@Morte50 Is it that extreme to say that killing is wrong (self-defence aside) regardless of who is being killed? Did you know that an human infant (under 18 month old) has less self-awareness than a magpie? So, does this make it "less wrong" to kill a newborn baby than a magpie? I'm not suggesting it should, I'm just saying we shouldn't create rankings at all.
That is actually quite extreme, yes. Given the choice of a) kill the dormouse, b) kill the human and c) flip a coin, how many people would you expect would even genuinely consider anything other than option a? That doesn't mean you cannot make a case for it of course, if I remember my bio-ethics this is precisely (in a nutshell) the point Singer has been making for years, but it's unlikely to convince many people.
And yes, I am aware of the... limited cognitive capacities of human infants. But unlike magpies, for almost all humans that's a temporary state we only spent something like 2% of our total lifetime in.
But do we really need to establish such a cut-off? Why? Is it really important to be able to hurt fruit flies without having to worry about their sentience?
It is, actually. Especially if you don't want rankings either. If people want to live, there's gonna be killin' somewhere. Do keep in mind that most agriculture isn't remotely organic, there's pesticides all over the place. If all insects should be considered sentient and killing them is as morally wrong as killing humans or other mammals, then the agricultural industry effectively amounts to a genocide of unimaginable proportions. In terms of body count eating a bit of cow might then actually be better than going veg, depending on what the cow is fed on. Regardless, finding morally acceptable food would be well nigh impossible, certainly for entire populations.
Moreover, if we take the argument to its logical extreme, then why would animals be so special? Certainly, it seems unlikely that any definition of sentience is going to exactly carve out animals only. Without some kind of graded valuation or a sharp cut-off, I don't see how you could avoid such very extreme conclusions.
The basic premise of this argument is a faulty one, in my opinion: I don't think moral obligations should be influenced by kin or nationality (or, of course, species). I care more about my brother than about my neighbour, but that doesn't mean I'm allowed to harm the latter, right? Also, I specifically disagree with the idea that the place where one is born should have a special significance for that person... in other words, I don't believe in borders.
I would argue that the people that raised you, that support you, actually do deserve more moral consideration, and by extension also the society which you (and they) are part of. Simply put, you owe them. They did and do good unto you, this incurs a moral 'debt'. Of course that is by no means the only factor in the moral equation, but I think it does play an important part. As an aside, I consequently have never agreed with the notion that you owe family just due to biological relatedness alone.
Which makes it even worse... actually, I believe we've already covered this part in the thread.
That must have been a while back then, haven't read the thread all the way back. I don't see how it would make it worse though. If the killing is morally wrong, then anyone not directly involved in said killing is at best only indirectly complicit. And as argued (and again, see below), even that seems a stretch.
Then why have elections at all, if the individual votes don't count at all? -_- [Ironically, I really believe that elections are useless, but in a different sense...]
Because the aggregate of votes is composed of those individual votes. It's just that their sheer number makes that the effect of a single vote on that aggregate is so negligible that it might as well be zero (except in very small elections, obviously). How many elections ever get decided on a single vote?
This is, of course, not true. The animals are killed because soneone wants to buy their meat, they wouldn't be killed at all if people wouldn't eat them. In fact, the single chicken whose corpse I'm not buying is already dead, that's true, but otherwise yet another one would have to be slaughtered to become the supermarket's next customer's dinner.
It is quite true, actually. As with the votes, it's the large numbers that make the individual effectively of no concern. Supermarkets (and most other shops) buy in their meat bulk, not to order. Of course, they will formulate a certain expectation of their sales and buy in accordingly, based on past sales. But realistically, any individual's consumption is going to be far too small to noticably affect the sales figures, so my local supermarket is not going to order any less meat even if I stopped buying any. Moreover, further up the chain sales are in even larger quantities; were my supermarket to buy somewhat less meat due to my veggie-conversion, it is in turn unlikely to alter meat production even a hair. I could daily gorge myself on whole chickens or subsist entirely on tofu and rye crackers, but the probability of it sparing even a single chicken's life is infinitessimal (though both would likely significantly impact my life expectancy for the worse).
On perhaps a more meta-level, and in a somewhat more utilitarian line of thinking (though I'm actually not a moral consequentialist myself, I tend to favour a neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics): in terms of reducing animal suffering, do you think this cause is best served by propagating full-on veganism (in general I mean, not just on internet message boards)? Vegetarianism is already a few steps too far for most people to actually adopt, so it presumably will garner few if any converts. Conversely, convincing everyone (who isn't already) to eat vegetarian once every two weeks should lead to a far more dramatic reduction of meat consumption. Full on vegetarianism, and even more so veganism, may be the more principled position, but promoting eating a bit less meat might arguably be the morally superior position.
elminster (uh, nice roasted strips of a pig's carcass, really funny!)
For the record personal shots like this are actually far more likely to lead to the derailment and ultimately the closing of a thread (compared to say the silly picture I posted 5 days ago).
This thread still has me considering and pondering and thinking about becoming vegan for various reasons, not the least of which is possible health benefits.
Forgive me if I missed it, but I've not seen any of the vegans in the thread address the point that was raised about all the bunny rabbits, field mice, chipmunks, rats, and squirrels that must be killed in order to raise and protect crops.
Rats are considered vermin by human beings, for good reason. (Black plague, anyone?) Yet, they are also one of the most intelligent species of mammal on the planet. By all the arguments as to "sentience" I've seen here, rats, and to a lesser degree, mice, are, if anything, more "sentient" than cows, if we measure intelligence as a component of sentience by observable problem solving ability.
I cringe just as much or more at laboratory treatment of rats in science as I do at the thought of where my beef, pork, chicken, eggs, butter, cheese and milk come from. If we carry the moral arguments made here to their logical conclusion, must not we stop all killing and abusing of rats and mice?
What about all the medical advances made through animal testing? It makes me want to cry to think about all the poor creatures tortured to advance human medicine. Yet, how many of you have had a mother, a spouse, or a child saved by medical knowledge that was gained by torturing animals in secret, locked medical laboratories hidden in the dungeon-like bowels of universities and hospitals? More of you than will admit or realize it, I would wager.
I just can't get away from the philosophical, biological inevitbility that all life is based on death. If there's such a thing as God, He must be truly sadistic to create a universe like this. That's one major reason why I don't believe there's any such being, but theism vs. atheism would be a tangential topic.
Back to veganism, my main question in this wall of text is, what about rats, mice, squirrels, chipmunks, and rabbits?
@belgarathmth In defense of rats: the real disease vector was actually a flea carried by the rat, rather than the rat itself. Moreover, if I'm not mistaken those were mostly black rats rather than the brown rats that are more prevalent now (in the wild as well as in the lab). They actually make great pets, by the way.
Also, those biomedical laboratories aren't all that secret, hidden or bowely, in my experience (they're actually down the hall).
As for the various rodents, a point one might make is that the cows, pigs, etc. need to eat as well. That's going to require crop as well, and thus face at least some of the same problems as crop meant for human consumption with regards to pest control. Whether that is sufficient argument is another question, of course. Then again, I will never be even remotely inclined to go veg, since I don't buy into the veg(atari)an position in the first place.
@Kitteh_On_A_Cloud , I couldn't be friendlier with my comments. In fact, I like the fact the meat eaters like to discuss it .
However, I've gotta say that I hate companies that make millions by exploiting others (people, animals, their own customers...) and are protected by governments . Media protects them as well.
@belgarathmth , rodents , insects and other "plagues" are result of enviromental impact . I believe it leads to another complex topic , since it would cover from insect plagues to shark attacks. On the other hand, I'd like to see what others have to say about it.
I'd like to add that @alnair and @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud are providing us with delicious jaheira-like arguments.
Forgive me if I missed it, but I've not seen any of the vegans in the thread address the point that was raised about all the bunny rabbits, field mice, chipmunks, rats, and squirrels that must be killed in order to raise and protect crops.
A thing to keep in mind, is that it takes 5-15 times as many crops to raise for a kg of meat (depending on wether it's chicken, pig or cow), than to eat the kg's of plant food yourself. So if you want to protect bunny rabbits, field mice, chipmunks, rats and squirrels, you'd be better of eating vegan, or at the least vegetarian. Alnair would know the exact number I think, but an overly large portion of agricultural land is used to grow crops like soy beans and corn for animal fodder.
The main reason I myself eat mostly vegetarian (meat is an exception in my diet, on average about twice a month), is for caring for the earth, both the flora and fauna and the human population on it, and feeding animals for food is far too wasteful. We'll have more food to share among us humans and will do far less damage to the earth's forest, aquifers, climate if we used the soil for plants we eat ourselves.
And as to the argument 'those animals wouldn't even live if we didn't eat them': what about all the habitats being destroyed and all the species going instinct for our voracious appetite for arable land to grow crops for animals to satisfy our voracious appetite for meat? For those chickens, pigs and cows lots of animals are being pushed to or over the brink as their habitats are destroyed or because we think of them as vermin threatening our crops.
Thanks for the answers so far. I didn't really mean to go off on a tangent by bringing up the disease issues. What mostly interests me with rabbits, mice, rats, and other rodents, is that they seem to me to be very intelligent animals, with some very human-like behaviors, so why is it okay to kill them, but not okay to kill cows and pigs? The vegan philosophy seems to me to be saying that it's not okay to kill anything at all that feels pain and has observable emotional states.
Look at chickens, which are definitely not okay to kill in vegan philosophy. I grew up around chickens kept by my grandmother. They have distinct personalities and clear emotional states. They compete with each other for status. The roosters remind me of a lot of human males I've known. The hens are proud of their eggs and chicks, show them great affection, and have been observed sacrificing their lives for their chicks.
Rats and mice show even more complex, human-like behavior than the chickens, so if it's not okay to kill the chickens and make them suffer, then why is it okay to kill the rats? And, if it's not okay to kill the rats, which is the answer I would expect from the philosophy, then how are we supposed to compete with them for our grain and vegetables? They over-reproduce as their survival strategy. If we can't kill them, won't they overrun our habitats? I'm willing to entertain the concept that other mammals, birds, and fish have as much right to live as I do, but I'm not going to take seriously any idea that they have more right to live than I do.
I once lived in an apartment where a cute little mouse chewed its way into and took up residence in my pantry. I found boxes of crackers chewed into, and I even caught sight of it a few times. I started leaving food out for it in there. That's the kind of person I am when it comes to animals with which I have to personally deal.
For a few weeks, I treated the little brown mouse as a pet. But then, I started noticing more and more droppings in my pantry. I saw more and more damage being done to the walls and shelves. There were way more droppings in there than could be from one mouse. For all I know, I was feeding a colony of them. I started to worry that they would spread to other people's apartments, and if they were traced to mine, and it was discovered that I was feeding them, I could have been in big trouble with the landlords, and maybe even the health department.
So I stopped feeding them, and plugged up the hole I figured they were coming in from. I think most people would have put mousetraps or poison in there, or called the landlords to do it, and, if those mice spread to other apartments, that's probably what happened to them.
As you may have figured out if you've borne with me and read what I have to say, I get very, very conflicted about these things. I have a practical philosophical view of the necessities of life, but I can't stand the thought of any creature suffering.
Given the choice of a) kill the dormouse, b) kill the human and c) flip a coin, how many people would you expect would even genuinely consider anything other than option a?
