Non-Vegan Animal Sympathizers

[indra]

Once (if) we leave this rock I have no doubt meat will be eliminated from the diet, and animals will be raised explicitly for companionship, where the consumption of their flesh will be quite taboo.

This will be born out of the sheer impracticality of space-farms (though I bet the vacuum of space could allow for some mean preservation techniques).

 

[Crabs]

If a cannibal kills and eats someone, they get inprisoned and in some states the death penalty. So who is higher up on the food chain? The cannibal/psychopath or the ones who catch and punish them?

The one who eats the other one.

Also, pychopaths kill for sadistic enjoyment. There is no utilitarian purpose behind it. So that is different.

Not necessarily. Psychopaths are notorious for using others for their own benefit.

Anyway, cannibals eat a non-preferred food source.

It might be a preferred food source to them.

If someone eats their horse I'm pretty sure in the US, this wouldn't be met with acceptance either. Yet, in Italy they eat horse.

Morality is tied to culture. My answer to your question is: Their isn't a single standard for morality.

Then morality is just a fluid concept, like fashion. It doesn't really exist as an objective value.

The inherent health risks of consuming human flesh may lend answer to your question about cannibalism:

Spotlight: Why Cannibalism is Bad for You | HealthMap

https://www.inverse.com/article/7449-is-it-possible-to-be-a-healthy-cannibal-and-avoid-prion-disease

Okay. To be on the safe side, I won't eat the brains of natives from the Fore tribe in Papua New Guinea, lest I contract Kuru. Besides, I have plenty of local delicacies to choose from.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Animals may not create machinery and industries for food, but they don't do a lot of stuff humans do because they can't.
Our brains are what distinguish us from other animals. Instead of big claws and ability to run 80mph (or whatever), we have our superior intelligence which we use to make tools to meet our needs. I don't think it is unnatural for humans to use technology for food and survival. I think that IS what is natural for us. Of course, we also have an ability to develop a level of morality and spirituality that animals don't have, so that can help us be responsible with our power. Some people don't have balance there though...while more may be devoid of developed spirituality and morality, a few go to the other extreme and deny we are physical beings too.

An inconsistency I see is with vegans and vegetarians who have pets and feed them meat products; they have to since that animal must have meat to survive (ie cats). Or some won't eat meat or wear leather because they feel the animals' conditions while alive are bad and/or they suffer too much when slaughtered. Yet, they will wear clothing sewn by a child in a sweatshop. Let's not even get into the way people regularly "slaughter" others emotionally, psychologically, physically, sexually, etc. They won't eat meat, but they will still destroy someone else's life with their big mouth. For consistency, I'd suggest to start examining how you treat your own species.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

The one who eats the other one.



Not necessarily. Psychopaths are notorious for using others for their own benefit.



It might be a preferred food source to them.




Then morality is just a fluid concept, like fashion. It doesn't really exist as an objective value.

How far this subject has gone is just making me lol. Killing another human being is against the law. Oregon has a right to die law. We do have those things - laws. Some of those are morality based.

Animal abuse is against the law. Yet, we kill animals for food.

We do not live by simplistic logical reductions. It is fluid to some extent because we make allowances that make sense to the "sum of our parts". To not do so would probably place us in some sort of anarchist or dictatoral social structure.



There are distinctions with all of these cases.

What is your point?

 

[Crabs]

How far this subject has gone is just making me lol. Killing another human being is against the law. Oregon has a right to die law. We do have those things - laws. Some of those are morality based.

Animal abuse is against the law. Yet, we kill animals for food.

We do not live by simplistic logical reductions. It is fluid to some extent because we make allowances that make sense to the "sum of our parts". To not do so would probably place us in some sort of anarchist or dictatoral social structure.



There are distinctions with all of these cases.

What is your point?

The hypocrisy is maddening!

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

The hypocrisy is maddening!

You are an NT. This is natural.

 

[Kas]

I love animals, eat meat and I don't see much of dissonance. I understand though there are people who don't want to eat meat because of that.

