# Need Fact-Based or Solid Rational Reasons Against Ethical Vegetarianism **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 7, 2012, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416 "2012-06-07T19:03:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/61 "2012-06-08T22:52:10Z")
> [@Max\_the\_Immortal](#): > > Meat eaters are unwilling to go vegetarian/vegan because they are unwilling to compromise their quality of life. > > Vegetarian/vegan food is typically procured using modern agricultural methods. > > Modern agricultural methods kill animals (earthworms, gophers and other critters killed by ploughs and combines and so forth, the dead zone mentioned above, etc.). > > It is possible to cultivate one’s own food without using modern agricultural methods that kill animals. > > Vegetarians/vegans who don’t cultivate their own food refuse to do so because they are unwilling to compromise their quality of life. > > Therefore, a vegetarian/vegan who doesn’t cultivate his/her own food is ethically no better than a meat eater. Probably worse, because they consider killing animals for food to be immoral and unnecessarily do so anyway. This is not a compelling argument. And several of the posts in this thread have strayed into something similar. You’re basically defining ethical behavior to such an extreme that no reasonable person can meet it, then claiming that all people who fail to meet it are ethically equivalent. But that’s not how people generally think about ethics. Choosing some other examples: If you think it’s unethical to pollute the environment, is the person who carpools ethically equivalent to the person who drives an H2? He could just walk everywhere, after all. If you think it’s unethical to steal, is the person who takes a few pens from work ethically equivalent to Bernie Madoff? They’re both thieves. It’s pretty clear that there’s an ethical continuum, and you can move along it. Here are some of my rational arguments for eating meat: 1. There is an ethical value to preserving traditions and celebrating the culture of food. Meat-based dishes are part of this culture. 2. People have a limited ability to make moral considerations. Called “moral licensing”, it can [lead people who make an effort in one area to give themselves greater latitude in other areas](http://www.thedailymeal.com/science-proves-eating-organic-can-turn-you-jerk). Even if eating meat isn’t ethical, spending our moral consideration on that rather than on greater evils may be unproductive and ultimately make us worse off. 3. Meat allows us to use marginally productive land better. 4. Meat production, particularly in poor countries, smoothes agricultural shocks. A herd on the hoof is a valuable commodity because you can feed excess crops that would otherwise go to waste to animals, then eat the animals in a season when there’s not enough food to go around. It’s like a delicious savings account. 5. Meat production, done right, can lead to happier and healthier lives for animals than they’d get in nature. None of those really excuse factory farming or the agricultural-industrial complex, but that’s really another topic. ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/62 "2012-06-08T23:34:30Z")
1 and 2 could be used for almost anything though. ‘Shame to lose bear fighting as an ancient tradition’. And 2 seems to confuse individual ethics with a societal ethic. No-one feels particularly self righteous now that we dont have slavery for instance, its just normal. Its also a somewhat subjective thing what is ‘not a priority’, I suspect many people would argue over-consumption in the west _is_ an extremely important issue. Otara ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/63 "2012-06-08T23:35:26Z")
> [@BottledBlondJeanie](#): > > But, I do believe he thinks he’s a bit more evolved based on his choice not to eat meat. “You won’t be thinking that after I eat you.” ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [June 8, 2012, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/64 "2012-06-08T23:56:19Z")
Oh another thing Ive thought of - if ‘some meat is OK’ but we’re overconsuming at present, a vegetarian diet could be argued as doing as much as possible towards that goal, given society is not moving towards that goal yet, ie it doesnt help to eat 50% meat if noone else is. The very title of the book as ‘benign extravagance’ suggests there is still some level of lower efficiency than vegetarianism, its just that it can be much better than with current practises. One criticism of the book was it being written pretty specifically for the UK, and it may not translate well on a global perspective. Seeing other vegetarian responses to the book might be interesting as well - it seems to me to be the start of an argument rather than the end of it. Otara ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/65 "2012-06-09T00:36:02Z")
[quote=“Otara, post:62, topic:624416”] 1 and 2 could be used for almost anything though. ‘Shame to lose bear fighting as an ancient tradition’. [quote] That’s true. I don’t expect them to carry the day. But they are arguments in favor, to be balanced against the harm of continuing the practice of meat-eating. > [@](#): > > And 2 seems to confuse individual ethics with a societal ethic. No-one feels particularly self righteous now that we dont have slavery for instance, its just normal. Its also a somewhat subjective thing what is ‘not a priority’, I suspect many people would argue over-consumption in the west _is_ an extremely important issue. I don’t think it confuses them. I’m talking about rational arguments for an individual to eat meat. If they know that not eating meat is a great struggle for them, and that it takes a lot of moral consideration on their part to achieve it, then they may be better off spending their time on an issue they feel is more important. I’m not saying we all have to agree where the greatest moral value is. Generally it’s much easier to make progress in a good direction than it is to completely change ones behavior. If you have 7 carnivores, getting them each to give up eating meat on one day a week is going to be much easier (on you and on them) than getting one to give up meat entirely. And it has the same moral outcome (for most ways of thinking about it) I think the issue of overconsumption is a much broader one. You can eat meat without overconsuming resources. Many fairly poor people in much poorer countries eat some meat. