What was it that @typo_tilly said about Godwin's Law? Only in this case, it's the literal Godwin's Law.
I was watching this discussion for a while, and thought how impressive it was that no one mentioned Nazis. Oh well.
Well, not sure if you're seriously accusing or just making a light-hearted jest, but as I understand it Godwin's Law refers to the inappropriate use of an analogy involving Nazis or Hitler. I stand by my analogies, I think I was pretty clear about their purpose and my explicitly stated intent to not offend or accuse.
@alnair: Hitler used to love fish dishes, so he indeed wasn't a veggie. Anyway, as for your argument on repellants, yes, I've heard about them. I actually use them about every night during summer. Those things that spread a smell that drives away/kills mosquito's (I don't care either way, mosquito's solely live for spider fodder anyway). Or maybe I should go the more natural way and rub my body with lemons. Boy, will my boyfriend love that smell. *rolls eyes* And I continue reading this topic because it's getting quite funny and I'm interesting in where it will end up at. Also, a reply for a reply, no?
*interested I highly advise you to cover yourself in lemons as well to chase away the bugs. Your girlfriend will surely love it. It saves the lives of hundreds of poor mosquito's, so why wouldn't she love it, right? And don't use those repellants from big stores either, you never know whether some animal suffered during the production process, right? So go all the organic way and live the happy life!
I'm just grateful that nobody said "Hitler was a vegetarian".
I was going to, just for fun, but only after someone else made the analogy. By the time that happened, I just didn't feel like it. Some say he adhered to a vegetarian diet some of the time (but certainly not all the time) due to gastric/digestive issues, no idea how true that it but I suppose that's where this particular myth came about.
Well, not sure if you're seriously accusing or just making a light-hearted jest, but as I understand it Godwin's Law refers to the inappropriate use of an analogy involving Nazis or Hitler. I stand by my analogies, I think I was pretty clear about their purpose and my explicitly stated intent to not offend or accuse.
If Wikipedia is to believed, then it is merely the comparison to Hitler or Nazis given enough time, as a threaded discussion gains length.
Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is an assertion made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.
But, yes, it was merely a joke referencing something that was said on one of the previous pages.
And don't use those repellants from big stores either, you never know whether some animal suffered during the production process, right?
It's actually possible, if not easy, to find out if a company is involved in animal testing (or more generally animal exploitation), so my girlfriend and I already manage to buy only cruelty-free cosmetics and detergents; but actually my personal preference is, when feasible, to use homemade products... just like the good-smelling one whose recipe I linked in my previous reply.
But anyway, I must say I'm quite lucky in that mosquitos usually ignore me altogether.
PS: if you finally made up your mind between 'getting on your nerves' vs. 'funny and interesting' and you want to continue being involved in the discussion, I would appreciate if you dropped the confrontational tone. [Edit: well, I guess I could also just stop answering you instead] [Re-edit: you know what, I realise I'm being confrontational as well. Let's behave, shall we?]
I'm just grateful that nobody said "Hitler was a vegetarian".
I was going to, just for fun, but only after someone else made the analogy. By the time that happened, I just didn't feel like it. Some say he adhered to a vegetarian diet some of the time (but certainly not all the time) due to gastric/digestive issues, no idea how true that it but I suppose that's where this particular myth came about.
Well, not sure if you're seriously accusing or just making a light-hearted jest, but as I understand it Godwin's Law refers to the inappropriate use of an analogy involving Nazis or Hitler. I stand by my analogies, I think I was pretty clear about their purpose and my explicitly stated intent to not offend or accuse.
If Wikipedia is to believed, then it is merely the comparison to Hitler or Nazis given enough time, as a threaded discussion gains length.
Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is an assertion made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin said that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.
But, yes, it was merely a joke referencing something that was said on one of the previous pages.
"Godwin's law ...applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as 'playing the Hitler card'. The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.
While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate...
...Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. 'Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust', Godwin has written."
As you said, you were joking, but since you seem to think it's also an accurate accusation, I'd say my argument doesn't qualify based on the above quotes taken from your link to the wiki page (I bolded the bits I thought were most relevant)... But, I guess I may be partial to my own arguments, so who knows.
