are vegetarians more ethical by not eating meat?

[NoraBrimstone]

People eat too much FAT, not meat. Some people getvill from eating too much meat, but eating too much of anything is bad for you. That's more or less the definition of "too much."

Are you saying I'm immune to certain illnesses because I don't eat meat? Well, that makes me feel better about the Pizza and ice cream I intend to eat later.

I suggest you to go in any hospital in the vascular unit during the meal time.
You will find that around 99% of people there are eating meat.
You may find some people who do not eat meat but they choke up their arteries by eating pizzas and ice cream but after doing your count you will find very few people under this category.
So when you draw your conclusion would be important to get a bit of statistic in your mind.:thinking:

What the fuck else would I expect to find when 97% of the population eat meat? I never claimed vegetarianism causes heart disease, did I?

[littleendian]

You'll be taking lives with your bean salad as well. Alot of them.

No, those plants are seeds, the plant doesn't have to die to harvest them. If we really need a discussion about the entire plants-feel-pain debate, which I would find fascinating, then I propose we do that in a different thread.

I wouldn't personally argue that - but less suffering as opposed to what, and again, removing suffering from the equation leaves us where? Picture this, livestock chillin in a field (or swimming in a tank) eating an appropriate diet. Safe from predators, protected from disease...and then, one day - nothing. Captive bolt. What then?

I don't think you would defend the holocaust because they chose to use relatively painless means of mass-execution. If you're not free and you can't speak, you're the perfect victim. Do you think it is likely that any profit-oriented industry with a competition will ever have great concern for the pain and suffering of the "product" that goes through it?

But lets pretend it was so, even if those animals had great lifes, then death is usually a messy thing, there is no way to guarantee that there won't be incredible suffering in that slaughtering process. But lets even imagine that it will be completely pain free:

How on earth can we deal out death, the greatest punishment our legal system allows for terrible crimes, how can we deal out death in such a massive scale if it is the one thing we ourselfs are most afraid of?

Call me a new-age, tree-hugging, fairy-kissing son of a stupid person, but I believe, yes, believe, without being able to back that one up with conscious reason or much evidence, that that will creep back into our psyche and it will come back to haunt us. Of course that won't convince you, and thats very good for you, you don't buy something just because someone tells you, kudos! I'm just saying.

The only thing that exists in my mental landscape that I love more than reason is compassion. But, you're right, that's just not an argument, so I'm now officially out of arguments

[Tonus]

The term "food" is ambiguous here. There is "food" for someone who is starving and there is "food" for a well-fed person sitting in a BBQ joint stuffing his face with beef because he enjoys the taste. You may kill someone who is about to kill you, but you may not kill someone for the joy of killing.

To clarify, you feel that there is a justification for killing an animal for food, if it's absolutely necessary to sustain a human life?

However, we can apply human morals to human actions, and as so far as these actions affect the life and well-being of another non-human animal I would argue that, yes, we certainly do have a moral responsibility towards these creatures and in that sense yes, we must extend our "moral plane" to include them.

Does this cover other areas? Such as using animals for scientific research and testing?

[littleendian]

However a significant number of humans, around 400-500 million in total or around 7 percent of the global population, exist on a plant-based diet, which shows that we do have a choice between eating meat or not eating meat and hence it is not primarily a biological question but rather a moral one.

By default? I think you may have left out quite a few other possibilities.

You may refer to the argument that meat-eating is actually necessary for some people, depending on their individual biology (?)

---

To clarify, you feel that there is a justification for killing an animal for food, if it's absolutely necessary to sustain a human life?

Yes, I don't think its possible to attribute any kind of moral value to any act that directly serves self-preservation in the face of death.

Does this cover other areas? Such as using animals for scientific research and testing?

Of course, although this is much more ambiguous than the question of diet at least in the medical science because it's impossible to quantify the suffering of the lab animals against the human suffering that it might prevent. Cosmetics is quite a different matter though.

[Tonus]

Of course, although this is much more ambiguous than the question of diet at least in the medical science because it's impossible to quantify the suffering of the lab animals against the human suffering that it might prevent. Cosmetics is quite a different matter though.