As it was told before the farm animals are treated differently from the very beginning.
They are not family member, more of family providers. The bond between human and their dog is based on friendship, human and the cow or pig (I don't talk about having pig in house as pet) is based on respect. I have only far family living in countryside, but growing up in city, I was surprised how much of respect they have to these animals.

It comes down to respect, cleanliness and health of the animal. I don't want to eat a sick or mistreated animal, for obvious reasons.

Just because something is giving up their life doesn't mean their lives are meaningless. Quite the opposite.

I agree with this.


I'm talking here about small farms. These industrial farms mentioned by senza are completely different thing. But it's something that can be improved.

I see the other problem. I talked with several people who told me that they don't want even to think about these animals that were killed so they can buy meat. They prefer to imagine it's appearing out of nowhere in shops. I don't like this kind of avoidant thinking. It's better to understand and decide whether you can accept it or you can’t.

 

[erm]

An inconsistency I see is with vegans and vegetarians who have pets and feed them meat products; they have to since that animal must have meat to survive (ie cats). Or some won't eat meat or wear leather because they feel the animals' conditions while alive are bad and/or they suffer too much when slaughtered. Yet, they will wear clothing sewn by a child in a sweatshop. Let's not even get into the way people regularly "slaughter" others emotionally, psychologically, physically, sexually, etc. They won't eat meat, but they will still destroy someone else's life with their big mouth. For consistency, I'd suggest to start examining how you treat your own species.

There's a meta-inconsistency there. People point out those inconsistencies (assuming the person is vegan for those reasons), yet with other attempts to be ethical they often don't point out the same inconsistencies. Like helping a stranger, it's not often you see it pointed out all the times they hurt strangers, as we tend to accept the finite and mixed nature of people in those situations.

It makes such a criticism seem defensive in nature, as though being vegan is seen as an attack on someone else's non-vegan lifestyle. Veganism might imply a disapproval of some sort, but so many other actions do as well. I see this same defensiveness with a few other lifestyle choices (like fitness, voluntary childlessness and environmentalism).

 

[OrangeAppled]

There's a meta-inconsistency there. People point out those inconsistencies (assuming the person is vegan for those reasons), yet with other attempts to be ethical they often don't point out the same inconsistencies. Like helping a stranger, it's not often you see it pointed out all the times they hurt strangers, as we tend to accept the finite and mixed nature of people in those situations.

It makes such a criticism seem defensive in nature, as though being vegan is seen as an attack on someone else's non-vegan lifestyle. Veganism might imply a disapproval of some sort, but so many other actions do as well. I see this same defensiveness with a few other lifestyle choices (like fitness, voluntary childlessness and environmentalism).

The inconsistencies are pointed out when a particular line of reasoning is given as "correct", such as one suggested in the OP and a few others presented here. Basically, it is a response to someone already asserting their view is more sound.

People can have certain diets for various reason, sure. I don't make assumptions there, nor do I generally care. But we already have a lot of context in this thread, and that is what I am responding to. The very topic of this thread is consistency in one's actions, thoughts and feelings.

I am not asking for perfect consistency, rather, I am saying it is impossible, so people can get off the high horse.

People get defensive when someone else makes judgmental remarks about those with different preferences, as if they have some moral high ground when they may not have any at all. Unfortunately, a fair amount of people seem to need such a high level of consensus that they think other people merely making different choices is a judgment of their choice. In fairness though, some do imply judgment with their preference by how they pursue it or speak about it, but I also don't think all choices have equally sound reasoning behind them. The lifestyle choices you mention don't strike me as fully equal in terms of moral value vs simply being a choice. People can make arguments asserting a choice is "better", but then they leave their argument open to dissection.

The thing is, a fair amount of loud vegans/vegetarians come across as holier-than-thou, as if their food/product choices are somehow noble and not merely a preference. They use terms like "murder" and other pretty morally damning terms. I am saying they don't deserve any special badge of honor. I'd say that veganism/vegetarianism is not inherently more ethical at all. I wouldn't call it much of an ethical action or assign it much if any moral value at all. It certainly doesn't have nearly the same value or meaning as many other things, and at worst, I think it can serve as a distraction from weightier matters.