Of course that's exactly what I would expect. I'm just saying that it would be equally wrong to kill either of them. Anyway, I've already said a couple of times that I'm not interested in hypothetical situations (especially if quite far-fetched and unlikely as this one). We were discussing the possibility of avoiding, as much as it's possible, cruelty and suffering of other sentient beings as a direct consequence of our everyday consumptions. Everything else is material for nice philosophical debates, which I enjoy and may very well like to entertain if I had the time for them... except unfortunately I don't.
If all insects should be considered sentient
I never implied such a thing. I just said that I don't believe it's important to know how much sentient they are in order to think it's wrong to kill them.
the agricultural industry effectively amounts to a genocide of unimaginable proportions.
You're referring to collateral damage, which can even be minimised with good farming practices. I'm talking about breeding of individuals solely for the purpose of slaughtering them as soon as they become fat enough. (Or to rape them and steal their offspring, in the case of dairy cows... or to ground them up, in the case of male chicks of egg-laying hens... and so on) I'm sure you see the difference.
Also what @Son_of_Imoen said... I've already cited - with sources - the actual numbers before in this thread, and anyway they are quite easily to find with a cursory search on the web, please don't make me repeat myself more than I already do
Moreover, if we take the argument to its logical extreme, then why would animals be so special? Certainly, it seems unlikely that any definition of sentience is going to exactly carve out animals only. Without some kind of graded valuation or a sharp cut-off, I don't see how you could avoid such very extreme conclusions.
All right then, let's say we need to find that cut-off line, if nothing else just for practical reasons. Even if thousands of scientists started focusing on this kind of research alone, it would reasonably take some time to settle the matter once and for all... I'm just suggesting that, in the meantime, we should act differently towards those species that already stand above the line for sure, while getting ready to shift our attitude even further.
I would argue that the people that raised you, that support you, actually do deserve more moral consideration, and by extension also the society which you (and they) are part of. Simply put, you owe them.
The fact that I owe my family* doesn't imply I'm allowed to treat others badly, though. That's all I'm saying.
* I still don't see why this kind of moral debt should extend to the whole country, anyway... why people in Milan should mean to me more - or less for that matter - than people in Bejing? Just because we speak (sort of ) the same language? I really can't understand this attitude.
If the killing is morally wrong, then anyone not directly involved in said killing is at best only indirectly complicit.
I say it's worse because the people doing the killing are soiling their hands while the "instigators" are not even aware (usually) of what's going on behind the scenes. Not that it's completely their fault, mind you, seeing how corporations and governments are - quite effectively too - working to keep consumers in the dark.
Because the aggregate of votes is composed of those individual votes.
Exactly. In the same way that the demand (which is what drives supply) is composed of individual consumers.
But realistically, any individual's consumption is going to be far too small to noticably affect the sales figures,
If we were talking about a scenario where only one person every ten thousand had the possibility to change their habits, you'd be right. Fortunately, that isn't the case. Otherwise, we could as well give our credit card numbers to the store manager and let him deliver us whatever he fancies, isn't it? (Side note: that we have the liberty to choose what to buy is, to me, a cold consolation indeed... definitely not what real, actual freedom should mean. But since that's the only kind of liberty we have at our disposal, we might as well use it in the right way.)
Vegetarianism is already a few steps too far for most people to actually adopt, so it presumably will garner few if any converts.
Another issue I already addressed in the previous pages: things are changing. A few years back vegetarianism was seen as a strange thing and veganism was virtually unknown. Today, vegetarians are more or less accepted by society while vegans are still seen as extremists. Who knows, in 2020 or '30 fruitarianism could replace veganism as "the crazy position" while more and more people will stop eating animals products (which is already happening, I promise)...
Full on vegetarianism, and even more so veganism, may be the more principled position, but promoting eating a bit less meat might arguably be the morally superior position.
There are already enough people advocating for reduced meat consumption or humane slaughtering practices. Since I find those things unsatisfactory, as animals would still be killed, I prefer to spend my energy striving for a goal more in line with my ethics. (Also, I believe it's indirectly helping those causes that there is a more radical position actively pursued out there...)
Also, those biomedical laboratories aren't all that secret, hidden or bowely, in my experience (they're actually down the hall).
I suppose you're a scientist, but believe me when I say that the general public knows jack squat about what's going on in any of those laboratories.
For the record personal shots like this are actually far more likely to lead to the derailment and ultimately the closing of a thread (compared to say the silly picture I posted 5 days ago).
That "silly picture" - about which I said nothing until @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud had to bash @DJKajuru for his, much more in-topic, one - has actually been quite upsetting to me... I've already noted elsewhere that I get very emotional on this matter, and where you see delicious food I see a corpse of a fellow being slaughtered just to please humankind's taste. So excuse me if I don't think it's funny. Also, since I just said that I didn't find your post very humorous, I don't see how it could classify as a "personal shot".
If we carry the moral arguments made here to their logical conclusion, must not we stop all killing and abusing of rats and mice?
Indeed we should. In my vision vivisection is the most unethical of science practices, and it should be ceased altogether. It may have been useful (to a certain degree) in the past centuries, but nowadays there are many alternative methods of research which also yield better results. That's, however, a really complicate matter - one which has even given birth to two different schools of thought: people who think anti-vivisection campaigns should focus on the ethical side of the debate, and people who would address (also) the actual scientific issues that animal testing entails. I'll point you to the 30-year-old book that is considered the cornerstone of this second stance, but of course there are more modern arguments in its favour as well.
Back to veganism, my main question in this wall of text is, what about rats, mice, squirrels, chipmunks, and rabbits?
What about them? They shouldn't be killed, in my opinion If you're talking specifically about so-called "pests", the best way to ensure that result is to reduce the overall quantity of fields (eating directly their crops instead of using them to feed cattle, as it's been said several times already) while at the same time using cruelty-free alternatives to extermination.
The vegan philosophy seems to me to be saying that it's not okay to kill anything at all that feels pain and has observable emotional states.
Of course.
I'm willing to entertain the concept that other mammals, birds, and fish have as much right to live as I do, but I'm not going to take seriously any idea that they have more right to live than I do.
The point is, we could at least try to coexist peacefully. We sure have the technological means, the only thing that is missing is the will to do it.
I think most people would have put mousetraps
Not all traps kill mice, it's easy to find humane solutions, both commercial and homemade. Of course you should then liberate your "prey" as much in the wild as possibile
@alnair, you'd be proud of me. I just went to the grocery store, and bought all animal-free food. I got celery, peanut butter, nuts, raisins, soy burgers, canned veggies, salad greens, two kinds of dressing (checked the labels - found catalina, and thousand island with no bacon, had to reject ranch), fake bacon chips made of soy (had to reject croutons because they all contained cheese), vegetarian chili, vegetarian baked beans, soy milk, breakfast cereal, bread, and bananas.
My bill was $50 higher than usual, but that may be because I was doing an initial stock-up of these kinds of foods.
This is an experiment for me. I have to find out a few things:
1) Can I make it work within my budget? I have to find ways to get that grocery bill down a bit.
2) Can I control my weight with it, since I will tend to eat too many nuts and too much peanut butter?
3) Will it worsen my diabetes, since I will be eating a carb-heavy diet? It should be very good for my triglycerides, if I can watch out for those nuts.
4) Will I be able to handle the inevitable cravings for meat, dairy, and other high-fat food?
Thank you for being so patient and for working so hard to be a good advocate for what you believe in. You've at least made me consider that the world might be better if more people were vegan. I can't make any promises long term, but I'm at least willing to try. It sure is going to be hard around Christmastime though. I hope I can find some cookies, cakes, and candies that don't contain milk, butter, or eggs.
I happen to like veggie soy burger - it tastes almost the same to me as regular beef patties, so that will probably be a staple. Mashed potatoes (if I can make them taste good with only margarine and water, no milk) and soy patties might actually make a satisfying holiday meal, especially if I can also find some holiday sweets that don't use the verboten ingredients.
Anyway, so yeah. I'm at least willing to give it a shot.
I never implied such a thing. I just said that I don't believe it's important to know how much sentient they are in order to think it's wrong to kill them.
Actually you did. Either that, or we must conclude that when we get down to the insects the property of sentience has reached an absolute 0.
You're referring to collateral damage, which can even be minimised with good farming practices. I'm talking about breeding of individuals solely for the purpose of slaughtering them as soon as they become fat enough. (Or to rape them and steal their offspring, in the case of dairy cows... or to ground them up, in the case of male chicks of egg-laying hens... and so on) I'm sure you see the difference.
If your position is that insects lack sentience and we can kill them with impunity, then it's a moot point. But if it is morally wrong to kill insects, then you can't just write it off as collateral damage. Pesticides are used to knowingly and intentionally kill insects, just as a butcher knowingly and intentionally kills cows and whatnot. Either way you are killing animals; how is the fact that some of them are bred for the purpose and others are just a nuisance relevant to the immorality of that?
All right then, let's say we need to find that cut-off line, if nothing else just for practical reasons. Even if thousands of scientists started focusing on this kind of research alone, it would reasonably take some time to settle the matter once and for all... I'm just suggesting that, in the meantime, we should act differently towards those species that already stand above the line for sure, while getting ready to shift our attitude even further.
That seems a rather immoral position to take. Surely we must err on the side of caution here? We can maim, kill and eat anything that is below the line for sure, but leave the rest alone. Presumption of sentience until proven otherwise, and all that. As a matter of interest, whereabouts does the gray area begin? What kinds of species are near the "definitely sentient / not sure yet" divide?
The fact that I owe my family* doesn't imply I'm allowed to treat others badly, though. That's all I'm saying.
* I still don't see why this kind of moral debt should extend to the whole country, anyway... why people in Milan should mean to me more - or less for that matter - than people in Bejing? Just because we speak (sort of ) the same language? I really can't understand this attitude.
Because you live in a society, which provides for you in a variety of ways. For the benefit you derive from your country, I would argue, you in turn owe a greater moral debt to it than to (say) China.
I say it's worse because the people doing the killing are soiling their hands while the "instigators" are not even aware (usually) of what's going on behind the scenes. Not that it's completely their fault, mind you, seeing how corporations and governments are - quite effectively too - working to keep consumers in the dark.
So what? If the moral wrong is in the killing, how can the people who only ever encounter the end product be morally complicit? I certainly don't see how they can somehow be more in the wrong than those hurting and killing the animals in the first place. As you note, most of them are barely aware of what's going on. And as argued already, they cannot affect it even if they did (at least not by choosing not to buy/eat meat).
If we were talking about a scenario where only one person every ten thousand had the possibility to change their habits, you'd be right. Fortunately, that isn't the case. Otherwise, we could as well give our credit card numbers to the store manager and let him deliver us whatever he fancies, isn't it?
I'm right either way. I can only decide for myself (and possibly my children, had I any) what I eat. The extent to which I can affect the sales figures of my local supermarket are thus negligible. My individual influence on the meat industry is therefore effectively zero. It's one tiny drop in a very big bucket, my decision to add it or withhold it is simply of no consequence to the totality of water.
@belgarathmth , I've been vegan for about a year. I wouldn't call that "experienced" , but can I answer these questions, too?
1- I'm from São Paulo ,Brazil. Soy stuff , such as burgers of soy "meat" (which provide protein) are easy to find at a decent price. Vegetables (such as tomato, carrots, potatoes...) and cereal such as rice are also cheap, since I'm not feeding a whole family. Whenever I need some 'junk food' to release stress , there are some vegan fast food restaurants downtown, which are basically the same price as a burger or hot dog.
2- Well, If I ate less candy and pasta I'd definitely control my weight , but you should go see a nutritionist or check the internet for some professional info.
3- As far as I know , carbs don't affect diabetes as far as you burn these calories - so you should avoid sweet fruits and eat less carbs at night, since you burn less calories after dinner.