@alnair: And you got all of that time to spend on making home-made products and looking up all of that information? Boy, wish I had that time, but currently I better focus on my studies to get a good job. And why would I give up gaming as a hobby as well just to live up to an ethical delusion? I'd say some pleasure in life still is allowed. Overthinking things just makes life too complicated and miserable at times. I'd value a nice dinner (meat included) with friends above worries concerning animals. Selfish? Yes. Should I feel bad? Probably. But do I feel bad? No. Because I had a good time, am in good health, and enjoyed my dinner. Anyway, something else I've always wondered about. Vegans/vegetarians eat veggie burgers, right? Why? You see, the patty (pattie?) is made out of vegetables and what-not, I know, but doesn't it still denote the concept of 'meat' between two pieces of bread? Why wouldn't you just eat a salad instead? Same with all of those supposed vegetarian products in the shape of meat (sausages, patties, and so on). Is it just for visual pleasure then? But you're still putting your food in the shape of meat, right? If I were a vegan, I'd detest eating tofu sausages just because of the thought alone of it being a sausage. I'd eat a salad. So yeah, not sure whether I'm making myself clear enough here, but why patties (veggies in the shape of meat)?
Oh, and for the record, I shall ignore that conveniently scrapped (can't find the right term, but I am referring to those lines in your original edit) edit you made there, which is still visible for me to read. If you want to ignore my posts, please do. You can always use the 'Edit' button to erase your original responses. I myself would use it more often if it weren't so difficult to use on my phone, whose interface is a bit dated. Yeah, sorry folks, but I don't have the budget to spend 600 euro's on a Samsung Galaxy or sparkly iPhone. My dearest condolences. I am inded being confrontational because you are still supporting a view of a world without any animal slaughtering/cruelty, which is, unfortunately, downright impossible for maintaining large numbers of humans the way Earth is today. It's an utopian dream, and since I am a realist (a cynical one), I therefore see little point in discussing such ideas.
@alnair: And you got all of that time to spend on making home-made products and looking up all of that information? Boy, wish I had that time, but currently I better focus on my studies to get a good job. And why would I give up gaming as a hobby as well just to live up to an ethical delusion? I'd say some pleasure in life still is allowed. Overthinking things just makes life too complicated and miserable at times.
I don't think checking labels on products before buying them is that a big waste of time. You know, I finished my University studies with the maximum final grade and found a pretty good job while being under this "ethical delusion", and I even still have time to play BG:EE and enjoy several other pleasures... I think my life could definitely be more complicated and miserable than it is. I'd say it would definitely be more miserable if I didn't give a hoot about other beings' ones, actually.
I'd value a nice dinner (meat included) with friends above worries concerning animals. Selfish? Yes. Should I feel bad? Probably. But do I feel bad? No. Because I had a good time, am in good health, and enjoyed my dinner.
What gave you the impression that caring about animals doesn't allow those things? I'm sure all the vegan people that have been part of this discussion have good times, are in good health, and enjoy their dinners. I definitely do.
why patties (veggies in the shape of meat)?
Meat is not patty-shaped, you know, nor sausage-shaped. Butchers give those shapes to ground beef or pork, i.e. to slaughtered cows or pigs. Why shouldn't we be allowed to use the same shapes for our veggies?
I am inded being confrontational because you are still supporting a view of a world without any animal slaughtering/cruelty, which is, unfortunately, downright impossible for maintaining large numbers of humans the way Earth is today. It's an utopian dream, and since I am a realist (a cynical one), I therefore see little point in discussing such ideas.
Yet you still are (discussing them), and with an aggressive attitude, which is what I meant with the word 'confrontational'. As opposed to, say, @Morte50's very civil way of disagreeing with me, that (together with his very good debating skills and interesting arguments) led us to a very nice and useful discussion.
Also, I think I've already said that Earth would be able to support a lot more people if they'd eat a vegan diet.
