I am posting this question after reading the Eeeeeeeew I ate meat thread in MPSIMS. Several posters referded to themselves as vegitarians “for ethical reasons”. I am having trouble with this concept. I understand that much of today’s mass processing of animals for food is very distasteful to watch. Yes, sometimes livestock is mistreated, and I’m sure it’s not fun to be indescriminately butcherd in a converer belt processing line, but how is this more “inhumane” than nature itself? Remove humans from the planet, and set all animals free, and they will suffer agonizing deaths from disease, be eaten ( while still alive ) by predators, starve during lean times, die of thurst during droughts, and generaly have a " nasty mean and brutish" life. Nature is cruel to the individual, and all our wishing it wasn’t dosen’t make it so. OTOH, animals raised for what they produce, i.e. milk, live generaly peaceful lives, hanging out in meadows and such. ( and yes, I realize there are exceptions) Do your ethical prohibitions extend to milk? Some vegans go even farther. Paul and Linda Mcarthy would only feed their pets non-animal based food. This strikes me as just silly. Unlike humans, who are omnivores and can do just dandy on a vegitable diet, cats and dogs are carnivores, designed to eat meat. Forcing your convictions on an animal not designed to eat that way seems cruel in and of itself. (Cecil delt with this topic here.)
Please understand that this is a request for information, not any kind of a criticism. If you want to be a vegitarian, that’s great. Undoubtedly you will be much healthier than heavy meat eaters. It’s just the "ethical’ part that I’m trying to understand.
I’m not a Vegan (or a vegatarian), but I don’t understand why they have to keep explaining themselves to others. Why does anyone care if they don’t eat meat or use animal products? My close friend has been a Vegan since we were small children, so maybe I just don’t find it that odd.
From what I’ve read in the 500 or so threads about this that have been posted, most Vegans (and others who go as far as feeding their animals non-animal based foods) simply don’t believe that animals were put on earth to feed us or for us to use. Therefore, they find other means to feed themselves and clothe themselves.
Many people who don’t use animal products also do not keep animals as pets, as they don’t believe that’s why they were put here. It’s OK to believe that.
Yes, animals will die in the wild. But it will not be caused by humans killing them on purpose. I don’t think anyone believes that animals will not suffer in the wild, but it’s a different story when humans inflict death upon animals for their own use.
In short, (I don’t mean to speak for anyone here) I believe that they don’t think animals were put on earth for our consumption (food, entertainment, or otherwise). We don’t have the right to kill them.
Personally, I believe that circuses are incredibly unethical. That’s everyones right- to decide what they do and don’t believe in. Vegans don’t have to defend their actions constantly (in my opinion)
I hope this didn’t come off as too snotty, but it seems like every week there is another thread about Veggies, which deteriorates into people saying “MmMMMMM! I love vegatarians- they taste great” and stuff like that. People don’t seem able to have intelligent discussion about it.
I have to agree with Zette. When a legitimate answer to a question is, “Because I want to,” additional inquiry is pointless at best and easily construed as disrespectful, disclaimers notwithstanding.
If someone were attempting to require me to uphold a particular ethical standard, only then I would require pointed questions and rational justification.
I have met just enough smarmy vegetarians and vegans to have felt the imaginary sting of their self righteous attitudes. It boils down to some sort of “Holier than thou” self elevation.
Bad news: Any creature that walks the face of this earth lives by killing something else! Carnivores, vegetarians, vegans period, no exceptions. Anthromorphizing lower animal life in order to justify your own convictions is puerile at best. If you want to have a certain diet, fine, it’s a free country. If you have some inexplicable need to foist your own belief structure on others to feel better about yourself, piss off. This “We don’t have the right to kill them.” is a bunch of tripe (as it were)! Vegans have merely voluntarily relenquished their right to do so. Nothing more and nothing less. Good news: It is a free and wonderful country that we live in.
PS: Vegans love my recipes. I think I’ll post one here.
Joe Malik, I think you’re coming down a little hard on weirddave. I detected no judgment or accusation in the OP; he’s just looking to satisfy his curiosity.
I’m not a vegan, but I am a vegetarian. It’s mainly for health reasons, but it doesn’t hurt that I also don’t like the idea of killing or hurting animals. It’s not a big enough concern to me that I’d stop using photographic film or throw away my mostly-leather running shoes. But at the same time, if by going meatless I can cause a few less animal deaths in my life, that’s all to the good.