4- Well, about myself I can say that the flavour and texture of meat is taken from soy 'meat' , shimeji mushrooms , gluten meat ... When it comes to dairy and high fat foods, it depends on how much you eat them to control your stress. That's why I still go to vegan fast foods once in a while
As you can see , @belgarathmth , your routine doesn't need to change much . The problems that might occur are: -People will surely think that you've nothing to eat (and sometimes it might happen unless you know where to buy it) , "what do you eat, then? is that good?" will become a commom question , but people who love animals and mostly children will respect your decision .
-Sometimes you might need to have a meal before going to a party/barbecue/social occasion because there might not be anything vegan to be eaten there.
-If you plan on taking a plane and travel abroad, it could take you a bit longer to find a place to eat (that's a good thing, since most people eat horrible fatty food because they're lazy to look for healthier options). The best thing to do is order a nice non-egg pasta or mushroom risotto. Most big cities have veggie restaurants.
-As I said before , sometimes I need to control my stress , and since sex is not an option at work (no one attractive there hahah) , I eat something or drink coffee (I don't smoke) . Having nothing to eat gets me angry, so I try to know what options I have before getting hungry.
-Finally, if you get bored at some point ("oh, I can't stand anymore brown rice and soy burgers!") , look up for interesting recipes (ask your grandma to help you prepare it) , yesterday I learned how to make an avocado and tomato sandwich , along with a strawberry lemonade. Pasta , risottos , all kinds of veggie combinations, spices ... there's so much simple stuff you can make.
Try your best and enjoy the food alternatives you're about to discover.
My bill was $50 higher than usual, but that may be because I was doing an initial stock-up of these kinds of foods.
To add on the excellent advice of @DJKajuru - I'd wager that you will find that you don't really need all the "fake this-or-that" stuff. Of course it's also a matter of personal taste, and I also enjoy processed food as a treat on occasions, but I usually prefer food prepared (preferably by my wonderful girlfriend ^_^) using simpler ingredients, vegetables and cereals mostly. Seitan being the most notable exception to the rule, because seitan rocks! (and it's not that much processed either, it's just washed flour cooked in soy sauce after all)
Can I make it work within my budget? I have to find ways to get that grocery bill down a bit.
Single out the two or three most expensive items and think twice about them next time; the rest is probably way cheaper than what you were used to buy.
Can I control my weight with it, since I will tend to eat too many nuts and too much peanut butter?
I have a sweet tooth myself (love peanut butter, good thing for my health that it's not so common here!), so I also have that kind of issue. Although, full disclosure, I'm not paying any attention to it right now... but when I first went vegan several years ago I managed to lose ~15kg in a couple of months, combining the new healthier diet with a greater quantity of physical exercise.
Will it worsen my diabetes, since I will be eating a carb-heavy diet?
Both my grandfathers, one of my grandmothers and my father all have [or, for two of them, had ] insulin-dependant diabetes. I also used to have very high sugar blood levels before. Now, no matter what I eat, that's not an issue anymore. Keep also in mind that the sugar in fruit has a much lower impact than processed carbs like bread or pizza. It's very easy to find out that a vegan diet is actually way healthier for diabetic people, even to the point of being called a cure for it or at least a treatment for its symptoms.
Will I be able to handle the inevitable cravings for meat, dairy, and other high-fat food?
That's never been an issue for me, but I suppose it's because I didn't "give up" those foods, I mean it's not a sacrifice for me: I actually don't want to eat them anymore, of course because of the kind of cruelty they're inevitably linked with in my brain. (It's like something actually clicked in it one day, and changed forever the way I see them.)
It sure is going to be hard around Christmastime though. I hope I can find some cookies, cakes, and candies that don't contain milk, butter, or eggs.
It's easier than you'd think. And if by any chance there is an Eastern Orthodox community near where you live then it'll be as straightforward as entering in one of their shops and randomly picking something
Actually you did. Either that, or we must conclude that when we get down to the insects the property of sentience has reached an absolute 0.
I stand by my position: I never said that we must assume all insects are sentient, but I personally think it's wrong to kill them regardless. That's all there is to it in my opinion.
But if it is morally wrong to kill insects, then you can't just write it off as collateral damage. Pesticides
Wait, wait. Who has ever said anything about pesticides? If you follow the link I provided, you'll see there's no such thing in the kind of agricolture I advocate... and even plain old organic farming doesn't allow them. When I said "collateral damage" I was referring to, you know, collateral damage: accidents that kill small animals while harvesting crops and the like. (And, once again, also those could be minimised with a more ecological approach to growing food...)
Inb4 "so do you buy everything organic?": I must admit that I don't really manage to only buy organic, but I try to do my best. At least in Italy, it's not exactly easy to find organic stuff, and it's always way more expensive than regular products.
Inb4 "you're an hypocrite": of course, everyone is, one way or another. I never said I'm perfect, I do what I can. At least I try.
That seems a rather immoral position to take. Surely we must err on the side of caution here? We can maim, kill and eat anything that is below the line for sure, but leave the rest alone. Presumption of sentience until proven otherwise, and all that.
Actually, my position would be that we can't maim, kill and eat any animal. I was just making a point.
As a matter of interest, whereabouts does the gray area begin? What kinds of species are near the "definitely sentient / not sure yet" divide?
I'd say that the burden of defining (albeit tentatively) the cut-off line should be on who proposes its need Anyway, I would say that any species able to feel pain (so yes, even the fruit fly) should at least be in the grey area. Someone would put even plants there, actually...
Because you live in a society, which provides for you in a variety of ways. For the benefit you derive from your country, I would argue, you in turn owe a greater moral debt to it than to (say) China.
What do you mean by "provide for"? If you're referring to services like health care and roads, then you're talking about the moral debt towards the State, rather than to the people living in it. But then we should also consider how the country handles its income and expenses (both of them very poorly in my case!)... anyway, I think this debate would derail even further the thread, so I'd just say that our positions on this respect are different although probably not completely incompatible.
If the moral wrong is in the killing, how can the people who only ever encounter the end product be morally complicit? I certainly don't see how they can somehow be more in the wrong than those hurting and killing the animals in the first place.
Actually, I said "it's worse", not "they're guiltier". (Although arguably, if you paid killers to eliminate someone, you'd probably be considered guilty as much as them, wouldn't you?)
But, come to think of it, I'd say that people who do realise that meat is murder and still buy it are more responsible for that murder than slaughterhouse workers who, as I said already days ago, are often the most desperate part of the workforce, compelled by their situation to accept the most unsanitary and stressful of jobs.
It's one tiny drop in a very big bucket, my decision to add it or withhold it is simply of no consequence to the totality of water.
I don't see that as reason enough to feel justified for not doing one's part, but... whatever floats your boat, I have no interest in judging your choices.
Wait, wait. Who has ever said anything about pesticides? If you follow the link I provided, you'll see there's no such thing in the kind of agricolture I advocate... and even plain old organic farming doesn't allow them. When I said "collateral damage" I was referring to, you know, collateral damage: accidents that kill small animals while harvesting crops and the like. (And, once again, also those could be minimised with a more ecological approach to growing food...)
Well, for one: I did. Page five, first post. As I pointed out there, the vast majority of agriculture is not organic. Hence it follows that if insects have some degree of sentience and it would therefore be (in your proclaimed view) as bad as killing a mammal, then going vegetarian or vegan is by itself not going to absolve someone of the (supposed) moral responsibility.
I'd say that the burden of defining (albeit tentatively) the cut-off line should be on who proposes its need Anyway, I would say that any species able to feel pain (so yes, even the fruit fly) should at least be in the grey area. Someone would put even plants there, actually...
Implicitly, you're the one proposing its need. It has no use as far as I'm concerned, since I attach no specific moral weight to sentience in the first place. You do. Consequently, to act morally according to the principles you propose, some such cut-off line is necessary.
Actually, I said "it's worse", not "they're guiltier". (Although arguably, if you paid killers to eliminate someone, you'd probably be considered guilty as much as them, wouldn't you?)
But, come to think of it, I'd say that people who do realise that meat is murder and still buy it are more responsible for that murder than slaughterhouse workers who, as I said already days ago, are often the most desperate part of the workforce, compelled by their situation to accept the most unsanitary and stressful of jobs.
Yes, if you paid a hitman to kill someone you'd be quite as guilty, both morally and legally (by and large anyway, probably depends a bit on the law). But in that scenario, you actively decided upon someone's death. That person would (presumably) have lived, but for your decision to end them. This doesn't apply when eating meat. The same amount of meat is being produced, the same number of animals are killed, regardless of whether I be herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, or Atog. Thus I neither directly nor indirectly cause the death of the animals whose meat I eat, so how could I be morally culpable?
As an aside: while meat involves the death of animals, whether those deaths constitute murder is up for debate (pretty much the sort we're having in this thread, in fact). "Meat = murder" isn't an established fact. The people who "realize" that meat is murder, that is the people who perceive meat as such, would mostly be people such as yourself who don't eat meat in the first place.
As I pointed out there, the vast majority of agriculture is not organic. Hence it follows that if insects have some degree of sentience and it would therefore be (in your proclaimed view) as bad as killing a mammal, then going vegetarian or vegan is by itself not going to absolve someone of the (supposed) moral responsibility.
Oh well, we can agree on that, as (I think) I demonstrated with the disclosure on organic food in my last post. To me veganism is nothing but the beginning of a path; there are different candidates as the next logical step or ultimate goal... personally my choice would be fully organic (or rather, as I said, permacultural) veganism, but I've been interested also in freeganism and/or fruitarianism. The former has too heavy a connection with capitalism and wastefulness (which it exploits, after all) for my tastes; while the latter has very strong points when it comes to ecology and ethics, but I still have some doubts on its healthiness when no greens at all are allowed. (To me breatharianism looks like a complete hoax, I just mention it because some people who are vegan/fruitarian for "spiritual reasons" aim towards that goal instead...)
It has no use as far as I'm concerned, since I attach no specific moral weight to sentience in the first place. You do. Consequently, to act morally according to the principles you propose, some such cut-off line is necessary.
If that's the case, I already proposed (and I hereby accept!) my cut-off line, which I'll repeat: for the purpose of determining what we can maim, kill and eat, all animals should be considered sentient until proven otherwise, while plant-munchers like me are still given the benefit of the doubt. Yes, I'm a self-assolving jerk like that, but I swear to reconsider my views on fruitarianism if plants are proven sentient as well... deal?
The same amount of meat is being produced, the same number of animals are killed, regardless of whether I be herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, or Atog. Thus I neither directly nor indirectly cause the death of the animals whose meat I eat, so how could I be morally culpable?
So, in you opinion, if all the world went vegan overnight people would still slaughter 150 billion animals every year? Probably not, right? How many hair do I have to loose before I can be called bald, then? (Hint: less than I care to admit)
As an aside: while meat involves the death of animals, whether those deaths constitute murder is up for debate.
Murder: an act of deliberate killing of another being, especially a human.
(emphasis mine, of course).
Surely you could argue that the slaughtering is the deliberate killing, not meat itself. But I hope you'll admit that "meat is the direct cause and direct consequence of murder", except for being a lousy title for a song, isn't that much of a different concept.
Edit: I want to thank you, @Morte50, for the renovated vigour in debating (I even went and researched philosophical fallacies!) inspired by our arguing on this specific issue... while, by the way, I simply loved your "homosexual are exceptional" exploit in that other thread.