Btw, my boyfriend brought up an interesting argument. Suppose all humans become vegetarians/vegans and animals were left to breed naturally (no control at all). So both humans and animals would be eating large amounts of crops and vegetables. This would result in both humans and especially herbivores having to end up fighting each other for food. There would be starvation on both sides. Our planet couldn't keep up with producing such gigantic amounts of vegetables and crops for both us and the animals. It would end up a barrren planet. Vegetarianism wouldn't do a service to our planet; it would destroy it. Too much of one specific thing is not enough. Think about that for a moment. Also, this logic would require us to have a LOT of productive bees, and recent American studies have shown that bee populations are currently in a lot of danger. So I still think the vegetarian utopia is still nothing more than that: a dream impossible to be realised.
Sorry, I'm just feeling not so much motivated to repeat the same things over and over.
[Edit: seriously speaking, since I don't know what phone you're using, I guess it's possible that you have trouble following links on it; if that's the case just tell me and I'll sum up the content of that page]
Re-edit: on second thought, I will just copy and paste some of the best answers from there:
animals are bred for human greed, that's it. Those factory cows wouldn't be here if we didn't overbeed them
Farmers control how many animals are born - if you don't eat 'em, they won't breed 'em.
As other people have mentioned these animals are only prolific right now because we are breeding them, feeding them, and housing them. No doubt some species would take fairly well to some ecosystems if let loose, but most would die off. In any case, no one is suggesting that we let all the current farm animals loose. I'm pretty sure that if everyone in the world went vegan, the vast majority of the current farm animals would be cared for humanely and allowed to die naturally without breeding.
The easy answer is if people stopped eating them, they would stop breeding them. Much of factory farming livestock comes from artificial insemination. God, Mother Nature, or whatever you believe in did not intend for these animals to breed at this kind of rate. It's unnatural. Only through the manipulation of man do we have such large numbers of animals that only exist to be slaughtered
If we didn't interfere so much with the environment, it would balance itself out. Reintroducing natural predators would help. Deer also wouldn't be such a problem if we'd stop building in their habitats. They have nowhere to go, so they live and breed in suburban areas, giving the impression that there's too many of them, when really there is too many of us.
@alnair - There is one question I have: in the Vegan ideal when humans no longer cultivates animals would humans become another competitor with other Animals? To achieve the ideal wouldn't man have to become part of the food chain and allow another animal to take the top position? It seems to me that any other solution requires man to control animals so that we can isolate and protect ourselves in animal-free communities. Protecting these communities would require defensive actions which would hurt animals and limit their freedom. I suppose sequestering humans so that they live on an animal free island might work, this would also control human population so that animals could continue to thrive across the planet.
I would definitely posit - as I already did in this thread - that human population should be diminished indeed, of course by means of birth control. That way, and with an oculate use of technology, we could surely achieve a situation where human habitats can coexist with animal ones without encroaching one another.
I'll also add that I don't think there's such a thing as "THE food chain", rather each part of the ecosystem has a different (but partially overlapping with neighbouring parts) food network -- which, including plants and saprotrophs, is more similar to a ring than to a pyramid. Thus, there's no top position at all.
@alnair - Yes, I can easily imagine there's a different topology for predator/prey relationships. I guess my question is how do humans take themselves out of the cycle without causing harm to animals? I would say the only real way to do it is to move mankind onto a animal-free island somewhere. Otherwise I don't see how we would avoid hurting animals in order to protect human communities.
The other option is altruistic beyond belief: humans do not raise arms against any animal but simply try to avoid being prey - once you're prey the game is over since you won't raise arms against animals or interfere with their livelihood. (I think I recall a story of the Budda giving parts of his body to feed hungry animals so the concept isn't unheard of).
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.
Wouldn't greens fall outside the fruitarian diet, though? I suppose you could pluck some leaves while leaving the plant sufficiently intact to survive, but I imagine it's still against the fruitarian ethos. Actually, would potatos be a possibility? I should expect it should be fairly straightforward to dig up some of the potatos while leaving the rest of the plant intact. Then you could make fries! Though vegan mayo to go with it might be tricky. One theoretically could convert to Americanism and eat ketchup with the fries, but that's just too weird.
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.