Now, to answer the OP:
Of course animals hurt and kill each other in the wild, and suffer and die in response to other forces. It’s nature. Animals have no understanding of death or the suffering of others; they just behave as natural selection programmed them to. Vegetarians understand that just like the rest of us. I daresay you’d be hard-pressed to find a vegan who thinks foxes shouldn’t eat rabbits.
But humans are sentient creatures, and we can understand pain and the finality of death. Ethical vegetarians are saying merely that they, personally, individually, will cause no harm to fellow creatures when they can avoid it.
They’re not (usually) saying you mustn’t either. That’s a matter for your own conscience.
They’re not saying animals shouldn’t kill other animals. Again, animals, unlike humans, are helpless against their basic natures, and therefore bear no moral culpability for their actions.
Does that make things clear? Again, I’m a vegetarian, but not primarily an ethical-vegetarian, so I hope I’ve represented their viewpoint accurately.
Thank you five, that’s exactly what I was posting- a request for information. I am not demeaning or judging, I am just curious. Everyone please keep that in mind if you feel an ugre to turn this into a mud throwing contest.
Well, as a vegetarian, I consider the damage to the environment a major (but not sole) motivation. Modern livestock farming uses tons of water, electricity, resources, etc. and is extremely inefficient. While animals still kill each other in the wild, they don’t do so nearly as wastefully as us humans do.
Ever see The Matrix? Would you justify keeping people in cages on the argument that, if left out on their own, “humans will suffer agonizing deaths from disease, be eaten by predators, starve, die of thirst, and gnerally have a nasty, mean, and brutish life?”
The argument that it is ethical to be consciously and deliberately cruel to another creature simply because the environment is unconsciously and indiscriminately cruel is specious. Unlike non-sentient creatures, we can consciously decide what we will and will not eat. To say that humans should eat meat because wolves eat meat rejects the profound difference between man and wolf.
Here’s the basis for my ethical stand against eating meat: to eat, it is inevitable that one must destroy and consume living creatures. I find it ethical to attempt to minimize the significance of that destruction by consuming the least complex creatures possible-- plants. The more complex a creature is, the greater the ethical duty we have to allow it to live its life free of human interference. (Within reason, of course. Human civilization has certain needs that necessitate intrusion on animal’s lives. But ethics directs that we attempt to minimize this intrusion as much as reasonably practical.)
Ever see The Matrix? Would you justify keeping people in cages on the argument that, if left out on their own, “humans will suffer agonizing deaths from disease, be eaten by predators, starve, die of thirst, and gnerally have a nasty, mean, and brutish life?”
<B>Actually, on this one I am feeling half and half… yes, some of us would die, but on the whole we adapt much better than say…a cow… to a changing environment. And while a percentage would die, it’s not that large of a percentage, and the ones that would die would lead to a stronger species.</B>
The argument that it is ethical to be consciously and deliberately cruel to another creature simply because the environment is unconsciously and indiscriminately cruel is specious. Unlike non-sentient creatures, we can consciously decide what we will and will not eat. To say that humans should eat meat because wolves eat meat rejects the profound difference between man and wolf.
<B>If you can tell me the difference, and have it be more than a “Well, we know it’s <I>wrong</I>” defense I would love to hear it. Some other day we’ll debate what’s right and wrong, but not here…<?B>
Here’s the basis for my ethical stand against eating meat: to eat, it is inevitable that one must destroy and consume living creatures. I find it ethical to attempt to minimize the significance of that destruction by consuming the least complex creatures possible-- plants. The more complex a creature is, the greater the ethical duty we have to allow it to live its life free of human interference. (Within reason, of course. Human civilization has certain needs that necessitate intrusion on animal’s lives. But ethics directs that we attempt to minimize this intrusion as much as reasonably practical.)
<B>The greatere problem I have with so many of these sorts of viewpoints is a rejection of humanity as part of nature. What is the difference between a beaver dam and grand coulee, other than scale? An ant hive or Bee hive or termite log (all of which change the immediate environment) and the suburbs of Sacramento, or the highrises of L.A. and NYC?
There are no ethics to any of this, and the fallacy of “rights” shouldn’t even enter into it. Ethical duty is a subject for another debate, but I will state that it is my belief that there can be no “ethical duty” as ethics are on an individual basis, and to try to force a conforming to an ethic that isn’t mine, will make me resist… violently if necessary. </B>
How’s that work for you, divemaster?