If that's the case, I already proposed (and I hereby accept!) my cut-off line, which I'll repeat: for the purpose of determining what we can maim, kill and eat, all animals should be considered sentient until proven otherwise, while plant-munchers like me are still given the benefit of the doubt. Yes, I'm a self-assolving jerk like that, but I swear to reconsider my views on fruitarianism if plants are proven sentient as well... deal?
Given the marked differences between plant and animal anatomy, especially the lack of a nervous system in plants, does make that a reasonably defensible cut-off, indeed. Besides, if plants are off-limits as well, there's really not that much left to eat. I know, some fruitarians eat only fallen fruit and such, but that's just going to get enormously impractical in a hurry. Can't imagine it's particularly healthy either, but that's a different matter.
So, in you opinion, if all the world went vegan overnight people would still slaughter 150 billion animals every year? Probably not, right? How many hair do I have to loose before I can be called bald, then? (Hint: less than I care to admit)
No, I'm just saying that if *I* went vegan overnight, we'd still slaughter 150 billion animals a year. And for all intents and purposes, my own behaviour is the only I can control, and thus the only I am morally responsible for. Take again the big bucket: I can withhold my single droplet of water or add it, but the difference in water level is unnoticable. Also note that this is almost entirely independent of the actual water level: it applies as long the total volume of water remains orders of magnitude greater than a single droplet, which is pretty much all the time except when the bucket is entirely empty (ie. almost no one is eating meat anymore). It thus also follows that within that slight constraint, my contribution also isn't affect by the change in other people's contribution. If suddenly a thousand people added their droplet this might produce a noticable change in the water level, but it wouldn't matter if I then decided to do so as well since the difference between 1000 and 1001 is again not noticable.
Murder: an act of deliberate killing of another being, especially a human.
(emphasis mine, of course).
Surely you could argue that the slaughtering is the deliberate killing, not meat itself. But I hope you'll admit that "meat is the direct cause and direct consequence of murder", except for being a lousy title for a song, isn't that much of a different concept.
Ah, but then I counter: Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Which I would argue is more in line with everyday use of the phrase. After all, the Wiktionary definition would count as murder acts like killing in self-defence, killing in combat, the killing of a prey animal by a predator, as well as the killing of a human by an animal. I expect most people would not want to call any of those murder. So I would certainly admit that "meat is a direct consequence of the killing of animals", as well as "the killing of animals is a direct consequence of the (aggregate) demand for meat". I wouldn't use the word 'murder', though.
Edit: I want to thank you, @Morte50, for the renovated vigour in debating (I even went and researched philosophical fallacies!) inspired by our arguing on this specific issue... while, by the way, I simply loved your "homosexual are exceptional" exploit in that other thread.
I must admit, I was rather pleased when I came up with that myself :-D. Though I can't imagine it catching on with the... gay-critical crowd.
But yeah, I do like me some debating. Always nice to find someone else who can appreciate it as well, so often on the internet it devolves into a shouting match. Which is a pity, since I find it conducive both to understanding other people's views as well as refining and evolving my own. Also, it's good for my English, which is a nice added perk.
@DJKajuru: 'Jaheira-like arguments'? Sorry, but what am I supposed to understand by that? @Son_Of_Imoen: Even if agriculture were to have less of an environmental impact, it still wouldn't make much difference. There's still the industries (factories, electric centrals, nuclear plants), cutting of woods, soiling of water and air, and so on. You have to look at other aspects of ecology too before judging something like that.
Even if agriculture were to have less of an environmental impact, it still wouldn't make much difference. There's still the industries (factories, electric centrals, nuclear plants), cutting of woods, soiling of water and air, and so on. You have to look at other aspects of ecology too before judging something like that.
Actually agricolture, and specifically animal husbandry, has a really huge impact on the environment, producing more greenhouse gases than transportation as a whole and causing the better part of deforestation and water pollution/waste: "the livestock sector is one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global" (source, referring to this book).
I know, some fruitarians eat only fallen fruit and such, but that's just going to get enormously impractical in a hurry. Can't imagine it's particularly healthy either, but that's a different matter.
Arguably, you wouldn't need to wait for the fruit to fall on its own in order to say that the plant doesn't get hurt: even if we actively pick fruit, as long as they're ripe enough, we're actually paying a service to the plant, assuming the seeds will be... released in the right context. Which, I admit, doesn't happen very often. Still, the plant doesn't suffer (in the broader sense of the word) from the picking. As for the health side, I already said I still have some doubts specifically about not eating any greens; but I must say, having tried raw veganism for a couple of months, that a diet with a very high intake of fruit (and none of processed carbs and beans) has been quite invigorating and detoxifying, although in the end I couldn't resist to the temptation of pasta&pizza. Anyway, there are actually people that have been following that kind of diet for long periods, many of them are even athletes or body-builders; it definitely looks healthy...
And for all intents and purposes, my own behaviour is the only I can control, and thus the only I am morally responsible for. Take again the big bucket: I can withhold my single droplet of water or add it, but the difference in water level is unnoticable.
Following on your metaphor: if you had a strong belief of ethical nature about what the level of the water should be, wouldn't be the only acceptable moral position to add or withhold your drop according to that belief, regardless of the effect it may have on the overall level? And if, as you say, your own personal contribution wouldn't be enough to achieve a real change, wouldn't you be supposed to try and convince other drop-holders to partake in the same adding or withholding?
No man is an island. Your impact on the level of water, while contributing to the final result one way or the other, could also actually be far greater than the mere size of your personal drop.
So I would certainly admit that "meat is a direct consequence of the killing of animals", as well as "the killing of animals is a direct consequence of the (aggregate) demand for meat". I wouldn't use the word 'murder', though.
On further consideration, you're probably right. After all, the emotional impact of the song (and, on a much smaller scale, of the countless t-shirts and pins with the title printed on them) would probably be far smaller if there wasn't an actual discrepancy between the perceived notion of murder and its use in that context...
Ok, @alnair, if you want to live in a house full of mosquito's, rats and coakroaches, be my guest. Go ahead and enjoy it. Let's see how far you can go with living together with these pests and not harm them at all. I for one, I'll smash those f*ckers as I see fit. My legs are covered with mosquito bites, I think I've been kind enough into sharing my blood with them for about two weeks now. Or should I put my room full of spiders, maybe? Sorry, but this endless debate is getting on my nerves.
Interesting topic here! Middle age has had a big impact on my diet. My own diet consists mostly of fruits, vegetables, (raw) nuts and seeds. But I also eat fish which is a big departure from Veganism. For the most part I avoid dairy products that are high in milk fat, but then I have a viscous sweet tooth that pulls me back in to eating more refined foods than I'd like (pastries...).
This is all primarily for health reasons and it has helped quite a lot (particularly when I stay off the sweets).
But I don't quite see becoming Vegan. It's a philosophy I'm not ready to embrace. I can certainly see avoiding leather and fur products as much as possible, but I don't have a problem with consuming honey or milk. I think it's a matter of priorities when you consider the relative impact of different things (the antibiotics and hormones used to raise most cattle these days for example).
Corn is another topic. Through subsidies in the US we have a tremendous amount of cheap high fructose corn syrup. We also have an extremely wasteful way of converting corn to fuel (using petroleum products for fertilizer of all things). If you're trying to keep your blood sugar low then corn products are a bad deal. So I would prioritize boycotting corn over boycotting honey.
Arguably, you wouldn't need to wait for the fruit to fall on its own in order to say that the plant doesn't get hurt: even if we actively pick fruit, as long as they're ripe enough, we're actually paying a service to the plant, assuming the seeds will be... released in the right context. Which, I admit, doesn't happen very often. Still, the plant doesn't suffer (in the broader sense of the word) from the picking. As for the health side, I already said I still have some doubts specifically about not eating any greens; but I must say, having tried raw veganism for a couple of months, that a diet with a very high intake of fruit (and none of processed carbs and beans) has been quite invigorating and detoxifying, although in the end I couldn't resist to the temptation of pasta&pizza. Anyway, there are actually people that have been following that kind of diet for long periods, many of them are even athletes or body-builders; it definitely looks healthy...
True, eating the fruit at best curbs the tree's reproductive potential, rather than really harm it. Still, much as I appreciate the flavoursomeness that is fruit, seems a bit one-sided. Variety being the spice of life and all. That's also why I would wary of the health effects, with such a limited range of food items you are more liable to miss some essential trace element somewhere.
Following on your metaphor: if you had a strong belief of ethical nature about what the level of the water should be, wouldn't be the only acceptable moral position to add or withhold your drop according to that belief, regardless of the effect it may have on the overall level? And if, as you say, your own personal contribution wouldn't be enough to achieve a real change, wouldn't you be supposed to try and convince other drop-holders to partake in the same adding or withholding?
No man is an island. Your impact on the level of water, while contributing to the final result one way or the other, could also actually be far greater than the mere size of your personal drop.
Depends a bit on the specifics of ones moral views. Of the three major flavours of ethical theory, it would fit most closely with consequentialism: the aim there is to "maximize the good", the main moral focus is outcomes (Peter Singer is actually a utilitarianist, if I recall correctly). If a certain water level has relevant moral worth, then even if the change is minute it might still be morally required. Kinda depends on the specific form of consequentialism though, the 'moral calculus' gets rather finnicky (one of the many reasons I don't adhere to this class of normative theory). The point after all is to maximize the good, so one essentially has to do a cost-benefit analysis and pick the one with the greatest pay-out. There are likely to be competing courses of action, and if one of those produces more good, then the droplet shouldn't be added. But a consequentalist line of reasoning certainly could be formulated along those lines, yes.
As for droplet activism... again, possibly. It might be a rather demanding moral view I think, to posit that we are morally obliged not only to do good ourselves but also to move others to do good as well. Not unprecedented certainly. This also has a rather consequentalistic feel to it, I must say, which may be why it is not a position I can identify with. Personally, I tend to adhere more to a pragmatic kind of virtue ethics. As such, though I do see the consequences as relevant to moral considerations (whereas deontological ethics explicitly does not, by contrast), I don't see them as bearing moral value by themselves.
Which isn't to say I can't find value in drop-related moral discourse by the way. But I would be inclined to aim not so much at instrumentally moving people towards a certain outcome, but rather at convincing them to closer agreement with my own drop-morals. In other words, I would put more stock in others aligning more closely to my view of what makes a moral person.
On further consideration, you're probably right. After all, the emotional impact of the song (and, on a much smaller scale, of the countless t-shirts and pins with the title printed on them) would probably be far smaller if there wasn't an actual discrepancy between the perceived notion of murder and its use in that context...
Indeed. Language is funny that way. To some extent you have to wonder what dictionaries are actually good for. Randomly pick a word from a dictionary, and imagine that it is a word you have never encountered before. Even if the definition given points you in kinda the right direction, it's just never going to capture the full meaning of it. That's what makes translation so difficult, of course. It actually happens to me with some regularity that I want to say something and I think of a word in English, but just can't find a Dutch word that has quite the same feel. Which is slightly disconcerting considering I'm Dutch, though in my defense it occasionally does happen the other way around as well. The word 'gezelligheid' is actually famous for it's untranslatability. 'Gemütlichkeit' comes rather close I think, but that's singularly unhelpful for people who don't speak German either.