Basically, instead of perfect consistency, which is impossible, I am considering how one prioritizes values and distinguishes between a personal preference and something with a more universal moral value.

 

[á´…eparted]

I'm not really an animal sympathizer. Just don't be pointlessly cruel. Otherwise, I really just don't care.

 

[Reborn Relic]

The inconsistencies are pointed out when a particular line of reasoning is given as "correct", such as one suggested in the OP and a few others presented here. Basically, it is a response to someone already asserting their view is more sound.

People can have certain diets for various reason, sure. I don't make assumptions there, nor do I generally care. But we already have a lot of context in this thread, and that is what I am responding to. The very topic of this thread is consistency in one's actions, thoughts and feelings.

I am not asking for perfect consistency, rather, I am saying it is impossible, so people can get off the high horse.

People get defensive when someone else makes judgmental remarks about those with different preferences, as if they have some moral high ground when they may not have any at all. Unfortunately, a fair amount of people seem to need such a high level of consensus that they think other people merely making different choices is a judgment of their choice. In fairness though, some do imply judgment with their preference by how they pursue it or speak about it, but I also don't think all choices have equally sound reasoning behind them. The lifestyle choices you mention don't strike me as fully equal in terms of moral value vs simply being a choice. People can make arguments asserting a choice is "better", but then they leave their argument open to dissection.

The thing is, a fair amount of loud vegans/vegetarians come across as holier-than-thou, as if their food/product choices are somehow noble and not merely a preference. They use terms like "murder" and other pretty morally damning terms. I am saying they don't deserve any special badge of honor. I'd say that veganism/vegetarianism is not inherently more ethical at all. I wouldn't call it much of an ethical action or assign it much if any moral value at all. It certainly doesn't have nearly the same value or meaning as many other things, and at worst, I think it can serve as a distraction from weightier matters.

Basically, instead of perfect consistency, which is impossible, I am considering how one prioritizes values and distinguishes between a personal preference and something with a more universal moral value.

So then, what is the distinguishing factor for you between the two? That's missing from this paragraph. I could see how you're suggesting that veganism lacks, to an extent, a plan for action and therefore doesn't necessarily contribute as much to the alleviation of suffering as they'd like to think, for instance, but to simply say it is a less moral choice than other choices sort of begs the question of why.

As far as the "prefect moral consistency is impossible" argument, sure, but there's a difference between "same" and "Greater", and you seem to hint at acknowledging that for things that aren't veganism.

And further, what, to you, are weightier matters and why?

 

[Crabs]

The inconsistencies are pointed out when a particular line of reasoning is given as "correct", such as one suggested in the OP and a few others presented here. Basically, it is a response to someone already asserting their view is more sound.

People can have certain diets for various reason, sure. I don't make assumptions there, nor do I generally care. But we already have a lot of context in this thread, and that is what I am responding to. The very topic of this thread is consistency in one's actions, thoughts and feelings.

I am not asking for perfect consistency, rather, I am saying it is impossible, so people can get off the high horse.

People get defensive when someone else makes judgmental remarks about those with different preferences, as if they have some moral high ground when they may not have any at all. Unfortunately, a fair amount of people seem to need such a high level of consensus that they think other people merely making different choices is a judgment of their choice. In fairness though, some do imply judgment with their preference by how they pursue it or speak about it, but I also don't think all choices have equally sound reasoning behind them. The lifestyle choices you mention don't strike me as fully equal in terms of moral value vs simply being a choice. People can make arguments asserting a choice is "better", but then they leave their argument open to dissection.

The thing is, a fair amount of loud vegans/vegetarians come across as holier-than-thou, as if their food/product choices are somehow noble and not merely a preference. They use terms like "murder" and other pretty morally damning terms. I am saying they don't deserve any special badge of honor. I'd say that veganism/vegetarianism is not inherently more ethical at all. I wouldn't call it much of an ethical action or assign it much if any moral value at all. It certainly doesn't have nearly the same value or meaning as many other things, and at worst, I think it can serve as a distraction from weightier matters.