Thanks, I was just curious.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

No, those plants are seeds, the plant doesn't have to die to harvest them. If we really need a discussion about the entire plants-feel-pain debate, which I would find fascinating, then I propose we do that in a different thread.

I mentioned this awhile back, we refer to what happens "here" and ignore what happens "there". When you eat -anything- you are taking lives in an unprecedented way. A way so massive in scale and so total in scope that no species on this planet - be it flora or fauna - human or not, has escaped it's boot. Producing food requires resources, resources are not distributed evenly, and the allocation of those resources is a lethal endeavor. The only organisms on this planet that have any claim to a dietary moral high ground are autotrophs - and they don't seem to be interested in claiming it. On the sliding scale or more or less parasitic organisms - more or less damaging organisms, more or less lethal organisms - human beings are right up at the top - regardless of whether they order the chicken or the tofu...and for precisely the same reasons in either case. To stress this again, I'm not telling you that you're being immoral for eating -whatever it is you eat- but trying to express the futility of trying to determine which dietary decision is the more moral one on these grounds.

I don't think you would defend the holocaust because they chose to use relatively painless means of mass-execution. If you're not free and you can't speak, you're the perfect victim. Do you think it is likely that any profit-oriented industry with a competition will ever have great concern for the pain and suffering of the "product" that goes through it?

While I'm a bit of a connoisseur of a good godwin, I'm afraid that I can't give this one any better than a 1/10. Poor opportunity, lazy delivery.

But lets pretend it was so, even if those animals had great lifes, then death is usually a messy thing, there is no way to guarantee that there won't be incredible suffering in that slaughtering process. But lets even imagine that it will be completely pain free:

We don't have to pretend, arranging a good life for livestock is fairly simple , the economics of it just aren't there yet (I'd say that this is due to our ignoring costs conveniently hidden from our view). Death being messy and death being painful or filled with suffering aren't interchangeable notions. If you suffocated me I'd feel a sense of euphoria, one last massive and glorious erection...then I'd empty my bowls all over the place. No guarantee? Are there many guarantees in your life? I think that this is an unreasonable metric. I'd say that we should do our best to ensure ethical treatment of livestock (really the ethical production of anything at all). If some asshole wants to hit a cow over the head with a hammer that's his business (and people hit each other over the head with hammers as well). We don't have to make it our business by purchasing his product - and if his method doesn't comply with regulations - he doesn't get to run his business.

How on earth can we deal out death, the greatest punishment our legal system allows for terrible crimes, how can we deal out death in such a massive scale if it is the one thing we ourselfs are most afraid of?

I don't personally like the idea of death as punishment. Seems counter-intuitive to me. In any case, are you afraid of heights? Perhaps we should stop putting up comms towers then. I jest, I jest. We "deal out death" because we have to. We had no choice in where we found ourselves in this cosmos. Had we opened our eyes one day on No Entropia - where endless founts of resources (of every variety) burst out of magical springs - then this objection would have some weight. We could probably deal out a bit less, with better planning. I don't think we're quite there yet, or even approaching the vicinity of "there" yet.

Call me a new-age, tree-hugging, fairy-kissing son of a stupid person, but I believe, yes, believe, without being able to back that one up with conscious reason or much evidence, that that will creep back into our psyche and it will come back to haunt us. Of course that won't convince you, and thats very good for you, you don't buy something just because someone tells you, kudos! I'm just saying.

The only thing that exists in my mental landscape that I love more than reason is compassion. But, you're right, that's just not an argument, so I'm now officially out of arguments

I've been called a few of those things myself. Again, I'm not begrudging you your choice in the matter. I think it's great that you've thought about what you eat, and if you feel that something is unconscionable and have decided not to take part in that - more power to you. I'm just offering some points that may have escaped consideration. I'm not immune to compassion and if the choice offered was limited to doing something reasonable or doing something compassionate -no other options- I'd probably defer to compassion myself. My advocacy for ethical livestock production - for example- arises out of compassion. We have to eat, and at the same time it's important to (at least some of) us what befalls those organisms that contribute to that process. The cast in this particular play is probably larger than you might normally imagine. Essentially, you're focusing on your favorite actors. I would do the same, of course - but both of us would be doing disservice to the discussion if we didn't at least tip our hats to the bit parts, eh?