The whole growing crops ends up killing field mice argument is a pretty popular one that I see a lot when people ask me about being vegan. I like to exercise by jogging around a lake every morning. I probably swallow 20 mosquitoes every trip out (yeah it is gross) and I'm pretty sure I kill some sort of insect or worm or type of creature with every other step I take. The reason I don't lose sleep over this is because it is impossible to live without killing. The big difference (In my mind at least) between me and a meat eater is that the creatures I kill weren't raised to suffer and die for me (and I'm not killing them intentionally). Like I said in one of my earlier posts, I don't have to eat meat because I live in a place where food is abundant and readily available. If I can live my whole life and save the world just a little bit of suffering then I think that is a good goal to aspire to. But I also believe human life is more important than any animals life, so if people live someplace where they need to eat meat to survive because plants aren't available I say go for it (as if anybody needs my permission).
The argument that 1 person not eating animal products doesn't make any difference used to bother me. But since deciding to go vegan I've got my family eating less meat, my roommate is a vegetarian now, and my coworkers are trying the vegan lifestyle. I'm not pushing my beliefs on anybody (I hate when people try to do that to me) but when others see how much healthier I've become, how much energy I have, money I save, all the benefits of being vegan they see that it is something worth doing. So I suppose 1 individual doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme but when 1 becomes 2 and 2 becomes 4 and 4 becomes 8...you see where I'm going with this.
Ok, @alnair, if you want to live in a house full of mosquito's, rats and coakroaches, be my guest. Go ahead and enjoy it. Let's see how far you can go with living together with these pests and not harm them at all. I for one, I'll smash those f*ckers as I see fit.
Gee, then I wonder how come none of the several houses I've lived in since going vegan have ever been full of pests, even though I never smashed any one of those "f*ckers"... who, you know, are just trying to live their life, they're not there specifically to bug you (ah ah, I made a pun).
Still, much as I appreciate the flavoursomeness that is fruit, seems a bit one-sided. Variety being the spice of life and all.
Actually, there are so many varieties of fruit (especially tropical fruit, though) that you could try a different one every day of your life. Seriously.
That's also why I would wary of the health effects, with such a limited range of food items you are more liable to miss some essential trace element somewhere.
Fruit - which, botanically speaking, also include most of the produce usually found in vegetable gardens, like tomatoes, peppers, aubergines, zucchini and so on - can provide all the necessary protein, carbs and fats (olives and avocados come to mind) and also most micro-nutrients like minerals, but for some of them you also need at least nuts, seeds and greens, that's true.
[snip of some really interesting inputs about the different kinds of normative ethics, which I'll surely delve into...]
But I would be inclined to aim not so much at instrumentally moving people towards a certain outcome, but rather at convincing them to closer agreement with my own drop-morals. In other words, I would put more stock in others aligning more closely to my view of what makes a moral person.
Of course I don't advocate instrumentally moving people to do what best fulfils my motives. I would definitely endorse the other option, which (from my point of view, at least) should have as direct consequence also an advance towards the desired outcome.
Incidentally, I'd like to ask your (and anybody else's, if someone cares to answer) opinion about a debate currently in progress among my circle of activist friends. Suppose your ultimate goal is a world free both of animal exploitation AND of capitalism (assuming, as we do, that the two things are so intertwined that you can't vanquish one without eradicating the other as well) ... would you see the birth of more and more vegan venues, clearly inspired by potential financial gain rather than any truly moral stance, as a positive step forward towards an intermediate, easier to obtain, result (i.e. a vegan world where capitalism still exists, just in a different form)? or rather as an hindrance to the possibility of reaching the ultimate goal, since it may lead to capitalism absorbing antispeciesist values into its tentacular machine, de facto overcoming them while undergoing no loss?
That's what makes translation so difficult, of course. It actually happens to me with some regularity that I want to say something and I think of a word in English, but just can't find a Dutch word that has quite the same feel.
I agree, and that happens to me as well. It's also the reason why I don't read translated books and I can't stand dubbed movies/series (that, and the utter incompetence of most English-to-Italian translators).
The word 'gezelligheid' is actually famous for it's untranslatability. 'Gemütlichkeit' comes rather close I think, but that's singularly unhelpful for people who don't speak German either.
I would be curious to know what it means [Edit: never mind, I couldn't resist so I went and looked on Wikipedia...]
Vegan diet is health risky. Vegetarian seems quite manageable, but Vegan diet is plain stupitidy in my opinion. Just gonna say this: Essential Amino Acids, Essential Fats. Good look getting a healthy hormonal production and muscle maintenance amount of these on a strict vegan diet.
There is just one more risky diet branch: Fruitarianism. Just ridicolous. There are nearly no studies that would determine if it is detrimental for health in long run... Because there are virtually near to ZERO individuals who managed to follow this diet for longer than 3-5 years.
I thought I'd enter into the conversation to comment on a couple of your arguments, @Morte50
First of all, I'm not a vegan. I am currently a meat-eater, but have been on the fence for a majority of my life about the core relevant ethical question: is it ethically wrong to eat meat? I'm not sure, and perhaps I'm more guilty than most in that I'm not sure and in that I know more about the subject than most people do. The point being that, although I'm speaking in defense of being vegan, I'm currently not one myself. My goal here is to suggest that, if eating meat is ethically wrong, then the consumer is culpable, that each drop does in fact make a difference, and that it not making some sort of utilitarian difference is irrelevant anyway. I'm going to be using three arguments from analogy which are extreme examples of atrocities, my point in doing so is not to be irrationally extreme. The reason for the analogies that I'm using is two-fold: first, because to someone that does view nonhuman animals as having a right to life that is equal to humans, these morally reprehensible acts which I will mention are no worse than what is going on in the meat industry today; and second, because in the course of discussing morality, and specifically a topic where there is a question of whether or not morality is involved, providing a clearly moral analogy allows us to view the situation from the perspective of those that do clearly believe that it is a moral issue.
So what? If the moral wrong is in the killing, how can the people who only ever encounter the end product be morally complicit? I certainly don't see how they can somehow be more in the wrong than those hurting and killing the animals in the first place. As you note, most of them are barely aware of what's going on.
Yes, if you paid a hitman to kill someone you'd be quite as guilty, both morally and legally (by and large anyway, probably depends a bit on the law). But in that scenario, you actively decided upon someone's death. That person would (presumably) have lived, but for your decision to end them. This doesn't apply when eating meat. The same amount of meat is being produced, the same number of animals are killed, regardless of whether I be herbivore, omnivore, carnivore, or Atog. Thus I neither directly nor indirectly cause the death of the animals whose meat I eat, so how could I be morally culpable?
Ah, but then I counter: Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Which I would argue is more in line with everyday use of the phrase. After all, the Wiktionary definition would count as murder acts like killing in self-defence, killing in combat, the killing of a prey animal by a predator, as well as the killing of a human by an animal. I expect most people would not want to call any of those murder. So I would certainly admit that "meat is a direct consequence of the killing of animals", as well as "the killing of animals is a direct consequence of the (aggregate) demand for meat". I wouldn't use the word 'murder', though.
I believe that the defense of "most people don't really know what's going on" wears thin in most first-world countries where activist groups have spent years making it clear to the public that the conditions of the meat industry are despicable. There is a huge difference in moral situations between ignorance and willful ignorance. Most people in the wealthier countries have at least been given the opportunity to hear and understand the situation, and their decision to remain ignorant to the details of it so as not to feel guilty about it do not relieve them of moral culpability in my view.
I don't believe that a person's involvement in an immoral act becomes less immoral simply because the act would have occurred anyway. If you know that someone is about to die, while your decision to pick up a weapon and kill them yourself may not have any additional negative impact in a utilitarian sense, it certainly has an impact on you. So, "the animal was going to die anyway" doesn't necessarily relieve the consumer of culpability.
As for the definition of murder, I think it's pretty clear that to most people (and the law), murder is the killing of one person by another. However, to someone that does not distinguish nonhuman animals as having a lesser right to life or protection from suffering, there is clearly no difference and despite what the dictionary has to say, it is murder to these people.
To my first analogy, I'd like to see if you would consider your arguments about consumer culpability reasonable in a situation which you thought was morally reprehensible. If there did come a time when a cut-off line was drawn and animals above a certain level of determined "sentience" were given certain protections, and those below that line were allowed to be treated as people see fit, an interesting situation could arise. A very defensible argument could be made for the lack of a high enough level of sentience in human babies. I'd like to say before continuing that I understand and agree that there is a clear difference between a creature that will never achieve a certain level of consciousness and higher thought, and one that someday will; the point here is to illustrate a parallel that most meat-eaters will feel as morally repulsed by as an ethical vegan likely feels about the current situation. If a market of, say , one million people developed that bought and consumed human flesh, then each person's individual contribution would be negligible to the whole according to some of your arguments. Would it not still be wrong to partake? I would say that, if you believe an act to be immoral, then your involvement in it is clearly immoral as well, even if your lack of involvement would have no utilitarian effect. As you've already specified that you are not a consequentialist, I'll refrain from continuing to specify this exception.
My second analogy involves slavery. A single slave owner in the slavery days of America could have easily made an argument that his individual decision to continue owning slaves, even believing that it is wrong, would have no effect on the situation and that this fact relieves him of culpability. After all, even if he were to move north and free his slaves, he would only be creating land that needed to be worked by new slaves that would be brought over to America. Does this make his involvement any less immoral?
My third and final potentially-offensive analogy involves a member of the Nazi party in Nazi Germany who justifies his involvement by the large number of others involved. After all, even if he is directly involved in the torture and killing, the victims will certainly still be tortured and killed if he decides to leave. In fact, he is in a situation where deciding not to partake could endanger himself and his family, all of whom could be labeled as sympathizers and deal with the consequences of this label, and yet I believe most people still agree that his involvement is morally wrong. So, in a situation where not partaking in the slaughter will not put your life in danger, is it really defensible to suggest that "my contribution isn't enough to matter" excuses you of wrongdoing?
I think that, in arguing in defense of a situation that you see as only hypothetically unethical, you have failed to fully consider the weight of your arguments if the situation is in fact as morally atrocious as it seems to some. I believe that, as someone who denies consequentialism as an ethical theory, your continued insistence that each contributor's effect is negligible is irrelevant to the immorality of the act and the moral agent committing the act.
My individual influence on the meat industry is therefore effectively zero. It's one tiny drop in a very big bucket, my decision to add it or withhold it is simply of no consequence to the totality of water.
No, I'm just saying that if *I* went vegan overnight, we'd still slaughter 150 billion animals a year. And for all intents and purposes, my own behaviour is the only I can control, and thus the only I am morally responsible for. Take again the big bucket: I can withhold my single droplet of water or add it, but the difference in water level is unnoticable. Also note that this is almost entirely independent of the actual water level: it applies as long the total volume of water remains orders of magnitude greater than a single droplet, which is pretty much all the time except when the bucket is entirely empty (ie. almost no one is eating meat anymore). It thus also follows that within that slight constraint, my contribution also isn't affect by the change in other people's contribution. If suddenly a thousand people added their droplet this might produce a noticable change in the water level, but it wouldn't matter if I then decided to do so as well since the difference between 1000 and 1001 is again not noticable.
Drops in a bucket. Well, I'd like to suggest that each drop does matter. I have already argued that the outcome of your contribution is irrelevant to the morality of the act, but I would like to further argue that each drop does make a difference. If ten thousand drops are required to fill a bucket, and each person contributes, or chooses not to contribute, only one drop, then it is in fact a very small part of a whole; but it is a part of the whole. Obviously, if all people decide to withhold (/not withhold) their drop because it's insignificant, then the bucket will never be full(/empty). You say that you believe yourself to only be morally responsible for your own actions, with which I agree, but this doesn't give you a pass to disregard the reality of the situation: that your decision makes a difference and that the consideration of the relative worth of the decision (specifically its relativity to the decisions of others) is integral to understanding a moral action (in the cases of morality). It is only through each agent's understanding of the relative worth of their single drop that the bucket will ever be filled or not filled. And so, in conclusion, I'd say that your drops in a bucket argument, wait for it, doesn't hold water (cue cheesy pun music).