Basically, instead of perfect consistency, which is impossible, I am considering how one prioritizes values and distinguishes between a personal preference and something with a more universal moral value.

That's fine that you hold that view. You are emphasizing your opinion regarding what you deem worthy of moral value. I must say, however, that your tone comes across to me just as judgemental, if not moreso, than any vegan I've encountered.

 

[erm]

[MENTION=23796]Crabs[/MENTION] I don't understand your point about population control? Most modern meat is not from hunted animals, and farm-bred populations will drop with a decrease in meat-eating, as that's the reason they are created in the first place.

The inconsistencies are pointed out when a particular line of reasoning is given as "correct", such as one suggested in the OP and a few others presented here. Basically, it is a response to someone already asserting their view is more sound.

People can have certain diets for various reason, sure. I don't make assumptions there, nor do I generally care. But we already have a lot of context in this thread, and that is what I am responding to. The very topic of this thread is consistency in one's actions, thoughts and feelings.

I am not asking for perfect consistency, rather, I am saying it is impossible, so people can get off the high horse.

People get defensive when someone else makes judgmental remarks about those with different preferences, as if they have some moral high ground when they may not have any at all. Unfortunately, a fair amount of people seem to need such a high level of consensus that they think other people merely making different choices is a judgment of their choice. In fairness though, some do imply judgment with their preference by how they pursue it or speak about it, but I also don't think all choices have equally sound reasoning behind them. The lifestyle choices you mention don't strike me as fully equal in terms of moral value vs simply being a choice. People can make arguments asserting a choice is "better", but then they leave their argument open to dissection.

The thing is, a fair amount of loud vegans/vegetarians come across as holier-than-thou, as if their food/product choices are somehow noble and not merely a preference. They use terms like "murder" and other pretty morally damning terms. I am saying they don't deserve any special badge of honor. I'd say that veganism/vegetarianism is not inherently more ethical at all. I wouldn't call it much of an ethical action or assign it much if any moral value at all. It certainly doesn't have nearly the same value or meaning as many other things, and at worst, I think it can serve as a distraction from weightier matters.

Basically, instead of perfect consistency, which is impossible, I am considering how one prioritizes values and distinguishes between a personal preference and something with a more universal moral value.

I understand there was context for such a criticism, but your line of reasoning criticizes itself as much as these particular vegans. You are judging the vegan's choice as much as they are judging yours, and your moral views are open to the same criticism.

The separate idea that a lack of perfect consistency should produce a lack of moral judgement leads to pretty absurd scenarios. If society can't criticize behavior without being perfectly consistent itself, then all criticism will essentially end.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

[MENTION=23796]Crabs[/MENTION] I don't understand your point about population control? Most modern meat is not from hunted animals, and farm-bred populations will drop with a decrease in meat-eating, as that's the reason they are created in the first place.



I understand there was context for such a criticism, but your line of reasoning criticizes itself as much as these particular vegans. You are judging the vegan's choice as much as they are judging yours, and your moral views are open to the same criticism.

The separate idea that a lack of perfect consistency should produce a lack of moral judgement leads to pretty absurd scenarios. If society can't criticize behavior without being perfectly consistent itself, then all criticism will essentially end.

I don't think that was what [MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] was expressing. I don't know. I took it that she was saying: criticize all you want but have enough self-awareness to realize everyone regardless or where they stand on ethical eating habits, can do the same following their own line of "reductive reasonings".

Could be wrong tho.

 

[erm]

I don't think that was what OrangeAppled was expressing. I don't know. I took it that she was saying: criticize all you want but have enough self-awareness to realize everyone regardless or where they stand on ethical eating habits, can do the same following their own line of "reductive reasonings".

Could be wrong tho.

Well that's basically how I read it too, so now I'm confused.

 

[Kanra Jest]

I love animals. I honestly end up more empathic about them than people by far. I think they have an innocence we don't.

