to still only eat animals that were given to us for food and even then I would rather pray for manna than to kill and eat animal flesh.... I am sure that there are some people who will stick with their convictions no matter of the changes that may occur, warmly Mona | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/14/2009 11:08:31 PM | Mona - Humans are omnivores. Take a biology class.
Also to note, the VP of PETA is diabetic. She uses insolin which is made from animal parts. She would die if she didn't have it.
Contradict much? This pretty much proves the point that one will do anything to survive. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 11:42:58 AM | | I just love irony. I had a conversation with a animal rights vegan once and noted his suede shoes. He said "they are faux suede" so I asked if he minded the fact that he was polluting the earth with petroleum based leather substitutes when the leather was going to be there whether he ate the critters or not. That got him thinking. I suggest that PETA radicals should kill themselves to save the animals they kill with their cars and by flying in planes. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 1:47:48 PM | I use to think it was wrong to kill animals, just to feed our own needs.
But then i thought hell other animals eat meat, so why not us
I cant kill an animal myself unless is attacking me, I cant hunt just for sport...... but i will eat it if its in the store nicely packaged.... Im glad other people have the heart to kill, because its tasty.....
Were we meant to be carnivores? Not with our facial structure i dont think so. We arrnt built to track something down and jump on it and start ripping off flesh with our mouths like a lion......
But everythings gotta die of something, wether they go splat by a car and rot on the road, or by getting hunted and processed into for me to enjoy
The thing you should look at is it more humane to hunt the animal and give it a sporting chance of living a life in the wild before it gets killed, or should u lock it up in a fence for its whole life and lead it to slaugher as in the case with cows and chickens.... | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 3:38:04 PM | | Verzen, I have taken biology classes and I have read the bible.... in Eden we were not given meat to eat but after the flood God allowed it and it drastically shortened our life span.. as I stated before, this is what I believe, warmly Mona | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 3:49:25 PM | If you took a biology class, you would be familiar with Evolution. The Adam and Eve story is against Evolution. The bible is against Evolution. The earth was not created 6,000 years ago. We have vast proof that the earth is 6 billion years old.
If you believe everything you hear in the bible, then how about Exodus 21: 7. Read that and tell me what it says.
Besides, Noah's arc can't logically be true. 10 billion different animals on a single boat? Try doing that without them eating each other. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 3:55:37 PM | I'm a vegetarian, but I honestly don't know how I would approach the situation if I were truly starving. But I am also used to "starvation rations," and deprivation is a way of life for many vegetarians. Fasting for days at a time (as long as I have fresh water to drink) is not a hardship for me, so I wouldn't succumb right away. I'd last a whole lot longer than any 6' guy conditioned on a McD's diet easily.
I occasionally eat fish, because I'm not a vegan, and have no problem doing so. My rationalization is that fish are not factory farmed, at least in your example, so I wouldn't be compromising my principles in any way.
Bottom line is that I don't know how I'd react after 3 weeks with no food. But I don't have portable ethics either.
So OP, from where did this question originate? Testing the resolve of a vegetarian are you?
Namaste........... | |
|
| |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 4:05:16 PM | Oh eff off dude, why doncha? You don't have half the resolve I do........
You can start by resolving to spell hypocrite correctly.......
Be well......... | |
|
| |
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 4:19:14 PM | ...My rationalization is that fish are not factory farmed...
Are you ok with them being the filters for all the crap we pour into the oceans?
p.s. there are many fish farms around the world.
| |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 4:26:06 PM | Actually, bivalves are the ocean's filtration system.......And in the OPs example, the fish are not factory farmed.......therefore it follows that the individual in the scenario is not eating factory farmed fish......mmmmmmm'kay?
And no, I'm not OK with crap in the oceans. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 4:54:27 PM | Hi, I am not a member of PETA. And I am not a vegetarian currently. But I can answer your hypothetical question from the position of a vegetarian because I was one for 15 years, (ovo-lacto) and vegan (no dairy or eggs) for a year.
I currently eat fish, (but not seals.) Fish aren't really considered animals, but seals are. Some vegetarians, like Mr. Roger's, say they won't eat anything with eyes, so fish end up in that category.
Vegetarians live longer (Seventh Day Adventists live about 9 years longer than average, I think.) So if you are a person who became vegetarian for your health, you would live longer if you switched to eating fish (seals, being mamals would be a last resort, then) on the island while you are waiting to be rescued, and then you could go back to being a vegetarian again. (I have heard that people can survive quite well on just coconuts for a very long time, though, and most (desert = tropical) islands have them, since coconuts float to almost any location.)
I became a vegetarian after taking a philosophy class where we were required to read the book "Animal Liberation" by philosopher Peter Singer, which had just been published back then and was causing a lot of discussion among ethicists. This is the book that later became the foundation for the creation of the animal rights movement, even though Peter Singer doesn't say that animals have rights per say, but that they can and do suffer, and that morally it is important to minimise suffering. His position was the greatest good for the greatest number (Utilitarianism.)
Most food animals are not caught in the wild, and in the process of domesticating animals for food and in their upkeep, many animals suffer greatly from the conditions in which they are required to live until they are used for food.