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_the\_Immortal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6de8d8/32.png) [@Max\_the\_Immortal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_the_Immortal)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/66 "2012-06-09T01:11:00Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > Choosing some other examples: If you think it’s unethical to pollute the environment, is the person who carpools ethically equivalent to the person who drives an H2? He could just walk everywhere, after all. If you think it’s unethical to steal, is the person who takes a few pens from work ethically equivalent to Bernie Madoff? They’re both thieves. It’s more of a matter of someone who “only” carpools and “only” steals pens actively going around bragging that he isn’t as bad as an H2-driving Bernie Madoff. That’s nothing to brag about, and as someone who neither drives nor steals (and generally doesn’t hold himself up as a moral paragon), I’ll readily point out the hollowness of such boasts. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/67 "2012-06-09T05:00:34Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > Oh another thing Ive thought of - if ‘some meat is OK’ but we’re overconsuming at present, a vegetarian diet could be argued as doing as much as possible towards that goal, given society is not moving towards that goal yet, ie it doesnt help to eat 50% meat if noone else is… Well as has pointed out in other threads - significant progress can be made by consumers of meat being willing pay more for meat produced humanely and sustainably, and in preference to meat produced otherwise. Producers respond to the spending patterns of their customers. Those who are buying no meat at all, no matter how it is produced, those who are not their customers no matter what, do not motivate those production changes. And again, those changes are where the big impacts can potentially come from. ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/68 "2012-06-09T06:28:53Z")
Hmmm if you have 30k customers and it goes down to 15k customers, seems to me production is going to reduce unless you can convince people to eat twice as much meat. In overall terms thats not going to change much from everyone deciding to buy half as much. And of course businesses will find out why its base is being reduced - people might come back as customers if enough change occurs. So I dont quite agree. Otara ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 6:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/69 "2012-06-09T06:40:36Z")
> [@iamthewalrus\_3](#): > > [ > Generally it’s much easier to make progress in a good direction than it is to completely change ones behavior. If you have 7 carnivores, getting them each to give up eating meat on one day a week is going to be much easier (on you and on them) than getting one to give up meat entirely. And it has the same moral outcome (for most ways of thinking about it). How does that work with cannibalism though? As long as we’re eating less people, thats better than going for complete cessation, as it would be too hard to stop entirely for them. The argument doesnt seem to work when applied to other moral issues. It might be more pragmatic, but its not necessarily more ethical as an end goal. And even pragmatically, building a population of people who reject the practise entirely also might be better as your way to an end goal if you’re trying to convince society to reject the practise entirely. Otara ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/70 "2012-06-09T19:48:19Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > Hmmm if you have 30k customers and it goes down to 15k customers, seems to me production is going to reduce unless you can convince people to eat twice as much meat. In overall terms thats not going to change much from everyone deciding to buy half as much. > > And of course businesses will find out why its base is being reduced - people might come back as customers if enough change occurs. So I dont quite agree. > > Otara Let’s play out some math. And we are arguing the ethical advantage of low meat versus no meat. No question some good to the total numbers can be gained by some giving up completely to offset the gluttons, but not so much. Per capita anual meat consumption United States: 123 kg. Average worldwide: 47. U.K. 86. So someone just below the world average, say 40 kg/y, going meat free would roughly do the same good as a typical American just coming down to U.K. levels (not exactly a vegan country), and about half as much good as the typical American coming down to the world average. Extremity in the vegan direction does less good than reducing the extremity in the other. And sure, the producers will want to know why their base is reduced. “Oh. It’s because of these people who won’t eat meat no matter how we produce it. The people who do eat meat don’t care about sustainability or humane slaughter, both of which costs us more. Okay then. We need to lower production costs to make up the difference .” (Either by more profit or by lower price and more sales to those who do eat meat). ---
