Vegetarian's guide to talking to carnivores

Bells:

No. But you have options as to what to eat to gain sustenance. If you choose to eat meat, knowing that it results in the unnecessary killing of a sentient creature, when you don't have to, then you're just putting your own pleasures and preferences above the interests of the animals you kill.

This kind of argument is what is called the "appeal to nature" fallacy. You're arguing that because we can or do kill and eat animals, we ought to kill and eat animals. It assumes that what is "natural" is automatically morally good or desirable.

Looking at human nature and human history and human behaviour more generally, there are many behaviours that could be regarded as "natural" behaviours for (at least some) human beings. These include murder, rape, stealing and other crimes, as well as lying, being nasty to our fellow human beings ... the list goes on and on. Yet I don't see you arguing that because these things come "naturally" that they are morally acceptable.

Yes it is.

Read this:

"Black people have no rights because they are black and not white. White people can do whatever they like to black people, including beating them or killing them, because they are black. In addition, this is justified because black people aren't as intelligent as white people. White people are entitled to control black people - even to use them as slaves. Black people should be considered mere property of white people. They have no intrinsic value in themselves, but only as a useful tool for white exploitation. It may be a good thing for white people to treat black people humanely, but that's only because the value of the black people to the whites is diminished if they aren't treated properly."

Now, swap a few words:

"Cows have no rights because they are cows and not human beings. Human beings can do whatever they like to cows, including beating them or killing them, because they are cows. In addition, this is justified because cows aren't as intelligent as human beings. Human beings are entitled to control control - even to use them as work animals. Cows should be considered mere property of human beings. They have no intrinsic value in themselves, but only as a useful tool for human exploitation. It may be a good thing for human beings to treat cows humanely, but that's only because the value of the cows to the human beings is diminished if they aren't treated properly."

Now, to me, Bells, it sounds like you'd have no problem with the second version of this statement, but that you'd have large objections to the first version. But as you can see, the arguments in both cases are exactly the same. So, if you disagree with version 1 while agreeing with version 2, then unless you can point out some relevant moral differentiating factor other than that "the first one deals with human beings while the second is 'only' concerned with animals", then you're morally inconsistent.

To be clear: the first statement is a racist statement. The second one is a speciesist statement. The bases of both racial and speciesist prejudice are both equally irrational.

You're doing a lousy job so far in articulating why you think they are different. (I'm not saying they aren't, by the way.)

There are scientific facts in the article. It is not, however, a scientific treatise or paper or article. There are probably one or two mistakes in the article, but it doesn't appear to me to be full of "blatant lies". Nor does it set out to insult meat eaters. In fact, it explicitly discusses the issue of perceived insult.

Focus on whatever you like. You don't need to respond to me. Most of the participants in this thread have tried their best so far to ignore the moral question as far as possible, in order to concentrate on the (human) health question and the environmental impact question.

"Because it is a chicken" is no different from "because that person is black". See above.

I never moderate these vegetarian threads, especially where I am in the thick of the debate. To do so would invite all kinds of accusations of censorship, bias, etc. etc., justifiable or not.

No.

I would like to know why you distinguish between a chicken and a human being. On what grounds is a chicken's life worth less than a human's life? "Because it is a chicken!", no matter how often repeated and how loudly, is not a justification. It's just an expression of a prejudice.

I note again that my argument is NOT that a chicken is the same as a human being. I do NOT equate chickens with human beings. I DO say that chickens are entitled to [enc]equal consideration[/enc] in the moral sense, unless a convincing reason can be given for not doing so. We apply this principle when it comes to black people and white people, so why not to chickens?

Yes. Many societies have, over the millenia, worked out nutritious combinations of vegetables that deliver all the required nutrients without the need for meat supplementation.

Yes, we'd need more vegetable fields, but fewer than would become available by cutting out the raising of meat animals.

Yes. Not all vegetarians are vegetarian by choice, of course. And on the other side of the coin, of that 50% who eat meat, a lot of them eat meat very sparsely - a little now and then - and not in the massive quantities eaten by people in first-world countries such as Australia and the United States.

I've seen no evidence for your "just as much damage" comparison.

Yes.

Both involve treating the slave/animal as mere property rather than as a being who has intrinsic value. The slave/animal is accorded value by its owner solely on the basis of what the owner can gain from it. In itself, it is nothing to the owner. It is only useful as a commodity.