TLDR: human veal, slavery, nazis, and one lame pun.
Just a few more explanatory words on the off chance that I wasn't clear enough in my above post: I am not accusing anyone of anything or attempting to offend; I am, as I said, unsure myself of the situation. I involved myself in the discussion in order to argue logically and further define my own views. The fact remains, however, that the analogies I provided are, in the eyes of some people, no more despicable than the current situation. Furthermore, it is my belief that, if we are going to make arguments in defense of consumers under the assumption that eating nonhuman animals is wrong (which was the assumption in the quoted arguments regarding consumer culpability), then we must make an earnest attempt to understand the situation through the eyes of someone that views it as morally atrocious. Providing moral analogies is a convenient and effective way to accomplish this end.
Comments
And yes, I am aware of the... limited cognitive capacities of human infants. But unlike magpies, for almost all humans that's a temporary state we only spent something like 2% of our total lifetime in.
It is, actually. Especially if you don't want rankings either. If people want to live, there's gonna be killin' somewhere. Do keep in mind that most agriculture isn't remotely organic, there's pesticides all over the place. If all insects should be considered sentient and killing them is as morally wrong as killing humans or other mammals, then the agricultural industry effectively amounts to a genocide of unimaginable proportions. In terms of body count eating a bit of cow might then actually be better than going veg, depending on what the cow is fed on. Regardless, finding morally acceptable food would be well nigh impossible, certainly for entire populations.
Moreover, if we take the argument to its logical extreme, then why would animals be so special? Certainly, it seems unlikely that any definition of sentience is going to exactly carve out animals only. Without some kind of graded valuation or a sharp cut-off, I don't see how you could avoid such very extreme conclusions. I would argue that the people that raised you, that support you, actually do deserve more moral consideration, and by extension also the society which you (and they) are part of. Simply put, you owe them. They did and do good unto you, this incurs a moral 'debt'. Of course that is by no means the only factor in the moral equation, but I think it does play an important part. As an aside, I consequently have never agreed with the notion that you owe family just due to biological relatedness alone. That must have been a while back then, haven't read the thread all the way back. I don't see how it would make it worse though. If the killing is morally wrong, then anyone not directly involved in said killing is at best only indirectly complicit. And as argued (and again, see below), even that seems a stretch.
Because the aggregate of votes is composed of those individual votes. It's just that their sheer number makes that the effect of a single vote on that aggregate is so negligible that it might as well be zero (except in very small elections, obviously). How many elections ever get decided on a single vote? It is quite true, actually. As with the votes, it's the large numbers that make the individual effectively of no concern. Supermarkets (and most other shops) buy in their meat bulk, not to order. Of course, they will formulate a certain expectation of their sales and buy in accordingly, based on past sales. But realistically, any individual's consumption is going to be far too small to noticably affect the sales figures, so my local supermarket is not going to order any less meat even if I stopped buying any. Moreover, further up the chain sales are in even larger quantities; were my supermarket to buy somewhat less meat due to my veggie-conversion, it is in turn unlikely to alter meat production even a hair. I could daily gorge myself on whole chickens or subsist entirely on tofu and rye crackers, but the probability of it sparing even a single chicken's life is infinitessimal (though both would likely significantly impact my life expectancy for the worse).
On perhaps a more meta-level, and in a somewhat more utilitarian line of thinking (though I'm actually not a moral consequentialist myself, I tend to favour a neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics): in terms of reducing animal suffering, do you think this cause is best served by propagating full-on veganism (in general I mean, not just on internet message boards)? Vegetarianism is already a few steps too far for most people to actually adopt, so it presumably will garner few if any converts. Conversely, convincing everyone (who isn't already) to eat vegetarian once every two weeks should lead to a far more dramatic reduction of meat consumption. Full on vegetarianism, and even more so veganism, may be the more principled position, but promoting eating a bit less meat might arguably be the morally superior position.
Forgive me if I missed it, but I've not seen any of the vegans in the thread address the point that was raised about all the bunny rabbits, field mice, chipmunks, rats, and squirrels that must be killed in order to raise and protect crops.
Rats are considered vermin by human beings, for good reason. (Black plague, anyone?) Yet, they are also one of the most intelligent species of mammal on the planet. By all the arguments as to "sentience" I've seen here, rats, and to a lesser degree, mice, are, if anything, more "sentient" than cows, if we measure intelligence as a component of sentience by observable problem solving ability.
I cringe just as much or more at laboratory treatment of rats in science as I do at the thought of where my beef, pork, chicken, eggs, butter, cheese and milk come from. If we carry the moral arguments made here to their logical conclusion, must not we stop all killing and abusing of rats and mice?
What about all the medical advances made through animal testing? It makes me want to cry to think about all the poor creatures tortured to advance human medicine. Yet, how many of you have had a mother, a spouse, or a child saved by medical knowledge that was gained by torturing animals in secret, locked medical laboratories hidden in the dungeon-like bowels of universities and hospitals? More of you than will admit or realize it, I would wager.
I just can't get away from the philosophical, biological inevitbility that all life is based on death. If there's such a thing as God, He must be truly sadistic to create a universe like this. That's one major reason why I don't believe there's any such being, but theism vs. atheism would be a tangential topic.
Back to veganism, my main question in this wall of text is, what about rats, mice, squirrels, chipmunks, and rabbits?
In defense of rats: the real disease vector was actually a flea carried by the rat, rather than the rat itself. Moreover, if I'm not mistaken those were mostly black rats rather than the brown rats that are more prevalent now (in the wild as well as in the lab). They actually make great pets, by the way.
Also, those biomedical laboratories aren't all that secret, hidden or bowely, in my experience (they're actually down the hall).
As for the various rodents, a point one might make is that the cows, pigs, etc. need to eat as well. That's going to require crop as well, and thus face at least some of the same problems as crop meant for human consumption with regards to pest control. Whether that is sufficient argument is another question, of course. Then again, I will never be even remotely inclined to go veg, since I don't buy into the veg(atari)an position in the first place.
However, I've gotta say that I hate companies that make millions by exploiting others (people, animals, their own customers...) and are protected by governments . Media protects them as well.
@belgarathmth , rodents , insects and other "plagues" are result of enviromental impact . I believe it leads to another complex topic , since it would cover from insect plagues to shark attacks. On the other hand, I'd like to see what others have to say about it.
I'd like to add that @alnair and @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud are providing us with delicious jaheira-like arguments.
The main reason I myself eat mostly vegetarian (meat is an exception in my diet, on average about twice a month), is for caring for the earth, both the flora and fauna and the human population on it, and feeding animals for food is far too wasteful. We'll have more food to share among us humans and will do far less damage to the earth's forest, aquifers, climate if we used the soil for plants we eat ourselves.
And as to the argument 'those animals wouldn't even live if we didn't eat them': what about all the habitats being destroyed and all the species going instinct for our voracious appetite for arable land to grow crops for animals to satisfy our voracious appetite for meat? For those chickens, pigs and cows lots of animals are being pushed to or over the brink as their habitats are destroyed or because we think of them as vermin threatening our crops.
Look at chickens, which are definitely not okay to kill in vegan philosophy. I grew up around chickens kept by my grandmother. They have distinct personalities and clear emotional states. They compete with each other for status. The roosters remind me of a lot of human males I've known. The hens are proud of their eggs and chicks, show them great affection, and have been observed sacrificing their lives for their chicks.
Rats and mice show even more complex, human-like behavior than the chickens, so if it's not okay to kill the chickens and make them suffer, then why is it okay to kill the rats? And, if it's not okay to kill the rats, which is the answer I would expect from the philosophy, then how are we supposed to compete with them for our grain and vegetables? They over-reproduce as their survival strategy. If we can't kill them, won't they overrun our habitats? I'm willing to entertain the concept that other mammals, birds, and fish have as much right to live as I do, but I'm not going to take seriously any idea that they have more right to live than I do.
I once lived in an apartment where a cute little mouse chewed its way into and took up residence in my pantry. I found boxes of crackers chewed into, and I even caught sight of it a few times. I started leaving food out for it in there. That's the kind of person I am when it comes to animals with which I have to personally deal.
For a few weeks, I treated the little brown mouse as a pet. But then, I started noticing more and more droppings in my pantry. I saw more and more damage being done to the walls and shelves. There were way more droppings in there than could be from one mouse. For all I know, I was feeding a colony of them. I started to worry that they would spread to other people's apartments, and if they were traced to mine, and it was discovered that I was feeding them, I could have been in big trouble with the landlords, and maybe even the health department.
So I stopped feeding them, and plugged up the hole I figured they were coming in from. I think most people would have put mousetraps or poison in there, or called the landlords to do it, and, if those mice spread to other apartments, that's probably what happened to them.
As you may have figured out if you've borne with me and read what I have to say, I get very, very conflicted about these things. I have a practical philosophical view of the necessities of life, but I can't stand the thought of any creature suffering.
Anyway, I've already said a couple of times that I'm not interested in hypothetical situations (especially if quite far-fetched and unlikely as this one).
We were discussing the possibility of avoiding, as much as it's possible, cruelty and suffering of other sentient beings as a direct consequence of our everyday consumptions. Everything else is material for nice philosophical debates, which I enjoy and may very well like to entertain if I had the time for them... except unfortunately I don't. I never implied such a thing. I just said that I don't believe it's important to know how much sentient they are in order to think it's wrong to kill them. You're referring to collateral damage, which can even be minimised with good farming practices.
I'm talking about breeding of individuals solely for the purpose of slaughtering them as soon as they become fat enough. (Or to rape them and steal their offspring, in the case of dairy cows... or to ground them up, in the case of male chicks of egg-laying hens... and so on)
I'm sure you see the difference.
Also what @Son_of_Imoen said... I've already cited - with sources - the actual numbers before in this thread, and anyway they are quite easily to find with a cursory search on the web, please don't make me repeat myself more than I already do
* I still don't see why this kind of moral debt should extend to the whole country, anyway... why people in Milan should mean to me more - or less for that matter - than people in Bejing? Just because we speak (sort of
(Side note: that we have the liberty to choose what to buy is, to me, a cold consolation indeed... definitely not what real, actual freedom should mean. But since that's the only kind of liberty we have at our disposal, we might as well use it in the right way.) Another issue I already addressed in the previous pages: things are changing. A few years back vegetarianism was seen as a strange thing and veganism was virtually unknown. Today, vegetarians are more or less accepted by society while vegans are still seen as extremists. Who knows, in 2020 or '30 fruitarianism could replace veganism as "the crazy position" while more and more people will stop eating animals products (which is already happening, I promise)... There are already enough people advocating for reduced meat consumption or humane slaughtering practices. Since I find those things unsatisfactory, as animals would still be killed, I prefer to spend my energy striving for a goal more in line with my ethics.
(Also, I believe it's indirectly helping those causes that there is a more radical position actively pursued out there...) I suppose you're a scientist, but believe me when I say that the general public knows jack squat about what's going on in any of those laboratories.
@elminster That "silly picture" - about which I said nothing until @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud had to bash @DJKajuru for his, much more in-topic, one - has actually been quite upsetting to me... I've already noted elsewhere that I get very emotional on this matter, and where you see delicious food I see a corpse of a fellow being slaughtered just to please humankind's taste. So excuse me if I don't think it's funny.