**Author:** ![umkay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/43a26b/32.png) [@umkay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/umkay)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/71 "2012-06-09T21:17:59Z")
Okay, so I did a quick Google search on “ethics,” and came up with as many different definitions for it as links I clicked on. Which strengthens the case I’d like to (tentatively) make: That there is no universal ethic. Several sites I read claimed there was, and gave examples of universal goods like concern for others and honesty. But while these may (may) be two qualities that all societies agree are positive, the concensus is far less concrete when it comes to what these mean and how they are employed. Not to mention how we should behave when the values are in conflict (e.g. You’re the victim of a home invasion and, though honesty is a good thing, your concern for your children asleep upstairs causes you to lie to the perpetrator and say you live alone). This thought was prompted by the person who said something like “unless your friend is a Buddhist monk, he’s not truly, fully ethical either.” This places Buddhist monks at the top of the ethical totem pole, but my first thought was that that’s a far from universal assessment. How does anyone decide who is ethical and who is not? Anyone here who can explain ethics to me, especially as it is independent from personal morality? Anyway, to the OP: My thought is that you just tell your friend that you two simply don’t subscribe to the same ethical standard. He is ethical by his own standard, and you are ethical by yours. I mean, that could work, right?? 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/72 "2012-06-09T21:36:02Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Let’s play out some math. And we are arguing the ethical advantage of low meat versus no meat. No question some good to the total numbers can be gained by some giving up completely to offset the gluttons, but not so much. > > Per capita anual meat consumption United States: 123 kg. Average worldwide: 47. U.K. 86. > > So someone just below the world average, say 40 kg/y, going meat free would roughly do the same good as a typical American just coming down to U.K. levels (not exactly a vegan country), and about half as much good as the typical American coming down to the world average. > > Extremity in the vegan direction does less good than reducing the extremity in the other. > > And sure, the producers will want to know why their base is reduced. “Oh. It’s because of these people who won’t eat meat no matter how we produce it. The people who do eat meat don’t care about sustainability or humane slaughter, both of which costs us more. Okay then. We need to lower production costs to make up the difference .” (Either by more profit or by lower price and more sales to those who do eat meat). And convincing one American to give up entirely does as much good as 6 world people halving their intake. Still not finding it very convincing. Otara ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/73 "2012-06-09T21:45:29Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > How does that work with cannibalism though? As long as we’re eating less people, thats better than going for complete cessation, as it would be too hard to stop entirely for them. > > The argument doesnt seem to work when applied to other moral issues. It might be more pragmatic, but its not necessarily more ethical as an end goal. And even pragmatically, building a population of people who reject the practise entirely also might be better as your way to an end goal if you’re trying to convince society to reject the practise entirely. Except that there’s nothing immoral about eating meat. Just liek there’s nothing immoral about pre-marital sex, porno, gambling, and many other things that some people think are immoral but others don’t. There are some dudes who think that sex is immoral unless it is within a Church marriage and only for procreation. That doesn’t mean that I need to cut back on _my_ sex. Now, 'good for the environment" is different than “moral vs immoral”. Eating less meat is good for the environment. That doesn;t make it a moral question, it’s a science issue. ---
**Author:** ![Otara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/a88e4f/32.png) [@Otara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otara)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/74 "2012-06-09T21:58:07Z")
Im talking about it from the perspective of people who do view it as immoral obviously. Some will see it as a personal choice, others see it as something everyone should be doing. The discussion is from the perspective of trying to convince _them_ that reduction is as good or even better than the cessation they’re currently doing. I dont think they’re going to find it very convincing, particularly given it ends up basically trying to argue that they’re doing better for society to actually start eating meat rather than continuing to not eat it themselves. Otara ---
**Author:** ![kenner116](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecb155/32.png) [@kenner116](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenner116)\ **Post date:** [June 9, 2012, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/75 "2012-06-09T21:58:22Z")
Caring about the environment _is_ a moral issue. In this case cannibalism might actually be more moral than eating other animals. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/76 "2012-06-10T02:15:46Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > Im talking about it from the perspective of people who do view it as immoral obviously. Some will see it as a personal choice, others see it as something everyone should be doing. > > The discussion is from the perspective of trying to convince _them_ that reduction is as good or even better than the cessation they’re currently doing. I dont think they’re going to find it very convincing, particularly given it ends up basically trying to argue that they’re doing better for society to actually start eating meat rather than continuing to not eat it themselves. > > Otara Well in the terms of the friendly debate that the op was talking about a statement that it is ethical because eating meat is immoral would rightly get roll eyes. The debate as I understood it was whether eating any meat was unethical: does someone who eats a modest amount of meat have any ethical compunction to go meat free? And I was understanding your response to that to be that indeed there is a reasonable level of global meat consumption that is sustainable even with a growing world population and which would present no environmental hazard but