Somebody once said: your right to swing your arm finishes at the point where my nose begins.

Your choice to eat meat impacts on animals that have interests, whether or not you choose to acknowledge those. You do NOT have a "basic right" to abrogate the rights of others.

I recognise your interest in enjoying your steak meal. I also recognise the cow's interest in living its life rather than ending up on your plate. And guess what? I think that the cow's claim in this equation is more important and morally relevant than yours.

No. I don't.

This does not mean that I don't make valid distinctions - even moral distinctions - between human beings and animals. It does mean that I do not make such distinctions on the basis purely of membership of a particular species.

Fine.

That kind of situation introduces elements that ordinarily play no part at all in what you choose to eat. Ordinarily, you do not face starvation. Ordinarily, alternative sources of food are available.

So, again quite obviously, what may be a moral and reasonable choice when your plane crashes in the Andes may not at all be a moral or reasonable thing to do when you could go to the supermarket and buy some beans or a packet of chips.

Plants do not have a central nervous system or a brain. If you want to go out of you way to redefine what is commonly understood as pain, then you might be able to make some tortured argument in that direction that strains credulity.

For my purposes, it is sufficient to say that plants do not feel pain in any way that is comparable to the way that a cow or a human being or a chicken feels pain.

A human is fit for consumption by humans and animals alike, too. So, in that sense a human isn't very different from a cow. And yet, you don't approve of eating humans (barring the Andes plane crash and such).

Yes. You can pretend you haven't been confronted with a moral choice. You can stick your head in the sand. You can tell me where to stick my morality. You can walk away and pretend we never had this conversation. All these choices are available to you.

Why?

Seriously, I'd like to know.

What is a cow's life to you? Or a chicken's? Why do you care?

Doesn't a cow's only value lie in what's in it for you? From what you've said, it sounds like there might be more to it. But if so, then what?

Yes. But not all death is on an equal footing, in moral terms.

When a human being dies, you don't just say "Well, everybody has to die sometime, so it doesn't matter how they died." If a human being is murdered, for example, you think that's morally wrong. If a human being dies due to medical negligence, you'd say there's blame to be apportioned there.

I make a moral distinction between killing and eating a bean and killing and eating a cow. From all indications so far, you do not. I think you're wrong not to make such a distinction - morally wrong.

Where does the value lie in a child or a calf? How do you compare the values? You're studiously avoiding answering what ought to be a straightforward enough question. In considering this question, I'd be particularly interested to know whether a child has value in itself, or only as value because of what it gives to you or somebody else. And what of the calf when you ask the same queston?

Can you explain to me how depriving a calf of 13 years of life (say) amounts to "treating it well"?

Which rights would those be, exactly? Which rights do I wish to grant to cows but to deny to human beings because of their diet? (By the way, you might want to consider at some point whether cows are people too.)

 

Asguard:

I buy free-range eggs.


Anti-flag:

No, I'm not vegan.

In what context? Which creatures? Rather than assuming, maybe it would be better if you asked.

I have never said that I put all animals on an equal moral footing. I think that a cow, for example, is a much more complex animal than an ant. A cow has a larger brain. A cow demonstrates an awareness of its surroundings in a different way from an ant. A cow seems to have the capacity to enjoy its own existence. It makes decisions about what to do or not to do. It is conscious. It is self-aware. It certainly feels pain. All of these things are present to a lesser extent, if at all, in ants.

My argument that an ant is different from a cow is not a speciesist one. That argument would say "It just is, because it's an ant!" I have nothing against ants or cows as species. If I distinguish between them in moral matters it is on the basis of different capacities, different abilities, different levels of individuality and other features - even different life expectancy.

50% of the world already does not eat meat. Some of those people are, of course, undernourished or malnourished. Meat would be one way (a very wasteful, expensive and immoral way) of addressing those people's problems. It is not the course that international food-aid agencies adopt, for many good reasons. A much better solution would be to fix up the distribution problems regarding nutritious and balanced vegetarian food.

 

I know full well that animals die for me to eat. To me it is not unnecessary because it provides myself and those around me with sustenance. It is "pleasure". It is necessary to me.