It would, generally speaking, be entirely in line with a (purely) consequentialist view though. It's a rather 'the end justifies the means' kind of philosophy. Brutally murdering one innocent child could be entirely morally justified if it saves the lives of ten others. The whole thing tends to get diluted a bit precisely to avoid such unpalatable moral conclusions, but it does rather take away from the core tenets to do so. Like I said, never my favourite brand of normative ethics.
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?
Depends a bit on your moral stance on capitalism itself, I think. If capitalism is itself to be considered morally wrong, then actively exploiting it in such a manner quickly gets into somewhat murky territory. If the eradication (or at least, the reform) of capitalism is merely seen as a necessary condition for achieving a vegan world though, leveraging capitalist principles should be a perfectly acceptable strategy. After all, you commit no moral wrongs in doing so; if doing the right thing and making some money happen to coincide, by all means. Especially if that money enables doing more of the right thing. Of course, someone with a more Kantian streak wouldn't call promoting veganism for monetary gain a moral act, but I expect nor would he call it immoral.
I think here again much hinges on what the moral value resides in. If it is in the improved state of the world, in some end goal, then the means can readily be justified. If it is more in one's character and motivations it gets trickier, but still doable to justify. If the morality is in the acts themselves however, the answer almost has to be negative, since immoral acts could be justified, not by the best of intentions nor the most favourable of outcomes. In your view, could the killing of an animal ever be morally justified, if it was somehow certain that in doing so you would convince a large number of people to become vegan (and thereby save a large number of animal lives)? Or to make it a bit harder: the killing has to be slow and theatrical.
You also have to consider, what is the alternative? If the goal is to establish a vegan, non-capitalist world, it might well be that the only way this can be attained is through the capitalist mechanisms currently in place. If so, there may not be much of a choice.
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).
Quite. The situation isn't much different with the quality of Dutch translations. Though admittedly my taste in fiction generally gears towards fantasy, which isn't exactly the easiest genre to translate to begin with. And much isn't being translated anyway. Other than children's tv/movies, absolutely nothing is dubbed either. We pretty much just leave it as is, and stick some subtitles under it. Much better that way, methinks.
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.
It's an interesting scenario, to be sure. I am inclined to say that I would still not consider the consumption immoral as such, no. Not deriving from the immorality of the killing itself, at any rate. One might argue that the desecration of human remains is by itself immoral, though I do not necessarily agree with that view, but let's set that aside. One might also consider that it deprives a specific mother the right to bury her child, but let us assume that artificial wombs have been perfected and there is no mother, and again set that aside. I do not see an obvious immorality to it then, no. It could be argued that partaking consitutes an implicit approval of sorts of the original act, but I am not convinced that that in itself should be considered immoral.
As an aside, in particular to those who are in fact veg(etari)ans: what is your view on lab-grown meat, as was presented this week by some of my fellow Dutchmen? Would you consider that acceptable to eat? I was thinking about if the above scenario would change if the artifical wombs could be made to grow amorphous chunks of human meat, hence the question.
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?
In these two scenarios, I would quite agree that the involvement is morally wrong (taking a somewhat universalist stance on ethics there, but that seems appropriate for now). The crucial distinction being that here one is directly committing immoral acts, and therefore responsible. As stated, I am not a consequentialist, so in my view the outcomes by themselves do not define the moral worth of a course of action. Though in defense at least of utilitarians, they presumably would consider it immoral as well (John Stuart Mill certainly did, at any rate; slavery at least, he was quite dead when the Nazi's came to power).
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.
The reason I refer to the negligible consequences is because I am looking for the argument against eating meat. I'm not offering it as a consequentialist defence of my own view, since as you note I am not a consequentialist. The point in me bringing it up is rather as a counter to the notion that a chicken dies as a direct consequence of me choosing to buy and eat a piece of chicken. This claim has been made in this thread, and generally tends to in this sort of discussion. *If* this were the case (even in a somewhat less directly causal way), then it might indeed serve as the basis of a moral argument against eating meat (not necessarily just a consequentialist argument, by the way). But as far as I can see such a relation between meat-consumption and killing animals does not exist at the level of the individual carnivore, and therefore any arguments against eating meat requires another foundation.
