Yes, veganism is more ethical than eating meat. There's no moral defence. Does that make vegans more moral than meat-eaters? Of course not, because ethics don't just boil down to eating animals or not.
Veganism, Vegeterianism, Omnivorism
- Thread starter Janne
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, Early bird pricing on the Summer Moot (29th July - 10th August) available until April 6th, we'd love you to come. PLEASE CLICK HERE to early bird price and get more information.
Yes, veganism is more ethical than eating meat. There's no moral defence. Does that make vegans more moral than meat-eaters? Of course not, because ethics don't just boil down to eating animals or not.
I
But, which ethics? (Filosophical question, not to get angry about!)
Morality and ethics are another, excellent subject to discuss, with no clear answer!
In my student days, I used to belong to a debating society where we discussed hugely various subjects, from everyday dilemmas to more esoteric subjects.
The best and most fruitful discussions are the ones where peopke disagree.
Like here. No doubt your points have made people to think!
But, which ethics? (Filosophical question, not to get angry about!)
Morality and ethics are another, excellent subject to discuss, with no clear answer!
In my student days, I used to belong to a debating society where we discussed hugely various subjects, from everyday dilemmas to more esoteric subjects.
The best and most fruitful discussions are the ones where peopke disagree.
Like here. No doubt your points have made people to think!
When I lived in Sweden most of the meat and fish my family consumed was either self shot and caught, or sourced from ‘alternative’ farms.
Fruit and veg PYO or foraged.
Fruit and veg PYO or foraged.
This is one of the reason's I don't have children, it seemed plain to me many years ago that we have problems and that increasing numbers of us would give us less time to resolve them.
We've been discussing ethics this whole time.
Fact: In the first world we raise animals into variable conditions through various methods. Let's talk about only the best conditions. We kill those animals, who do not want to be killed, at a considerably young age in respect to their natural life expectancy. This is not through necessity but purely through a desire of taste of their flesh and produce.
Opinion: Is that ethical? I say no.
You: What say you?
Fact: In the first world we raise animals into variable conditions through various methods. Let's talk about only the best conditions. We kill those animals, who do not want to be killed, at a considerably young age in respect to their natural life expectancy. This is not through necessity but purely through a desire of taste of their flesh and produce.
Opinion: Is that ethical? I say no.
You: What say you?
If you do not have a child how do you pass on your ideas of ethics, morality, codes of behaviour? At best you are reduced to trying to pass on your ideas to other adults for them to pass the ideas on to their children. If enough people do that, then the coming generation will be made up of people who didn't care enough not to have children, so to speak. Some will pass on good lessons, short of not having children, but others won't. I used to work with a Zambian (who loved debating) and he was firmly of the view that there were no global shortages of anything, it is just about unequal distribution, and that it was the duty of those in the wealthy countries to consume and waste in order to give work to those in the developing world. You can be sure he is going to have two or three children, raised with those ideas.
I don't debate much, not particularly fond of it, but it strikes me that one of the reasons for hostility over the vegan life choice is this view of ethics. I imagine people don't like anyone telling them they are unethical for following their biological nature and living within a society that has allowed them to do so without stigma, while there is a social stigma associated with other behaviour the society deems unethical.
I don't debate much, not particularly fond of it, but it strikes me that one of the reasons for hostility over the vegan life choice is this view of ethics. I imagine people don't like anyone telling them they are unethical for following their biological nature and living within a society that has allowed them to do so without stigma, while there is a social stigma associated with other behaviour the society deems unethical.
Yes, as I believe our customs and biochemistry overrules ethics.
We create and change ethics, they are not set.
Also, ethical rules change, but our bodies do not.
Theory: We can create an ethic rule that it is unethical to eat anything except meat, nothing.
We will die.
We can create en ethnic rule that we are not allowed to eat, or use anything the Animalia.
We will die.
You know that we did not believe animals were sentient until only a few generations ago?
What is ‘sentient’?
Plants react to outside stimuli. Many plants react to damage to them.
No central nervous system? No, not like ours. As they do react, they must have some kind of cellular communication to transmit impulses.
Maybe research will soon widen the sentient to plants?
Who knows?
We create and change ethics, they are not set.
Also, ethical rules change, but our bodies do not.
Theory: We can create an ethic rule that it is unethical to eat anything except meat, nothing.
We will die.
We can create en ethnic rule that we are not allowed to eat, or use anything the Animalia.
We will die.
You know that we did not believe animals were sentient until only a few generations ago?
What is ‘sentient’?
Plants react to outside stimuli. Many plants react to damage to them.
No central nervous system? No, not like ours. As they do react, they must have some kind of cellular communication to transmit impulses.
Maybe research will soon widen the sentient to plants?
Who knows?