You know nothing of my dietary needs, instead basing it on your own and applying it to others. I eat to survive, and no, contrary to what you may believe, do not "kill" for pleasure.

So human nature and the diet that humans evolved with is a 'fallacy'?

The protein requirements that allowed us to develop to where we are now, the dietary needs that we get from meat and for those who prefer to not have to pop more pills is a 'fallacy'?

How about you stop applying your personal moral standards on others and demanding they eat as you do?

Okay, James. Stop right there.

Your comparison of black people and cattle is offensive, especially when one considers the history of black people and their treatment at the hands of white opinionated and moralistic individuals such as yourself.

No, saying a cow is a cow and a cow is part of our diet is not the same as beating and murdering a human being because of his colour.

And you are doing a lousy job at demanding that we all believe and eat as you do.

I do not consider a cow to be equal to a human being, nor do I think they should be treated equally to human beings, because it is a cow.

While you may consider bovines to be comparable to black people, I do not quite follow your line of thought of reasoning. Maybe as others have said, you believe as you do or your thought processes are what they are because of your diet. What I can say is that your argument throughout this thread has been nothing more than to try to inflame troll and insult people, not just because of their diet, but it seems also because of their ancestry and colour. I told you before that I found your comparison to blacks to be offensive and you keep along the same line and you become even more offensive..

The article is full of lies. You can try to disregard it, but that is the truth.

You can assume it does not set out to insult, but the very title and its content is designed to insult and flame people.

Because human health and the environment impact is of no moral consequence to you. You seem to be under the belief that we are slaughtering animals for our own "pleasure".

A chicken is not a human being. A black person is.

Am I a specist? Yes. I do not consider a chicken to be equal to a person. And I do not consider chickens and black people to be comparable in this line of argument. "Because it is a chicken" is the argument and it is vastly different to "because that person is black". Maybe when you start to realise the difference between black people and chickens, you might just start to get an inkling as to why your reasoning as been deeply offensive and racist. I'd suggest you get your butt off your self built pedestal and consider how and why it would be offensive. Then again, you seem obsessed with comparing black people with cattle and livestock at the moment so I suppose I am asking too much of you.

So instead I have you and Enmos accusing me of trolling because of my dietary choices and because I do not consider a chicken to be equal to human beings.

Right..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I do not think a chicken is deserving of equal consideration because it is a chicken.

There is no why or what's... That is the justification. Now to consider that prejudiced is laughable. But hey, if you wish to say that I am prejudiced because I consider a chicken to be a chicken, then knock yourself out.

Good for them!

I choose to eat meat.

You would need the vegetables and also have to use more fertiliser and pesticides.. which would be equally deadly and damaging.

And?

Do you even care that there are people who are denied the right to choose their diet either through poverty or famine? I mean you are touting them as being vegetarian.. but I consider vegetarian as being something of choice and one should have the right to choose their diet and have access to food they need to survive. If people wish to eat meat, then that is their choice.

Many links have been provided in this thread.

You know, as a person from slave stock, I am not even going to deign this with a response because you cannot seem to stop being offensive, trolling and flaming.

I am not going to feed your trolling anymore. If you cannot continue in this thread without comparing my ancestors to cattle and chickens, then I really have nothing to say to you. You are not worth my time. And while you may consider it to be a victory, what it comes down to is that I am tired of your sneering racism in your comparisons.

 

Bells:

You seem so keen to take offence at me that it looks like you haven't even bothered to try to understand the arguments I've put to you, let alone formulate any in favour of your own position.

Necessary is "I'll die if I don't eat meat". Necessary is not "I enjoy eating meat more than vegetables". For most people, eating meat is not necessary.

Actually, I do know of your dietary needs. If I recall correctly, when this issue has come up previously you claimed that in your particular circumstances you have health problems or special requirements that mean that you do require meat (or some other high-protein source or whatever), and not just as a preference but as a health necessity. My response to that was, if you recall, to say that you have a special excuse in that case that the vast majority of meat eaters do not have, and that you may therefore be at least partially excused on the grounds of necessity. I assume you weren't telling lies about your requirements previously. You have not mentioned them in the current thread. The argument I have been making in this thread applies to the average meat eater. The moral arguments also apply to those with special dietary needs, such as yourself. However, as I have already pointed out, moral decisions always require a balancing of competing interests. If it really is a case of eat-the-cow-or-die (or become really quite ill or whatever) then that's an additional factor to take into account in making the moral judgment. Most meat eaters do not have any such factor, so you're a special case in this regard. I'm sure you can separate the personal from the general in this respect and follow my general arguments directed at the "average" meat-eater.