Also, since I just said that I didn't find your post very humorous, I don't see how it could classify as a "personal shot".
@belgarathmth Indeed we should. In my vision vivisection is the most unethical of science practices, and it should be ceased altogether. It may have been useful (to a certain degree) in the past centuries, but nowadays there are many alternative methods of research which also yield better results. That's, however, a really complicate matter - one which has even given birth to two different schools of thought: people who think anti-vivisection campaigns should focus on the ethical side of the debate, and people who would address (also) the actual scientific issues that animal testing entails. I'll point you to the 30-year-old book that is considered the cornerstone of this second stance, but of course there are more modern arguments in its favour as well. What about them? They shouldn't be killed, in my opinion
If you're talking specifically about so-called "pests", the best way to ensure that result is to reduce the overall quantity of fields (eating directly their crops instead of using them to feed cattle, as it's been said several times already) while at the same time using cruelty-free alternatives to extermination. Of course. The point is, we could at least try to coexist peacefully. We sure have the technological means, the only thing that is missing is the will to do it. Not all traps kill mice, it's easy to find humane solutions, both commercial and homemade. Of course you should then liberate your "prey" as much in the wild as possibile
My bill was $50 higher than usual, but that may be because I was doing an initial stock-up of these kinds of foods.
This is an experiment for me. I have to find out a few things:
1) Can I make it work within my budget? I have to find ways to get that grocery bill down a bit.
2) Can I control my weight with it, since I will tend to eat too many nuts and too much peanut butter?
3) Will it worsen my diabetes, since I will be eating a carb-heavy diet? It should be very good for my triglycerides, if I can watch out for those nuts.
4) Will I be able to handle the inevitable cravings for meat, dairy, and other high-fat food?
Thank you for being so patient and for working so hard to be a good advocate for what you believe in. You've at least made me consider that the world might be better if more people were vegan. I can't make any promises long term, but I'm at least willing to try. It sure is going to be hard around Christmastime though. I hope I can find some cookies, cakes, and candies that don't contain milk, butter, or eggs.
I happen to like veggie soy burger - it tastes almost the same to me as regular beef patties, so that will probably be a staple. Mashed potatoes (if I can make them taste good with only margarine and water, no milk) and soy patties might actually make a satisfying holiday meal, especially if I can also find some holiday sweets that don't use the verboten ingredients.
Anyway, so yeah. I'm at least willing to give it a shot.
That seems a rather immoral position to take. Surely we must err on the side of caution here? We can maim, kill and eat anything that is below the line for sure, but leave the rest alone. Presumption of sentience until proven otherwise, and all that. As a matter of interest, whereabouts does the gray area begin? What kinds of species are near the "definitely sentient / not sure yet" divide? Because you live in a society, which provides for you in a variety of ways. For the benefit you derive from your country, I would argue, you in turn owe a greater moral debt to it than to (say) China. So what? If the moral wrong is in the killing, how can the people who only ever encounter the end product be morally complicit? I certainly don't see how they can somehow be more in the wrong than those hurting and killing the animals in the first place. As you note, most of them are barely aware of what's going on. And as argued already, they cannot affect it even if they did (at least not by choosing not to buy/eat meat). I'm right either way. I can only decide for myself (and possibly my children, had I any) what I eat. The extent to which I can affect the sales figures of my local supermarket are thus negligible. My individual influence on the meat industry is therefore effectively zero. It's one tiny drop in a very big bucket, my decision to add it or withhold it is simply of no consequence to the totality of water.
1- I'm from São Paulo ,Brazil. Soy stuff , such as burgers of soy "meat" (which provide protein) are easy to find at a decent price. Vegetables (such as tomato, carrots, potatoes...) and cereal such as rice are also cheap, since I'm not feeding a whole family. Whenever I need some 'junk food' to release stress , there are some vegan fast food restaurants downtown, which are basically the same price as a burger or hot dog.
2- Well, If I ate less candy and pasta I'd definitely control my weight , but you should go see a nutritionist or check the internet for some professional info.
3- As far as I know , carbs don't affect diabetes as far as you burn these calories - so you should avoid sweet fruits and eat less carbs at night, since you burn less calories after dinner.
4- Well, about myself I can say that the flavour and texture of meat is taken from soy 'meat' , shimeji mushrooms , gluten meat ...
When it comes to dairy and high fat foods, it depends on how much you eat them to control your stress. That's why I still go to vegan fast foods once in a while
As you can see , @belgarathmth , your routine doesn't need to change much . The problems that might occur are:
-People will surely think that you've nothing to eat (and sometimes it might happen unless you know where to buy it) , "what do you eat, then? is that good?" will become a commom question , but people who love animals and mostly children will respect your decision .
-Sometimes you might need to have a meal before going to a party/barbecue/social occasion because there might not be anything vegan to be eaten there.
-If you plan on taking a plane and travel abroad, it could take you a bit longer to find a place to eat (that's a good thing, since most people eat horrible fatty food because they're lazy to look for healthier options). The best thing to do is order a nice non-egg pasta or mushroom risotto. Most big cities have veggie restaurants.
-As I said before , sometimes I need to control my stress , and since sex is not an option at work (no one attractive there hahah) , I eat something or drink coffee (I don't smoke) . Having nothing to eat gets me angry, so I try to know what options I have before getting hungry.
-Finally, if you get bored at some point ("oh, I can't stand anymore brown rice and soy burgers!") , look up for interesting recipes (ask your grandma to help you prepare it) , yesterday I learned how to make an avocado and tomato sandwich , along with a strawberry lemonade. Pasta , risottos , all kinds of veggie combinations, spices ... there's so much simple stuff you can make.
Try your best and enjoy the food alternatives you're about to discover.
Of course it's also a matter of personal taste, and I also enjoy processed food as a treat on occasions, but I usually prefer food prepared (preferably by my wonderful girlfriend ^_^) using simpler ingredients, vegetables and cereals mostly.
Seitan being the most notable exception to the rule, because seitan rocks! (and it's not that much processed either, it's just washed flour cooked in soy sauce after all) Single out the two or three most expensive items and think twice about them next time; the rest is probably way cheaper than what you were used to buy. I have a sweet tooth myself (love peanut butter, good thing for my health that it's not so common here!), so I also have that kind of issue. Although, full disclosure, I'm not paying any attention to it right now... but when I first went vegan several years ago I managed to lose ~15kg in a couple of months, combining the new healthier diet with a greater quantity of physical exercise. Both my grandfathers, one of my grandmothers and my father all have [or, for two of them, had
Now, no matter what I eat, that's not an issue anymore. Keep also in mind that the sugar in fruit has a much lower impact than processed carbs like bread or pizza.
It's very easy to find out that a vegan diet is actually way healthier for diabetic people, even to the point of being called a cure for it or at least a treatment for its symptoms. That's never been an issue for me, but I suppose it's because I didn't "give up" those foods, I mean it's not a sacrifice for me: I actually don't want to eat them anymore, of course because of the kind of cruelty they're inevitably linked with in my brain. (It's like something actually clicked in it one day, and changed forever the way I see them.) It's easier than you'd think. And if by any chance there is an Eastern Orthodox community near where you live then it'll be as straightforward as entering in one of their shops and randomly picking something
Inb4 "so do you buy everything organic?": I must admit that I don't really manage to only buy organic, but I try to do my best. At least in Italy, it's not exactly easy to find organic stuff, and it's always way more expensive than regular products.
Inb4 "you're an hypocrite": of course, everyone is, one way or another. I never said I'm perfect, I do what I can. At least I try. Actually, my position would be that we can't maim, kill and eat any animal. I was just making a point. I'd say that the burden of defining (albeit tentatively) the cut-off line should be on who proposes its need
Anyway, I would say that any species able to feel pain (so yes, even the fruit fly) should at least be in the grey area. Someone would put even plants there, actually... What do you mean by "provide for"? If you're referring to services like health care and roads, then you're talking about the moral debt towards the State, rather than to the people living in it. But then we should also consider how the country handles its income and expenses (both of them very poorly in my case!)... anyway, I think this debate would derail even further the thread, so I'd just say that our positions on this respect are different although probably not completely incompatible. Actually, I said "it's worse", not "they're guiltier". (Although arguably, if you paid killers to eliminate someone, you'd probably be considered guilty as much as them, wouldn't you?)
But, come to think of it, I'd say that people who do realise that meat is murder and still buy it are more responsible for that murder than slaughterhouse workers who, as I said already days ago, are often the most desperate part of the workforce, compelled by their situation to accept the most unsanitary and stressful of jobs. I don't see that as reason enough to feel justified for not doing one's part, but... whatever floats your boat, I have no interest in judging your choices.
As an aside: while meat involves the death of animals, whether those deaths constitute murder is up for debate (pretty much the sort we're having in this thread, in fact). "Meat = murder" isn't an established fact. The people who "realize" that meat is murder, that is the people who perceive meat as such, would mostly be people such as yourself who don't eat meat in the first place.
To me veganism is nothing but the beginning of a path; there are different candidates as the next logical step or ultimate goal... personally my choice would be fully organic (or rather, as I said, permacultural) veganism, but I've been interested also in freeganism and/or fruitarianism. The former has too heavy a connection with capitalism and wastefulness (which it exploits, after all) for my tastes; while the latter has very strong points when it comes to ecology and ethics, but I still have some doubts on its healthiness when no greens at all are allowed.
(To me breatharianism looks like a complete hoax, I just mention it because some people who are vegan/fruitarian for "spiritual reasons" aim towards that goal instead...) If that's the case, I already proposed (and I hereby accept!) my cut-off line, which I'll repeat: for the purpose of determining what we can maim, kill and eat, all animals should be considered sentient until proven otherwise, while plant-munchers like me are still given the benefit of the doubt. Yes, I'm a self-assolving jerk like that, but I swear to reconsider my views on fruitarianism if plants are proven sentient as well... deal? So, in you opinion, if all the world went vegan overnight people would still slaughter 150 billion animals every year? Probably not, right?
How many hair do I have to loose before I can be called bald, then? (Hint: less than I care to admit) I hate doing this, really. From Wikictionary: (emphasis mine, of course).
Surely you could argue that the slaughtering is the deliberate killing, not meat itself. But I hope you'll admit that "meat is the direct cause and direct consequence of murder", except for being a lousy title for a song, isn't that much of a different concept.
Edit: I want to thank you, @Morte50, for the renovated vigour in debating (I even went and researched philosophical fallacies!) inspired by our arguing on this specific issue... while, by the way, I simply loved your "homosexual are exceptional" exploit in that other thread.
Ah, but then I counter: Murder: the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. Which I would argue is more in line with everyday use of the phrase. After all, the Wiktionary definition would count as murder acts like killing in self-defence, killing in combat, the killing of a prey animal by a predator, as well as the killing of a human by an animal. I expect most people would not want to call any of those murder. So I would certainly admit that "meat is a direct consequence of the killing of animals", as well as "the killing of animals is a direct consequence of the (aggregate) demand for meat". I wouldn't use the word 'murder', though.
But yeah, I do like me some debating. Always nice to find someone else who can appreciate it as well, so often on the internet it devolves into a shouting match. Which is a pity, since I find it conducive both to understanding other people's views as well as refining and evolving my own. Also, it's good for my English, which is a nice added perk.
@Son_Of_Imoen: Even if agriculture were to have less of an environmental impact, it still wouldn't make much difference. There's still the industries (factories, electric centrals, nuclear plants), cutting of woods, soiling of water and air, and so on. You have to look at other aspects of ecology too before judging something like that.