This discussion is going round in circles. Plants cannot feel pain. That's a universal fact. There is no 'who knows?' or 'maybe one day we'll find out'. Yes yes plants can emit chemicals to warn neighbouring plants in order to emit more anti-feeding chemicals etc. That's great, and super interesting and really cool, but it's still not feeling pain. We don't need to anthropomorphise everything. It's chemistry. It's not a central nervous system. Neither do they have a brain which would allow them to feel emotions like suffering etc etc.
With that in mind, why don't we just focus on those animals we know *can* feel pain? This is merely deflection.
Animals feel pain and suffering, and we are causing it. We can stop it.
As for overruling ethics - slavery was once legal. Non-equality for women was once legal. Raping and murdering neighbouring tribes-people was once normal. There is a growing movement defending paedophilia as it's a 'natural urge'. Let's ponder that for a minute.
You say it's not black and white, but that's because meat-eaters wish there was a grey area. For the 22 million animals killed each day for the sake of our taste buds, there's no grey area. They want to live.
With that in mind, why don't we just focus on those animals we know *can* feel pain? This is merely deflection.
Animals feel pain and suffering, and we are causing it. We can stop it.
As for overruling ethics - slavery was once legal. Non-equality for women was once legal. Raping and murdering neighbouring tribes-people was once normal. There is a growing movement defending paedophilia as it's a 'natural urge'. Let's ponder that for a minute.
You say it's not black and white, but that's because meat-eaters wish there was a grey area. For the 22 million animals killed each day for the sake of our taste buds, there's no grey area. They want to live.
You display exactly the same traits so many vegans and other people believing in extreme or fringe beliefs have, be it political, religious or other.
You believe there is only one truth, yours. Everybody else is wrong.
It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you.
Sorry.
You believe there is only one truth, yours. Everybody else is wrong.
It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you.
Sorry.
Would this be the second time you're 'bowing out' then?
Yep, I believe it's black and white. You didn't even answer my ethics question above that I posted to you. That's because it's unethical and you know it. No-one wants to admit they participate in anything unethical when they're shown the truth about just how unethical it is. You're up against a life-long habit and set of ingrained and programmed beliefs.
You've made that up.
Here's the one truth:
We unnecessarily and systematically kill 160 billion animals per year in order to eat their dead bodies because it gives us momentary pleasure.
Truth isn't subjective, and neither is that statement. It's true whether you want it to be true or not. How you reconsile your part in that truth however, is completely up to you.
Nor was I being flippant. I have over 1 years of personal involvement in farming & ranching as well as a good deal of my High School education devoted to vocational agriculture. As somebody else already said, we can both produce various studies supporting out own side. On the other hand, I choose to stand on my own first hand knowledge. Have you ever farmed? (Plant crops or animals?) Have you ever hunted? Do you have any first hand knowledge whatsoever? Or do you simply rely on the modern media to form your ethics and opinions? I suspect the latter as you posted a benign video and asked "why makes it saddens us?" Frankly, it didn't sadden me. What DOES sadden me is that society is becoming more and more over sensitive. I'll not only always be a bit feral, I'll always be proud of it. I not only eat meat but I enjoy killing my own supper on a regular basis.
The definition of sentient is able to perceive or feel things. I'd say all the mamals I've ever encountered are sentiment. scientific evidence points to them being sentient too.
No. It isn't. Sentience isn't a scientific fact; it's a phylosophical concept of human society. The working definition (from High School, University, and all working environments) is a self awareness of eventual mortality and a curiosity beyond one's self. The recent tend to define animals as sentient (based on the qualities you cited) are nothing more than a shift in human philosophy (NOT due to anything learned through research on animals themselves)
You would love that to be the case! You're even using your own definition of the word.
I've helped you by defining the term and copying and pasting from dictionaries, but you're still covering your ears and shouting 'animals are NOT sentient!' How convenient for you, as you make your living off the exploitation of animals.
Good job the rest of the world knows they are in fact sentient. It's like saying that grass isn't green.
As for the rest of your text, you'll be sad to hear that I am educated to degree level from an agricultural science school, I have got family who farm, and I have shot, killed, and butchered animals in the past for both work and pleasure, here, in the UK, and in different countries.
But even if I had ZERO experience with any of this, I could still deduce that we don't need to kill animals, and therefore exploiting them is unethical, unless we live somewhere where we need to in order to survive.
As for 'we could both produce scientific evidence to prove our arguments', I am the only person here who has posted peer reviewed scientific evidence to bolster everything I've said that's not subjective.
No-one has posted any evidence bar a meme.
So please, I'd love to see more scientific evidence.
No-one has posted any evidence bar a meme.
So please, I'd love to see more scientific evidence.
I was going to link an article from a science column so I went to Google and typed in 'animal sentience science', and I have so many that I don't even know what to link. Perhaps you could Google it for yourself and read up on the science, because it honestly sounds like you've been duped. That or you're fundamentally religious.
Prophecy, you've asked for scientific rebuttals. I take you seriously--and I take you at your word! None of this is medical advice, mind you, just my view of the relevant literature.
