Vegetarian?

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by disney_mommy

Sparrow, I was totally in agreement with you until you made the above statment (bolding is mine).

I am against the outright killing. What gives me the right to say "Hmm, a chicken would be good to eat, I think I'll go kill it."? It doesn't matter to me whether it suffers or not. Because I am a superior being to the chicken, it is my responsibility to protect its right to live.

Yep, I did originally have a sentence acknowledging the 'what gives you the right' issue might need addressing - that's why I used 'I'm not sure' as a possible escape clause for me .

But, what interests me about the idea of killing without any suffering, is the question of what harm it actually does. I'm not sure it does any (but I may be wrong ); but it's probably too hypothetical to ever occur in reality anyway.

(Although there was a recent documentary on humane executions that came up with a method that seemed to produce a pleasurable death - the victim goes out in a state of euphoria. One critic said they objected to the lack of suffering involved.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by disney_mommy

Though plants grow, they do not have a conscious or the ability to reason or feel pain, so in my mind they are not considered "alive."

That argument strikes me as pure sophistry, I'm afraid. You "value life", therefore you categorize anything whose life you do not value as "not alive"?

Doesn't a carrot have as much "right to life" as a chicken? You are claiming that one has a "right" to be alive, but the other does not? Both were brought into existance for the specific purpose of being eaten.

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That argument strikes me as pure sophistry, I'm afraid. You "value life", therefore you categorize anything whose life you do not value as "not alive"?

Doesn't a carrot have as much "right to life" as a chicken? You are claiming that one has a "right" to be alive, but the other does not? Both were brought into existance for the specific purpose of being eaten.

Well said.

[HarryT]

Please let me say that I completely respect anyone's personal choice of what to eat or not to eat as being their own personal choice, but the very act of living inevitably involves the consumption of living beings further down the food-chain than oneself.

[vivaldirules]

It is sophistry. And there are few non-scientific subjects that don't involve making subtle distinctions which are open to it, in my opinion. Which is why I don't think that morality, ethics, and social norms are well suited for being set by anyone other than yourself. But sentience is a common basis for vegetarianism. And though I have no religious reasons for avoiding meat, I find that I am more likely to feel comfortable killing and eating a carrot than a cow.

[disney_mommy]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

Agreed, but this is a choice not a reason. The stement was made 'There is no reason to not be vegetarian' (or similar), I gave a reason - we are eveolved omnivores. Because people choose to not go with that does not negate the reason.

I disagree that we are evolved omnivores. Personally, I think we began as carnivores, evolved into omnivores and will continue to evolve into herbivores. We began as carnivores. As we learned to grow fruits and vegetables, adding them into our diets, we evolved into omnivores. As meat has been declared absolutely unecessary for our health, we are well on the way to being herbivores. It is simply habit and selfishness that retains our omnivore ways. There are some of us who have already "evolved" into herbivores. We simply got there faster!

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

Yes,Yes,Yes - because we are higher in the chain than them. Why not - because they are/were alive? - so are/were vegetables.

Because we are higher in the food chain, does that not give us the responsibility to protect and care for those below us?

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

That fact that it had a face, parents, organs etc. Does not stop it from being food in my eyes. Cats - don't like, it's a bit too stringy, never tried dog (but there are a few place that eat both regularly), Babies have very little meat on them (it's all fat for protection), and it's illegal, and it's cannibalism. The fact that here (in the UK) it is illegal to eat horse (like they do in France) seems to be just a waste of a lot of good meat to me.

This post seems designed just to start a fight, so I will not respond.

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

Quite frequently, they look down their noses at me from their high pedastal or morality and exclaim 'How can you do such a thing?' or 'Are you aware you are eating the rotting carcass of an animal' trying to make me feel like a low life barbarian. My answers are usualy 'Because it's tasty' and 'Yes'. However, the reverse is also true meat eaters says things like 'Because they are made of meat' and 'I just don't get vergetarians' (both of these from me in this post), so here I am guilty as charged, but I don't try to take any moral high standing with my statements - it's just because I simply don't comprehend the mindset.

Isn't what what a theory is? It makes more sense to us and seems superior to other ideas, so we adopt it as our own. Therefore, everyone who believes something believes theirs is the superior idea. So that is a moot point.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Please let me say that I completely respect anyone's personal choice of what to eat or not to eat as being their own personal choice, but the very act of living inevitably involves the consumption of living beings further down the food-chain than oneself.

How about cannibalism?

(Omitted from the poll I notice.)

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

How about cannibalism?

(Omitted from the poll I notice.)

Darn it! You know, you should really think things through thoroughly before you create a poll.

[disney_mommy]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Yep, I did originally have a sentence acknowledging the 'what gives you the right' issue might need addressing - that's why I used 'I'm not sure' as a possible escape clause for me .

Ah, the handy escape clause!

Originally Posted by Sparrow

But, what interests me about the idea of killing without any suffering, is the question of what harm it actually does. I'm not sure it does any (but I may be wrong ); but it's probably too hypothetical to ever occur in reality anyway.

The harm is in the killing. By ending the animal's life, we are harming it.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

(Although there was a recent documentary on humane executions that came up with a method that seemed to produce a pleasurable death - the victim goes out in a state of euphoria. One critic said they objected to the lack of suffering involved.)

It won't surprise anyone here to know that I am competely opposed to the death penalty!