As for the health side, I already said I still have some doubts specifically about not eating any greens; but I must say, having tried raw veganism for a couple of months, that a diet with a very high intake of fruit (and none of processed carbs and beans) has been quite invigorating and detoxifying, although in the end I couldn't resist to the temptation of pasta&pizza. Anyway, there are actually people that have been following that kind of diet for long periods, many of them are even athletes or body-builders; it definitely looks healthy... Following on your metaphor: if you had a strong belief of ethical nature about what the level of the water should be, wouldn't be the only acceptable moral position to add or withhold your drop according to that belief, regardless of the effect it may have on the overall level? And if, as you say, your own personal contribution wouldn't be enough to achieve a real change, wouldn't you be supposed to try and convince other drop-holders to partake in the same adding or withholding?
No man is an island. Your impact on the level of water, while contributing to the final result one way or the other, could also actually be far greater than the mere size of your personal drop. On further consideration, you're probably right. After all, the emotional impact of the song (and, on a much smaller scale, of the countless t-shirts and pins with the title printed on them) would probably be far smaller if there wasn't an actual discrepancy between the perceived notion of murder and its use in that context...
This is all primarily for health reasons and it has helped quite a lot (particularly when I stay off the sweets).
But I don't quite see becoming Vegan. It's a philosophy I'm not ready to embrace. I can certainly see avoiding leather and fur products as much as possible, but I don't have a problem with consuming honey or milk. I think it's a matter of priorities when you consider the relative impact of different things (the antibiotics and hormones used to raise most cattle these days for example).
Corn is another topic. Through subsidies in the US we have a tremendous amount of cheap high fructose corn syrup. We also have an extremely wasteful way of converting corn to fuel (using petroleum products for fertilizer of all things). If you're trying to keep your blood sugar low then corn products are a bad deal. So I would prioritize boycotting corn over boycotting honey.
Depends a bit on the specifics of ones moral views. Of the three major flavours of ethical theory, it would fit most closely with consequentialism: the aim there is to "maximize the good", the main moral focus is outcomes (Peter Singer is actually a utilitarianist, if I recall correctly). If a certain water level has relevant moral worth, then even if the change is minute it might still be morally required. Kinda depends on the specific form of consequentialism though, the 'moral calculus' gets rather finnicky (one of the many reasons I don't adhere to this class of normative theory). The point after all is to maximize the good, so one essentially has to do a cost-benefit analysis and pick the one with the greatest pay-out. There are likely to be competing courses of action, and if one of those produces more good, then the droplet shouldn't be added. But a consequentalist line of reasoning certainly could be formulated along those lines, yes.
As for droplet activism... again, possibly. It might be a rather demanding moral view I think, to posit that we are morally obliged not only to do good ourselves but also to move others to do good as well. Not unprecedented certainly. This also has a rather consequentalistic feel to it, I must say, which may be why it is not a position I can identify with. Personally, I tend to adhere more to a pragmatic kind of virtue ethics. As such, though I do see the consequences as relevant to moral considerations (whereas deontological ethics explicitly does not, by contrast), I don't see them as bearing moral value by themselves.
Which isn't to say I can't find value in drop-related moral discourse by the way. But I would be inclined to aim not so much at instrumentally moving people towards a certain outcome, but rather at convincing them to closer agreement with my own drop-morals. In other words, I would put more stock in others aligning more closely to my view of what makes a moral person. Indeed. Language is funny that way. To some extent you have to wonder what dictionaries are actually good for. Randomly pick a word from a dictionary, and imagine that it is a word you have never encountered before. Even if the definition given points you in kinda the right direction, it's just never going to capture the full meaning of it. That's what makes translation so difficult, of course. It actually happens to me with some regularity that I want to say something and I think of a word in English, but just can't find a Dutch word that has quite the same feel. Which is slightly disconcerting considering I'm Dutch, though in my defense it occasionally does happen the other way around as well. The word 'gezelligheid' is actually famous for it's untranslatability. 'Gemütlichkeit' comes rather close I think, but that's singularly unhelpful for people who don't speak German either.
The argument that 1 person not eating animal products doesn't make any difference used to bother me. But since deciding to go vegan I've got my family eating less meat, my roommate is a vegetarian now, and my coworkers are trying the vegan lifestyle. I'm not pushing my beliefs on anybody (I hate when people try to do that to me) but when others see how much healthier I've become, how much energy I have, money I save, all the benefits of being vegan they see that it is something worth doing. So I suppose 1 individual doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme but when 1 becomes 2 and 2 becomes 4 and 4 becomes 8...you see where I'm going with this.
Fruit - which, botanically speaking, also include most of the produce usually found in vegetable gardens, like tomatoes, peppers, aubergines, zucchini and so on - can provide all the necessary protein, carbs and fats (olives and avocados come to mind) and also most micro-nutrients like minerals, but for some of them you also need at least nuts, seeds and greens, that's true.
[snip of some really interesting inputs about the different kinds of normative ethics, which I'll surely delve into...] Of course I don't advocate instrumentally moving people to do what best fulfils my motives. I would definitely endorse the other option, which (from my point of view, at least) should have as direct consequence also an advance towards the desired outcome.
Incidentally, I'd like to ask your (and anybody else's, if someone cares to answer) opinion about a debate currently in progress among my circle of activist friends.
Suppose your ultimate goal is a world free both of animal exploitation AND of capitalism (assuming, as we do, that the two things are so intertwined that you can't vanquish one without eradicating the other as well) ... would you see the birth of more and more vegan venues, clearly inspired by potential financial gain rather than any truly moral stance, as a positive step forward towards an intermediate, easier to obtain, result (i.e. a vegan world where capitalism still exists, just in a different form)? or rather as an hindrance to the possibility of reaching the ultimate goal, since it may lead to capitalism absorbing antispeciesist values into its tentacular machine, de facto overcoming them while undergoing no loss? I agree, and that happens to me as well. It's also the reason why I don't read translated books and I can't stand dubbed movies/series (that, and the utter incompetence of most English-to-Italian translators). I would be curious to know what it means
[Edit: never mind, I couldn't resist so I went and looked on Wikipedia...]
There is just one more risky diet branch: Fruitarianism. Just ridicolous. There are nearly no studies that would determine if it is detrimental for health in long run... Because there are virtually near to ZERO individuals who managed to follow this diet for longer than 3-5 years.
First of all, I'm not a vegan. I am currently a meat-eater, but have been on the fence for a majority of my life about the core relevant ethical question: is it ethically wrong to eat meat? I'm not sure, and perhaps I'm more guilty than most in that I'm not sure and in that I know more about the subject than most people do. The point being that, although I'm speaking in defense of being vegan, I'm currently not one myself. My goal here is to suggest that, if eating meat is ethically wrong, then the consumer is culpable, that each drop does in fact make a difference, and that it not making some sort of utilitarian difference is irrelevant anyway. I'm going to be using three arguments from analogy which are extreme examples of atrocities, my point in doing so is not to be irrationally extreme. The reason for the analogies that I'm using is two-fold: first, because to someone that does view nonhuman animals as having a right to life that is equal to humans, these morally reprehensible acts which I will mention are no worse than what is going on in the meat industry today; and second, because in the course of discussing morality, and specifically a topic where there is a question of whether or not morality is involved, providing a clearly moral analogy allows us to view the situation from the perspective of those that do clearly believe that it is a moral issue.
I believe that the defense of "most people don't really know what's going on" wears thin in most first-world countries where activist groups have spent years making it clear to the public that the conditions of the meat industry are despicable. There is a huge difference in moral situations between ignorance and willful ignorance. Most people in the wealthier countries have at least been given the opportunity to hear and understand the situation, and their decision to remain ignorant to the details of it so as not to feel guilty about it do not relieve them of moral culpability in my view.
I don't believe that a person's involvement in an immoral act becomes less immoral simply because the act would have occurred anyway. If you know that someone is about to die, while your decision to pick up a weapon and kill them yourself may not have any additional negative impact in a utilitarian sense, it certainly has an impact on you. So, "the animal was going to die anyway" doesn't necessarily relieve the consumer of culpability.
As for the definition of murder, I think it's pretty clear that to most people (and the law), murder is the killing of one person by another. However, to someone that does not distinguish nonhuman animals as having a lesser right to life or protection from suffering, there is clearly no difference and despite what the dictionary has to say, it is murder to these people.
To my first analogy, I'd like to see if you would consider your arguments about consumer culpability reasonable in a situation which you thought was morally reprehensible. If there did come a time when a cut-off line was drawn and animals above a certain level of determined "sentience" were given certain protections, and those below that line were allowed to be treated as people see fit, an interesting situation could arise. A very defensible argument could be made for the lack of a high enough level of sentience in human babies. I'd like to say before continuing that I understand and agree that there is a clear difference between a creature that will never achieve a certain level of consciousness and higher thought, and one that someday will; the point here is to illustrate a parallel that most meat-eaters will feel as morally repulsed by as an ethical vegan likely feels about the current situation. If a market of, say , one million people developed that bought and consumed human flesh, then each person's individual contribution would be negligible to the whole according to some of your arguments. Would it not still be wrong to partake? I would say that, if you believe an act to be immoral, then your involvement in it is clearly immoral as well, even if your lack of involvement would have no utilitarian effect. As you've already specified that you are not a consequentialist, I'll refrain from continuing to specify this exception.
My second analogy involves slavery. A single slave owner in the slavery days of America could have easily made an argument that his individual decision to continue owning slaves, even believing that it is wrong, would have no effect on the situation and that this fact relieves him of culpability. After all, even if he were to move north and free his slaves, he would only be creating land that needed to be worked by new slaves that would be brought over to America. Does this make his involvement any less immoral?
My third and final potentially-offensive analogy involves a member of the Nazi party in Nazi Germany who justifies his involvement by the large number of others involved. After all, even if he is directly involved in the torture and killing, the victims will certainly still be tortured and killed if he decides to leave. In fact, he is in a situation where deciding not to partake could endanger himself and his family, all of whom could be labeled as sympathizers and deal with the consequences of this label, and yet I believe most people still agree that his involvement is morally wrong. So, in a situation where not partaking in the slaughter will not put your life in danger, is it really defensible to suggest that "my contribution isn't enough to matter" excuses you of wrongdoing?
I think that, in arguing in defense of a situation that you see as only hypothetically unethical, you have failed to fully consider the weight of your arguments if the situation is in fact as morally atrocious as it seems to some. I believe that, as someone who denies consequentialism as an ethical theory, your continued insistence that each contributor's effect is negligible is irrelevant to the immorality of the act and the moral agent committing the act.
Drops in a bucket. Well, I'd like to suggest that each drop does matter. I have already argued that the outcome of your contribution is irrelevant to the morality of the act, but I would like to further argue that each drop does make a difference. If ten thousand drops are required to fill a bucket, and each person contributes, or chooses not to contribute, only one drop, then it is in fact a very small part of a whole; but it is a part of the whole. Obviously, if all people decide to withhold (/not withhold) their drop because it's insignificant, then the bucket will never be full(/empty). You say that you believe yourself to only be morally responsible for your own actions, with which I agree, but this doesn't give you a pass to disregard the reality of the situation: that your decision makes a difference and that the consideration of the relative worth of the decision (specifically its relativity to the decisions of others) is integral to understanding a moral action (in the cases of morality). It is only through each agent's understanding of the relative worth of their single drop that the bucket will ever be filled or not filled. And so, in conclusion, I'd say that your drops in a bucket argument, wait for it, doesn't hold water (cue cheesy pun music).
TLDR: human veal, slavery, nazis, and one lame pun.