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).
The drop is part of a whole, sure. But when I consider the relative worth of my contribution to the bucket, I find that it is imperceptibly close to zero. A reasonable quantification of the difference my action makes would be the relative change to the total water volume my single droplet would make. I grant that mathematically this does in fact depend on the actions of others, since those cause the total water volume to fluctuate. However, given the enormous difference in droplet-volume to total volume (as well as the presumably quite modest range of those fluctuations), the change in valuation is itself negligible. We could of course statistically model those fluctuations, but that seems overkill. Even if I round up a bit to err on the side of caution, the fact still remains that my single droplet is insignificant compared to the total. No amount of "but other people..." is going to change that. The worth of my individual drop, of any individual drop, remains effectively zero.
I appreciate a joke as much as the next gentleman, but I thought that, as you made it clear that you legitimately thought it to be the case, it would be appropriate for me to defend my position. Furthermore, I posit that all jokes, games, and things of a "fun" nature are pointless distractions at best and potentially quite evil. In future, please think twice before attempting to use any sort of levity in my presence. Good day.
It seems that the implied approval via indirect participation in the act is where our views differ. Furthermore, although I understand that each person's effect is largely insignificant compared to the total, I can't help but continue to see a moral culpability of each agent contributing to the demand which motivates the supply. So, I suppose that on these two points we have a fundamental difference of opinion.
I'd like to thank you and @alnair in particular, as my following of this thread has compelled me to put to task my own beliefs on the subject. I unfortunately have to admit to employing a sort of willful ignorance of my own over the last several years: a sort of continual refusal to sit down and decide resolutely my position on this matter. If the killing of nonhuman animals for consumption is immoral, then I must admit that I see the consumer as morally culpable. As I can't truly decide on the core question, and as I have no logical argument to refute it based on my current beliefs, it would seem at least morally negligent for me to continue involving myself in a situation which I see as morally dubious at best.
So, I suppose that I'll be making an attempt to discontinue my consumption of meat. Thanks @DJKajuru and @alnair for the grocery advice you gave to @belgarathmth as I'm sure it will come in handy.
@FredSRichardson I don't think there are species who actively prey on humans: the few examples of animals like lions or sharks eating people are exceptions to the norm, often even cases of self-defence. Speaking of which, I think that self-defence is probably the only reason for which the use of violence on an animal is "allowed" even by vegans. Of course, I'd rather avoid as much as possible to be in a situation that could require such an extreme measure... hence the idea that human dwellings or activities shouldn't encroach animal habitats in the first place.
So, I suppose that I'll be making an attempt to discontinue my consumption of meat. Thanks @DJKajuru and @alnair for the grocery advice you gave to @belgarathmth as I'm sure it will come in handy.
You're very welcome, and <cheesy> I daresay thank you also on the behalf of the animals </cheesy>
Wouldn't greens fall outside the fruitarian diet, though?
Yes, and so would nuts, seeds, tubers (like potatoes) and roots (like carrots). That's why I still reserve judgment on the healthiness of such a diet, while I believe that simple raw veganism - which admits all of those things, if they can be eaten uncooked/dried/marinated - could actually be healthier than my current diet whose main staples are all based on cooked cereals.
One theoretically could convert to Americanism and eat ketchup with the fries, but that's just too weird.
Is it? I guess Italians are more subject to American cultural imperialism, then, since ketchup and mustard as condiment for fries are definitely as common as mayonnaise (if not more), here...
[Consequentialism]'s a rather 'the end justifies the means' kind of philosophy. Brutally murdering one innocent child could be entirely morally justified if it saves the lives of ten others. The whole thing tends to get diluted a bit precisely to avoid such unpalatable moral conclusions, but it does rather take away from the core tenets to do so. Like I said, never my favourite brand of normative ethics.
Definitely not my cup of tea, either...
If capitalism is itself to be considered morally wrong, then actively exploiting it in such a manner quickly gets into somewhat murky territory. If the eradication (or at least, the reform) of capitalism is merely seen as a necessary condition for achieving a vegan world though, leveraging capitalist principles should be a perfectly acceptable strategy.