Originally Posted by HarryT

That argument strikes me as pure sophistry, I'm afraid. You "value life", therefore you categorize anything whose life you do not value as "not alive"?

Doesn't a carrot have as much "right to life" as a chicken? You are claiming that one has a "right" to be alive, but the other does not? Both were brought into existance for the specific purpose of being eaten.

I do not say the carrot is not alive because I do not value it. It is simply not alive.

Because the carrot is not alive, it can not have a "right to live."

Both were not brought into existence simply to be eaten. Animals were created for there own reasons. Just as women were not made to be mated with men, and black people were not made to be slaves for white people. Everyone is here for their own reason. Because we do not know the answer does not make it untrue.

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

...
And though I have no religious reasons for avoiding meat, I find that I am more likely to feel comfortable killing and eating a carrot than a cow.

VR, you may wish to look at the books/philosophy of Peter Singer, as Sparrow mentioned (I haven't myself, but his are books that people I intellectually respect have suggested I attend to). However, before diving into that, perhaps dip a toe with another author, Raymond Gaita, and his book The Philosopher's Dog (I think this might somehow have some empathetic advantages with yourself ). I think the latter is available as an ebook (not sure about "for Sony"), but I don't now about any of Peter Singer's.

Cheers,
Marc

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by disney_mommy

I disagree that we are evolved omnivores. Personally, I think we began as carnivores, evolved into omnivores and will continue to evolve into herbivores. We began as carnivores. As we learned to grow fruits and vegetables, adding them into our diets, we evolved into omnivores. As meat has been declared absolutely unecessary for our health, we are well on the way to being herbivores. It is simply habit and selfishness that retains our omnivore ways. There are some of us who have already "evolved" into herbivores. We simply got there faster!

We are evolving, but accusing people of being selfish because they eat meat they are designed to, and therefore not on the same moral pedestal as yourself is not in keeping with the general tone of the thread.

Originally Posted by disney_mommy

Because we are higher in the food chain, does that not give us the responsibility to protect and care for those below us?

Does this blanket stement cover all living things lower down the food chain, like plants?

Originally Posted by disney_mommy

This post seems designed just to start a fight, so I will not respond.

Not at all designed to start a fight and accusatory without reason. Questions were asked, I gave my answeres; If questions such as 'eating children' are posed, don't expect truly sensible responses.

Originally Posted by disney_mommy

Isn't what what a theory is? It makes more sense to us and seems superior to other ideas, so we adopt it as our own. Therefore, everyone who believes something believes theirs is the superior idea. So that is a moot point.

Not necessarily, I don't inderstand vegetarians, but I don't think I am better tham them either, the reverse however, sometimes tends not to be true.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

We are evolving, but accusing people of being selfish because they eat meat they are designed to,...

Can we eat meat naturally, or do we have to cook it first?

I know some meat can be eaten raw - (e.g. steak tartare); but I don't know if that's true for all meats.

Maybe we're 'designed' to eat bugs and grubs, rather than cows and pigs.

[disney_mommy]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

We are evolving, but accusing people of being selfish because they eat meat they are designed to, and therefore not on the same moral pedestal as yourself is not in keeping with the general tone of the thread.

I probably didn't use the best word choice there, and did not intend to insult anyone. I meant to imply that people have been doing things a certain way for a long time, and habits are hard to break.

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

Does this blanket stement cover all living things lower down the food chain, like plants?

Yes. However, like I said before, I do not believe plants are "alive" as animals and humans are.

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

Not at all designed to start a fight and accusatory without reason. Questions were asked, I gave my answeres; If questions such as 'eating children' are posed, don't expect truly sensible responses.

Perhaps I misread that quote, but that was how I took it. And to me, eating children is the same as eating cats or dogs or chickens or cows. I do think that is a sensible question. It was not meant to be outlandish.

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

Not necessarily, I don't inderstand vegetarians, but I don't think I am better tham them either, the reverse however, sometimes tends not to be true.

I can't speak for any other vegetarians out there, but I personally do not believe that I am a better person than anybody else, including omnivores. Obviously I think my beliefs are correct and yours are not (that is the nature of beliefs), but I do not think they make me a better person than you (you being omnivores, not any one person in particular).

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

I don't inderstand vegetarians, but I don't think I am better tham them either, the reverse however, sometimes tends not to be true.

This puzzles me.
If I understand correctly, your view is that you're superior to cats and rats.
So you don't object to the concept of - 'x is superior to y'.

You're happy being 'x'; but when you think you might be seen as 'y', the concept seems to become objectionable to you.

Am I missing something?

[Laz116]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

We are evolving, but accusing people of being selfish because they eat meat they are designed to, and therefore not on the same moral pedestal as yourself is not in keeping with the general tone of the thread.

Since I have demonstrated (and until now noone has disputed the numbers) that vegetables use (far) more energy pr. kcal, and energy is a limited resource, it is actually quite safe to safe to say that being a vegetarian is indeed better for humankind as a whole than being a meat-eater.

However that doesn't mean that the vegetarian is on higher moral grounds. It's after all only one aspect of a persons life. It means, that on this specific topic the actions of the vegetarian are morally better.

On the same note driving a Fiat Panda is a morally better action than driving a hummer (but it would be better to ride a bike instead). It pollutes less etc. etc.

That doesn't mean that proud owners of hummers are bad people.

I don't really get why that is so controversial, we all make immoral decisions all the time from an utilitarian point of view.