There are several other arguments for not eating animals, including fish, and one is that it is a very inefficient way of producing food for humans. A lot food that could be consumed by humans is wasted in the process of feeding it to the animals while they are being raised. You could feed many more starving people with the food and water we use to produce one cow, for instance, which would feed a limited number of people--and usually those are not starving, since the starving can seldom afford to eat meat.
For me, the main idea behind refusing to eat animals for so many years was NOT that I wasn't prepared to go out and hunt, kill, dress, cook and eat an animal myself, since I had never had to do that in my life, anyway. It was to prevent unnecessary suffering in a creature that I felt, could feel pain and experience suffering. If I could survive just fine on food that cattle, pigs and fish eat, then why shouldn't I spare them the problem of processing my food for me?
If an elephant, whale or rhinocerous can grow and thrive and be extremely strong and vital without eating meat or eggs, or drinking another mammal's milk, then why couldn't I?
Humans evolved so well because we are adaptable. We originally seem to have existed mainly on fruit grown high up in trees (where we were safe from other predators) and on vegetables we could forage, with a few insects thrown in for protein. When times got tough and the fruit was gone, we ventured out of the trees and were able to also eat and digest some meat. However, too much meat--in the sense that cats, dogs, (Cheetas and Wolves) sharks and crocodiles eat meat--is not good for our long-term health. Eating meat is a good way to get vital nutrients in a concentrated form for survival. I do not exist at a survival level, so I have many more choices that I can make, and my brain allows me to even make moral choices about how I prepare, kill and eat my food.
Even carnivores don't usually kill food for sport or over-kill a species. That would remove the source of their food, and they are less adaptable than an omnivore is.
"The reason I ask is that I have some friends that are into the PETA
and vegan philosopy, and I have wondered how deep their conviction is."
If you are interested in how deep your friend's conviction is so that you can try to change it, then you have to consider what their individual reasoning is in becoming vegetarian in the first place, and if in doing so, they have benefited from it in some way.
If they have benefited from being vegetarian, by feeling better, having better health, having something in common with other people in the nature of a club, or feel more passion in their lives for having a higher purpose beyond their own survival, then it would be ethically wrong of you to try to convince them to give up their convictions simply for your own comfort level.
If they are battering you over the head with their belief system, and are trying to change you/convert you against your will, then you can read this book and try to use some of their arguments against them. Perhaps by suggesting that it is unethical of them to cause you undo suffering because you don't share their personal convictions. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 4:58:05 PM | If they have benefited from being vegetarian, by feeling better, having better health, having something in common with other people in the nature of a club, or feel more passion in their lives for having a higher purpose beyond satisfying cravings, then it would be ethically wrong of you to try to convince them to give up their convictions simply for your own comfort level.
I changed one tiny part of your post. I know 2 vegans and there take on it all, is that animals are more a necessity to each other and the environment, than they are to civilized humanity now.
They also said they would eat meat during any situation where it became a necessity to survive.
I suppose there are many reasons people choose not to eat meat. | |
|
| Hypothetical dilemma for Vegans/PETA...
Posted: 1/15/2009 5:18:19 PM | Eating meat is more than satisfying a craving. Men, in particular and many older people need more protein in their diets. Meat is an efficient way to get more protein, and sometimes this feels like a CRAVING, but it might also be a signal your body is sending you that you are missing key nutrients you need for your health.
A vegan diet, one that eliminates dairy and eggs, does not supply a vital nutrient, vitamin B12. B12 is stored in the liver, and you can survive for many years without a source of it. But a B12 deficiency is serious, looks like anemia, and can cause dementia and memory loss, among other things. A diet of junk food can cause this, too.
When a person is able to live at a level where physical survival is not a daily concern, then eating meat is generally available to almost anyone on the planet unless you are in a religious group that prohibits it for religious reasons, like many people in India. There is the feeling that if you have the money you can eat meat, then. This is what I mean by having the luxury of being able to choose to have a higher purpose with regard to what you eat. If you are starving on a desert island, then you don't have this luxury.
Ethics/morality might be something that is a luxury, too. And the OP's question goes to that...
A more extreme question might be, if everyone on the planet who didn't eat meat now for whatever reason, began to eat meat, would it put a huge strain on the food supply? People in poor countries survive on vegetable food sources because it is more economical and more of their country's population can survive on less total food. These people survive amazingly in very difficult circumstances, and often when they have adopted a Western diet, which is very meat-based, they also get diseases they didn't get before, like colon cancer, and sometimes live shorter lives.
I think it is morally unethical of us to disregard the need for very tiny additions to a person's diet that can make a huge difference in their health, like the problem of vitamin A deficiency in children in developing countries. A very tiny amount of vitamin A can prevent blindness in children, (the dose required costs two cents) yet we somehow don't have the resources to provide the single dose required to prevent blindness. Perhaps if we all gave up (a nutritionally unnecessary, but more expensive serving) of meat on a few Thursday's, we could afford to prevent the blindness of 250,000 to 500,000 children each year. | |
|
|
| Page 1 of 42
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
Hypocrit