Nurlman, I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t like your argument. The Matrix was about AI’s who knew full well that humans could survive on their own, which is precisely why they created The Matrix in the first place. But domesticated animals can’t survive on their own.
If you throw your cute little pet bunny rabbit out into the woods, it’s gonna die. In fact, it would have been much kinder to have killed it yourself than let it slowly starve to death because it has no gathering skills.
Now, for all you vegitarians out there. If you tell me that you don’t want to eat meat for health reasons, I accept it. If you tell me you don’t eat meat because it doesn’t taste good, I strongly disagree…but I’ll let that slide.
But - and this is very important - if you tell me you don’t eat meat because it’s cruel to the animals, ask yourself this: what the hell do you think you’re doing to the plants? Oh come on, you say. No, really. In case you’ve forgotten it, plants are ALIVE, or they were before you decided to make a salad out of them. How can you justify killing them? Just because they don’t scream when you kill them does not make them any less worthy of staying alive.
How do you justify it? And if you refuse to eat anything alive, what then? Can you live on flintstones vitamins and jello?
I don’t worry about plants too much because, so far, no one has proven that any of them have any kind of sentience (although Roald Dahl once wrote a very interesting short story to that effect).
I think that it is probably natural for humans to eat meat, although there are probably arguements on both sides of that debate also. I choose not to eat meat because, within modern civilization, I am able to make up any diet deficits by carefully balancing complete and incomplete proteins.
I think that my personal decision is pretty emotionally based and not too logical for anyone else but me. I love animals and don’t want to eat them. Most of my friends do not feel this way, and I would not dream of telling them that their way is wrong and mine is right.
Enderw23:
I don’t want to hijack this thread, so I’ll just direct you to an old thread I started a few weeks ago. It covers many vegetarians’ feelings about what non-vegetarians ask us.
I particularly would request that you read my comments about how “plants have feelings”. To put it briefly, that is a very old and tired concept that many (MANY, MANY, MANY) non-vegetarians like to bring up. And of course they all think they’re the first geniuses to think of it. :rolleyes:
Sorry if I seem a bit testy on this, but read the other thread to get some clarification on why!
While I was surprised that I was the first to post in this thread about the plant issue, I was being serious. Heck, half the time I can’t even take myself seriously, but in this instance, I wasn’t making a snide remark.
We can take it as a given that plants are alive. By killing plants then, you are partaking in the act of murder. Nothing prosecutable, mind you, but it’s still killing, right? Do you kill bugs that invade your home? How big must the creature become before killing is wrong? Or is just a simple matter of whether it leaves a red spot on the ground as to whether it’s right or wrong?
There are actual studies on plant intelligence. I’ll try to find some tomorrow if I’ve got the time. But if we’re falling back on sentience as the only deciding factor, there are a lot of humans that don’t fit the bill, let alone barnyard animals.
All I’m saying is this: You can eat whatever you want to. But if you think it’s ok to eat some lettuce because, hey, it’s just a plant, remember that I can eat a burger too because, hey, it’s just a cow.
I figured that. The thing is, the rest of the people on this thread probably didn’t bring up the plant thing because (as I clarified before) it’s been DONE TO DEATH.
Yeah yeah yeah. :rolleyes: I’ve heard variations on this “plants have feelings too” thing a MILLION FREAKING TIMES. BELIEVE ME. So…?
Gee thanks. Now I can rest easy at night, knowing I have your permission. (Sorry. I really am not trying to be snotty…well, I am being snotty, but it’s not a personal thing against you. I’ve just heard this a MILLION FREAKIN’ TIMES!!!)
I once again direct you to that other link I posted before.
I can think it’s “OK” to eat whatever I want. I can also think it’s not “OK” to eat meat, or anything else for that matter, for any reason whatsoever. It’s my diet, not yours. The only reason you should give a damn about what I eat, and my reasons for what I eat are if I start nagging you about what you eat.
About the argument that it happens it nature. Well sure, but out of necessity. It’s one thing to resort to cannibalism if you’re the survivor of a plane crash in the mountains, another if you just don’t feel like eating steamed vegetables for dinner.
If you’re against hurting people, then why don’t you extend to all things that suffer? If for no other reason than to be consistent.
About the pet thing, I think dogs can be vegetarians, but not cats.
I will agree that some animal lovers (like any organization) are too emotional. They don’t do their cause well when they proselytize instead of reason.