I'd say that capitalism is wrong in so far as it causes exploitation of beings (in my opinion people or animals alike, of course) and/or of the environment (again, in the broadest possible sense of the word). It's not the money making per se to be wrong; although I must say that I often semi-jokingly indicate money as the source of all evil in the world, it would be more correct to say that it's actually human greed...
In your view, could the killing of an animal ever be morally justified, if it was somehow certain that in doing so you would convince a large number of people to become vegan (and thereby save a large number of animal lives)? Or to make it a bit harder: the killing has to be slow and theatrical.
Hard question indeed. Good thing I don't really have to answer it
You also have to consider, what is the alternative? If the goal is to establish a vegan, non-capitalist world, it might well be that the only way this can be attained is through the capitalist mechanisms currently in place. If so, there may not be much of a choice.
You nailed the dilemma. The (even more) idealistic alternative would be, of course, vanquishing capitalism altogether. While I'm confident that it is a doomed system, reaching that goal overnight is definitely a bit unrealistic...
Other than children's tv/movies, absolutely nothing is dubbed either. We pretty much just leave it as is, and stick some subtitles under it. Much better that way, methinks.
Oh boy, I wish they did the same in Italy! Here everything is dubbed, and that is why (at the same time being a consequence, of course) English is definitely not my countrymen's strong suit...
It could be argued that partaking [in eating human meat] consitutes an implicit approval of sorts of the original act, but I am not convinced that that in itself should be considered immoral.
So you're basically saying that you have the same opinion about the morality of eating meat regardless of the species (animal or human) slaughtered for that meat, right? Sort of a reverse take on antispeciesism, then... not unheard of, by the way, although usually people that say this sort of thing are just joking. Also, one could argue that it can be viewed as an easy way out of the whole 'eating animals is immoral' debate, even easier considering that the scenario where human meat is commonly eaten is entirely hypothetical.
As an aside, in particular to those who are in fact veg(etari)ans: what is your view on lab-grown meat, as was presented this week by some of my fellow Dutchmen? Would you consider that acceptable to eat?
The idea of eating it is overly gross and disgusting, personally. The act of eating it could probably be acceptable, since no one is suffering for its production. The act of producing it, on the other side, is in my opinion wrong on a lot of levels: for starters, it perpetuates the false idea that meat is a food suitable for humans; then there's also a host of other issues to be concerned about, not unlike it happens for GMO...
The worth of my individual drop, of any individual drop, remains effectively zero.
This is a classical example of "the total is more than the sum of its parts", I'll admit, but I can't help thinking that the bucket would be empty if it wasn't for all those individual drops.
Anyway, I leave you guys to sort the matter while I'm on holiday: for the next couple of weeks I'll be enjoying some nice gezelligheid (that's a pretty good word!) in a place without a connection to the Internet (or electricity, for that matter). I promise I'll catch you up when I'm back!
@Alnair - Thank you, I was trying to envision what the Vegan utopian society would be. Habitat is an interesting issue. Humanity has the upper hand in defining who get's what habitat. This could lead to some interesting debates among Vegan philosophers. If we allowed animals to thrive more we might find ourselves in a defensive position with more predators than we first imagined. It's just a thought.
I personally have a harder time with Veganism than I do with vegetarianism, but I'm a pragmatist. If we cultivate fruit crops we are going to have to enlist bees for help in pollination. I have no problem with doing this and stealing honey from the bees. This is pretty close to a win/win situation.
@Toeveryonereadingandpostingonthisthread Well done for keeping things feisty and alive on the thread! I am back from holiday from sunny wales up in the mountains with the sheep (wooly jumpers and lamb shank all round!)
Still a little confused. Arable land does not need to be as good quality land that you need for crops (hence mountains = sheep and cows not wheat and barley!) Can the fallacy that crops need less land end please. Due to nutrient loss, good farming practice would leave land fallow to recover, or to keep productivity, it would be allowed to go to pasture (good way to get the manure into the soil!)