On the question of diet alone, bracketing issues of ethics for the moment, there are well-recognised nutrient deficiencies associated with a purely vegetarian and/or vegan diet. One example from the scientific literature:
https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/46689
These can be easily rectified by taking supplements, of course, and I don't think the vit. B problems noted here are in any sense controversial.
I'd suggest that people who are careful about what they eat, vegan, vegetarian, paleo, or otherwise tend to fair better than those who eat as standard American/UK diet (SAUD). That, too, is well established in the literature, and virtually any variation from what we typically consume is an improvement because it reduces sugar, refined carbs, processed foods, trans fats, and probably reduces total calories as well. So if your point is that veganism is healthier than the default diet of most people in the West, I'd say sure.
But if your point is that veganism is nutritionally superior to eating like an omnivore, that's not supported by science. Instead, a careful vegan can eat better and be more healthy than someone consuming the SAUD. But it is just as possible to be just as healthy on a diet of animal fat and protein, consuming fresh vegetables as a relatively small portion of one's total food intake (and avoiding fruit altogether). And especially if liver and other offal are eaten, this diet doesn't require nutritional supplements, with the caveat that sufficient calcium consumption can be an issue if dairy products are excluded. But that's just as much a problem for vegans as well, with the same solutions.
What I'm getting at here is that it's really hard to say what the optimal diet might be, and it largely depends on exactly what's eaten and exactly what's going on with your body biochemically. Others here have pointed to the startling differences in traditional diets across the globe, and it's not unusual to find some populations eating mostly animal-based food while others thrive on largely plant-based diets.
But the now 'old' bias against red meat as related to health is just that--an old bias that's not standing up that well to rigorous testing. Processed foods--meat or veg--are not ideal. And as far as heart disease, etc., the literature now seems to point to the role of processed meats, not red meat per se:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2271.short
But to be fair, researchers still aren't sure about the cancer risks--especially colorectal cancer risks--of consuming lots of red meat:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/200150
It's important to control for other variables: smoking, exercise, etc. And as rigorous as these studies can be, that's really hard to do well.
What they seem to support, in general, is that it makes sense to vary protein sources to include lots of fish and poultry, too. But that strikes me, too, as uncontroversial.
My point being that you can certainly defend the ethical superiority of veganism, though there, too, one can summon counter-claims and arguments that run contrary to yours. But in terms of what I took to be your claims about its dietary superiority, I don't think that's an established fact. But I may have misunderstood you in any case, and if I have, offer my apologies if I've mis-stated your view on this.
On the question of diet alone, bracketing issues of ethics for the moment, there are well-recognised nutrient deficiencies associated with a purely vegetarian and/or vegan diet. One example from the scientific literature:
https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/46689
These can be easily rectified by taking supplements, of course, and I don't think the vit. B problems noted here are in any sense controversial.
I'd suggest that people who are careful about what they eat, vegan, vegetarian, paleo, or otherwise tend to fair better than those who eat as standard American/UK diet (SAUD). That, too, is well established in the literature, and virtually any variation from what we typically consume is an improvement because it reduces sugar, refined carbs, processed foods, trans fats, and probably reduces total calories as well. So if your point is that veganism is healthier than the default diet of most people in the West, I'd say sure.
But if your point is that veganism is nutritionally superior to eating like an omnivore, that's not supported by science. Instead, a careful vegan can eat better and be more healthy than someone consuming the SAUD. But it is just as possible to be just as healthy on a diet of animal fat and protein, consuming fresh vegetables as a relatively small portion of one's total food intake (and avoiding fruit altogether). And especially if liver and other offal are eaten, this diet doesn't require nutritional supplements, with the caveat that sufficient calcium consumption can be an issue if dairy products are excluded. But that's just as much a problem for vegans as well, with the same solutions.
What I'm getting at here is that it's really hard to say what the optimal diet might be, and it largely depends on exactly what's eaten and exactly what's going on with your body biochemically. Others here have pointed to the startling differences in traditional diets across the globe, and it's not unusual to find some populations eating mostly animal-based food while others thrive on largely plant-based diets.
But the now 'old' bias against red meat as related to health is just that--an old bias that's not standing up that well to rigorous testing. Processed foods--meat or veg--are not ideal. And as far as heart disease, etc., the literature now seems to point to the role of processed meats, not red meat per se:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2271.short
But to be fair, researchers still aren't sure about the cancer risks--especially colorectal cancer risks--of consuming lots of red meat:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/200150
It's important to control for other variables: smoking, exercise, etc. And as rigorous as these studies can be, that's really hard to do well.
What they seem to support, in general, is that it makes sense to vary protein sources to include lots of fish and poultry, too. But that strikes me, too, as uncontroversial.
My point being that you can certainly defend the ethical superiority of veganism, though there, too, one can summon counter-claims and arguments that run contrary to yours. But in terms of what I took to be your claims about its dietary superiority, I don't think that's an established fact. But I may have misunderstood you in any case, and if I have, offer my apologies if I've mis-stated your view on this.