A book you may enjoy, that's approachable and a good read - helped along by the publicity and familiarity of the author, is

http://www.amazon.com/The-Omnivores-Dile...1594132054

LOL, feel like such a shill as often as I pimp his books, but the man is a competent author, which I think is probably pretty important when making book recommendations.

---

To make a very long story short - if the goal is to minimize suffering in some way through our dietary decisions, it's difficult to ignore how useful livestock production would be in achieving that goal. By tying livestock and ag into an artificial loop we might be able to reduce our reliance on "external" inputs (largely, at present, petrochem - and all the suffering that this entails). We know that -biology works-, so it would seem to be a good idea to look to biology to solve our biology related problems, like what to eat and how to get it. It would also seem counterintuitive - in trying to achieve that goal, if we took something off the table because of an emotional response to a specific method. Really think about that for a moment. Our emotions are such conflicting things that some of us may not be able to satisfy our own internal emotional requirements because of conflicting emotional requirements - even though it's the very same emotion in both cases. "My compassion says that I must, but also that I cannot".

[Minimalist]

Considering that the human body is totally in line with a vegetarian diet (fruit, nuts, grain, vegetable etc) then you would draw that your theory is just a dogma (false true).

Um, go to a mirror and smile. See those pointy teeth on your upper and lower jaws. Those are not for hunting broccoli. In fact, one of the surest signs of human evolution is the reduction in tooth size over several million years.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...tooth-size

Were it not for meat eating we would not be sitting here having this discussion.

http://greatist.com/health/eating-meat-b...ain-121112

One study suggests that the high calories found in meat helped fuel the development of the human brain. The researchers believed it would’ve been impossible for early humans to gather enough calories from meat-free foods to feed their growing brains. If early humans had followed a raw diet (like gorillas), they would have had to eat for a total of nine hours every day in order to consume enough calories for proper brain development. On the flip side, if gorillas were to develop a humanlike brain, they would need to eat 700 additional calories per day — an extra two hours of eating all those greens.

[littleendian]

Our emotions are such conflicting things that some of us may not be able to satisfy our own internal emotional requirements because of conflicting emotional requirements - even though it's the very same emotion in both cases. "My compassion says that I must, but also that I cannot".

I'm happy our goals seem the same, but I'm still not convinced that we will minimize suffering by eating meat, considering what is today required to produce it. But I see your point and will certainly look into that. However, meat tastes great, and I know from introspection that there is a great temptation to just accept an argument if it will only allow me to have juicy steak... so I have my suspicions.

[KichigaiNeko]

There is of course the argument that it is much more humane to allow feral domestic animals (those released by well meaning animal activists) to die a painful death from 1080 poisoning whilst they destroy the natural fauna.

[Little Rik]

Considering that the human body is totally in line with a vegetarian diet (fruit, nuts, grain, vegetable etc) then you would draw that your theory is just a dogma (false true).

Um, go to a mirror and smile. See those pointy teeth on your upper and lower jaws. Those are not for hunting broccoli. In fact, one of the surest signs of human evolution is the reduction in tooth size over several million years.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...tooth-size

First you should explain why the vegetarian hippos got their canine 100 times bigger then humans. After this we can start talking about canine teeth.




Were it not for meat eating we would not be sitting here having this discussion.

http://greatist.com/health/eating-meat-b...ain-121112

One study suggests that the high calories found in meat helped fuel the development of the human brain. The researchers believed it would’ve been impossible for early humans to gather enough calories from meat-free foods to feed their growing brains. If early humans had followed a raw diet (like gorillas), they would have had to eat for a total of nine hours every day in order to consume enough calories for proper brain development. On the flip side, if gorillas were to develop a humanlike brain, they would need to eat 700 additional calories per day — an extra two hours of eating all those greens.

This so called research is nothing else but a theory with no scientific substance at all.
A proper scientific research study everything not just 1 item as in this research.
In my previous post i point out to several facts beside the teeth.
The length of the stomach compared to carnivore, the gastric juices compared to carnivore etc.
I also point out the high incidence and terrible effect that a meat diet has on the vascular system which choke when saturated fats, colesterole and toxins prevent the blood from moving.
When you are prepared to discuss all these factor come back here or better go to any hospital in the vascular units and see if you can find any vegetarian.