Any animal cruelty that happens utterly sickens me.

Despite this. I wouldn't be willing to become a vegetarian for two reasons. In fact, I couldn't.

1. Predator and Prey is natural. Predators eating pray is a means for survival. If we eat to survive, we are not cruel and evil. It is just natural. I think it is more so how they're treated on the way to becoming "food" than that they're food. And the fact we are gluttonous and have far more than we need at this point.
2. I hate vegetables. I dislike most (but not all) fruit. I dislike most (but not all) Meat.

I am in a somewhat confusing predicament. Maybe I could become a 'Fruitarian'?

 

[bintyx]

Personally.....

i think philosophy has proven (by not proving) that there is no standard rule of morality that can go across the board.

you cannot call a lion wrong for eating it's prey, an eskimo wrong for eating a seal, or even your neighbor's choice wrong of what they had for dinner. each person is accountable for their actions within their own circumstances. and no outside person is a capable judge.
at the same time, you cannot justify your ethical choices by that of a lion, an eskimo, a neighbor, or anyone else on this planet. what is moral for them in their situation, can never be so simply transposed to your own life.

each person must make up their mind for themselves, given the information out there and what they know about themselves. they must ask themselves hard questions and decide what is ethical for them, sitting in their house, with what they have access to.

for example

me: i have citizenship in a first world country. i don't have dependents. i am physically fit. i have time to cook. i can afford groceries. i have access to the internet and nutritional information.

for me, it is impossible to justify ending another life because theoretically, any reasons i came up with would be trivial. i genuinely have no need. i am not desperate for survival. so to eat an animal would be a disgusting misuse of my power and resources. i have the freedom to make kind choices when i buy things. and so ethically, i must enact that kindness.

that being said, even personal ethical situations may change day to day. on the day i find myself starving in a wilderness, i will be making different choices.

 

[Kanra Jest]

Personally.....

i think philosophy has proven (by not proving) that there is no standard rule of morality that can go across the board.

you cannot call a lion wrong for eating it's prey, an eskimo wrong for eating a seal, or even your neighbor's choice wrong of what they had for dinner. each person is accountable for their actions within their own circumstances. and no outside person is a capable judge.
at the same time, you cannot justify your ethical choices by that of a lion, an eskimo, a neighbor, or anyone else on this planet. what is moral for them in their situation, can never be so simply transposed to your own life.

each person must make up their mind for themselves, given the information out there and what they know about themselves. they must ask themselves hard questions and decide what is ethical for them, sitting in their house, with what they have access to.

for example

me: i have citizenship in a first world country. i don't have dependents. i am physically fit. i have time to cook. i can afford groceries. i have access to the internet and nutritional information.

for me, it is impossible to justify ending another life because theoretically, any reasons i came up with would be trivial. i genuinely have no need. i am not desperate for survival. so to eat an animal would be a disgusting misuse of my power and resources. i have the freedom to make kind choices when i buy things. and so ethically, i must enact that kindness.

that being said, even personal ethical situations may change day to day. on the day i find myself starving in a wilderness, i will be making different choices.

You make it sound as if it is some great sin to eat meat? "Unethical", "disgusting". Why is that?

Are we so sure it would be healthy to completely get rid of eggs and meat entirely from our diets that we'd still be strong and healthy, and instead have veggies? Not that I'm one to talk. Since I have barely any of either.

 

[Galaxy Gazer]

I don't kill a pig in order to eat bacon. I'm not directly or indirectly hurting any animal when I eat meat. Meat is going to be mass-produced whether I buy it myself or leave it to millions of other people.

Saying "if we all..." doesn't really work either. Any moral issue is very subjective, and you can't expect every person in the world to go along with your feel-good idea. I would love it if we "all" stopped hurting our kids for the sake of respect/obedience, but that's not going to happen because *gasp* there are people out there who a) disagree with me or b) don't care at all. That doesn't make them bad people, either. Everyone has their own causes, and most people are capable of doing some good in the world.