No. You need to read what I wrote on the appeal to nature fallacy again. You obviously haven't understood the point. Please re-read my previous post on this.

I don't demand anything of you, Bells, or anybody else. I am making an appeal to your better nature - if you have one. I'm asking you to seriously consider the matter rather than fobbing it off or sticking your head in the sand.

I compared racism to speciesism. If you think there's a meaningful difference, then please point out what it is. I gave you two very specific statements that illustrate both positions.

While you're all up in arms about the treatment of black people, you might also like to consider the ongoing treatment of non-human animals by both black and white people - in particular the deliberate killing of animals for human pleasure.

So, to a white opinionated racist who said "I do not consider a black person to be equal to a white person, nor do I think black people should be treated as equal human beings, because they are black" you'd presumably have no argument in response.

I consider the speciesist attitude to bovines to be comparable to racist attitudes towards black people, which is not quite the same thing.

If you're not following the argument, please ask questions. I'm happy to clarify things if they are confusing.

No. My diets is determined by my beliefs, not the other way around. Most vegetarians are not raised in vegetarian households, Bells, and I am no exception. I am swayed by the moral arguments against eating meat. Before I was aware of them, I was not vegetarian.

I think that I have been measured and reasonable and willing to listen throughout this thread, which is more than I can say for you (for one).

Nothing could be further from the truth.

"We" are. Human beings do not need to eat meat. We do it because we like doing it. Or because it's easy. Or convenient. Or a habit. Or because we abstract out the reality from it. Or whatever. Look at the euphemisms for meat. You don't go to the butcher and buy "cow" or "pig" or "sheep". You buy "steak" or "pork" or "mutton". It gives you an imaginary distance from the reality of the industry that you're supporting.

A chicken is a sentient, conscious creature, just like a black person. Why is mere membership of a particular species more important than these features?

Nor do I, as I said previously. I was quite explicit.

As a justification for ill-treatment, "because it is a chicken" is not a bit different to "because that person is black".

Maybe it's time to get off your own outraged pedestal and consider this point.

So, again, you'd have no response to a racist who said "I don't think black people are deserving of equal consideration, because they are black."

Then who are you to complain about white racists because they consider black people to be inferior to themselves? Their justification is the same as yours.

Of course I care about people suffering famine or denied the right to good nutrition. The 50% vegetarians in the world are not ALL in that position, of course.

I agree with you completely that vegetarianism should be a choice. You can't say a decision is truly moral if it is forced upon you. "Choices" made under duress are hardly choices at all.

I see this as seeking to avoid facing the issue I have raised and covering it with an aura of righteous indignation that I would even dare to raise such a comparison.

This may play well to a particular audience, but it's not an honest reply. That is, it's not being honest with yourself, quite apart from not being honest with me.

It's ok. I understand.

I hope that, at some point in the future, when you're ready, you'll think back on this conversation and give it some actual thought, rather than the knee-jerk defensiveness and evasiveness you've given it this time.

In the meantime, I hope that it has prompted some other readers to consider their own position on this topic.

 

kira,

Necessity is one factor to consider here. If a lion does not eat the meat of other animals, it will die. It has no viable alternative option. It is not immoral (in general) to want to go on living.

But that's not the only factor.

Human beings hold themselves up as "moral creatures", capable of wisdom and enlightened reasoning and rational thought and the ability to think carefully about complex concepts. Lions (to use the same example) are not supposed to be on the same moral plane as human beings.

So, shouldn't we hold ourselves to a higher standard? We have both the ability and the resources to make the right ethical choice. If we choose not to do so, then we're not living up to our own conception of ourselves.

How do you imagine that your telling non-human animals about ethics, for example, would affect their behaviour? I don't think a chicken would understand the ethical arguments. Do you? But you can understand them, and you're in position to act on them.

Very much so.

Lions probably aren't particularly concerned about global warming, either, except to the extent that it directly impacts on their own habitat and lifestyle. Does that mean that we should also be unconcerned about global warming?