that since some eat more than their sustainable share others have an ethical imperative to eat none - to attempt to even them out. And I don’t buy that. It strikes me to be like someone who rides his/her bike everywhere (who never drives, takes a bus or a train, or flies) stating that someone who bought and drives a Nissan Leaf is being unethical because they are using some energy likely produced by natural gas or coal and thereby contributing to greenhouse gases. Instead of acknowledging that not only was decreasing his or her emissions an ethical act, but that helping develop a market for EVs and public acceptance thereof _may_ even cause greater good over time than one person riding a bike exclusively. Would that argument get a non-driving cyclist to buy an EV? Of course not. Nor should it. Truth be told the choice to cycle is probably not being primarily driven by environmental concerns. Maybe it is affordability. Or getting in the exercise. Or because cycling is fun. Helping the environment is likely just gravy for something they were going to do for selfish reasons anyway. Likewise with our op’s friend. He is meat-free because that is how he was raised. And let’s face it, lots of vegetarian choices are really tasty and often more interesting than many meat courses. He also likely believes that it is healthier for him to eat like that. For food he craves he has no problem not being vegan. He is already doing it for selfish reasons and claiming that such demonstrates ethical superiority rings hollow. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/77 "2012-06-10T18:12:56Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > How does that work with cannibalism though? As long as we’re eating less people, thats better than going for complete cessation, as it would be too hard to stop entirely for them. I think it works fine. Eating fewer people is less bad than eating more of them. > [@](#): > > The argument doesnt seem to work when applied to other moral issues. It might be more pragmatic, but its not necessarily more ethical as an end goal. I think that pragmatism should be part of moral consideration. It’s no good to hold such an extreme position that you can’t move the moral calculus of society. Focusing on an achievable reduction in immoral behavior is better than advocating for a complete cessation that won’t actually happen. > [@](#): > > And even pragmatically, building a population of people who reject the practise entirely also might be better as your way to an end goal if you’re trying to convince society to reject the practise entirely. Or, this might be a better tactic. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2012, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/78 "2012-06-10T21:05:20Z")
> [@Otara](#): > > Im talking about it from the perspective of people who do view it as immoral obviously. Some will see it as a personal choice, others see it as something everyone should be doing. > > The discussion is from the perspective of trying to convince _them_ that reduction is as good or even better than the cessation they’re currently doing. I dont think they’re going to find it very convincing, particularly given it ends up basically trying to argue that they’re doing better for society to actually start eating meat rather than continuing to not eat it themselves. Are Vegans more moral than Vegetarians? Fruitarians more moral yet? These have been argued (mostly by Vegans and Fruitarians), but anyone with two brain cells agrees that Breatharians are just plain stupid fucks. Not to mention \*dead. \* So, it’s not true that the more extreme = the more moral. In fact that’s the proof that it isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Trom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Trom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trom)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2012, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/79 "2012-06-18T17:12:39Z")
An interesting piece of info from the Freakonomics [blog](http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/06/07/you-eat-what-you-are-pt-2-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/): > [@](#): > > It is generally believed that cars and trucks and airplanes contribute an ungodly share of greenhouse gases. This has recently led many right-minded people to buy a Prius or other hybrid car. But every time a Prius owner drives to the grocery store, she may be canceling out its emission-reducing benefit, at least if she shops in the meat section. > > How so? Because cows — as well as sheep and other cud- chewing animals called ruminants — are wicked polluters. Their exhalation and flatulence and belching and manure emit methane, which by one common measure is about twenty-five times more potent as a greenhouse gas than the carbon dioxide released by cars (and, by the way, humans). The world’s ruminants are responsible for about 50 percent more greenhouse gas than the entire transportation sector. … > > The best way to help, Weber and Matthews suggest, is to subtly change your diet. **“Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more greenhouse-gas reduction than buying all locally sourced food,” they write.** (Bolding mine) ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416/80 "2012-06-20T22:05:58Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > [Sentience](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentient) is “the ability to feel, perceive or be conscious, or to have subjective experiences.”. Sapience is the ability to think as humans do. Even quite stupid animals are probably sentient. Sentient is often used as a synonym for sapience however, which confuses the issue. As far as I know, no other animals have been proven to be conscious. Without language, it’s kinda hard to prove, anyways. Sentience would be a useless word if we allow it to be “or” instead of and, since it would cover every animal with a brain, and then some. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/need-fact-based-or-solid-rational-reasons-against-ethical-vegetarianism/624416.md?page=5)