Now chemical fertilizer and such can do away with this in the same way processed animal feed can be used instead of grown crops for animals. (They eat usually by products from human crops anyway!)
Sorry. But it got my beef up each time I read it...
Now the fact good quality farmland is being used for animals because farmers can make more money selling meat is altogether a different issue...
Is it? I guess Italians are more subject to American cultural imperialism, then, since ketchup and mustard as condiment for fries are definitely as common as mayonnaise (if not more), here...
It is? I always thought that was mostly an American thing. Here, mayo is definitely the fries-condiment of choice.
I'd say that capitalism is wrong in so far as it causes exploitation of beings (in my opinion people or animals alike, of course) and/or of the environment (again, in the broadest possible sense of the word). It's not the money making per se to be wrong; although I must say that I often semi-jokingly indicate money as the source of all evil in the world, it would be more correct to say that it's actually human greed...
But the question is, which alternatives are available? Specifically, alternatives that are psychologically and sociologically viable. Because reasonably we must assume that capitalism isn't the cause of said human greed, it just facilitates it. Thus, changing the system itself isn't enough, you would have to change the people with it.
You nailed the dilemma. The (even more) idealistic alternative would be, of course, vanquishing capitalism altogether. While I'm confident that it is a doomed system, reaching that goal overnight is definitely a bit unrealistic...
If it is a doomed system, you wouldn't actually have to do anything to attain your goal. But what makes you think it is doomed in the first place?
So you're basically saying that you have the same opinion about the morality of eating meat regardless of the species (animal or human) slaughtered for that meat, right? Sort of a reverse take on antispeciesism, then... not unheard of, by the way, although usually people that say this sort of thing are just joking. Also, one could argue that it can be viewed as an easy way out of the whole 'eating animals is immoral' debate, even easier considering that the scenario where human meat is commonly eaten is entirely hypothetical.
I must say I haven't deeply pondered the morality of (human) cannibalism, but I would be inclined towards such a conclusion, yes. I do think there are differences, for example because there are typically family and friends with an emotional connection to the deceased and (by extension) his/her remains. But leaving such things aside, I so far do not see a compelling moral argument to differentiate between eating human and animal meat.
What I certainly would want to conclude, as with animal meat, is that any immoratility of eating human meat does not derive from the possible immorality of the dinner-to-be being dead in the first place. In @jaysl659, the scenario was an obvious extreme of humans, infants even, being bred and killed specifically for the purpose. Such a scenario of course tends to evoke a certain visceral 'feel' that this is wrong. But what if we change the scenario: if the death is incidental, the deceased is an adult, the deceased is an adult and has explicitly consented to being eaten. I don't see it really changing the morality of the 'eating' part.
This leads me to the conclusion that if cannibalism is to be wrong, it has to be so on it's own merits rather than riding on the coattails of the cause of death. And given that, I can't see there being a great wrong in it. After all, we do all sorts of things to human remains. We dress them up and put them into a box, we put them into the ground to rot, we burn them, chuck them into the sea, cut them open for medical research, scoop out bits and pieces to put into other people... why would eating them be so very different? It seems hardly far-fetched to suppose that a culture would exist of has existed that honours their dead by eating (part of) them. Absorbing a piece of the deceased into their own essence, that sort of thing. Possible health issues aside, seems little wrong with that on a moral level.
The idea of eating it is overly gross and disgusting, personally. The act of eating it could probably be acceptable, since no one is suffering for its production. The act of producing it, on the other side, is in my opinion wrong on a lot of levels: for starters, it perpetuates the false idea that meat is a food suitable for humans; then there's also a host of other issues to be concerned about, not unlike it happens for GMO...
I would argue that meat is demonstrably quite suitable for humans as a food. Whatever other qualms people may have with the productions and/or consumption of meat, it certainly fulfills all the criteria for serving as food.
Besides, suppose that after further development it can compete with 'real' meat both on an economic and a culinary level. That consequently a large number of people would start eating lab-meat instead of 'real' meat, thus leading to a great reduction in animal death and suffering in the meat industry. Surely, from a veg(atari)an perspective this would seem to be a great development. I recognise that this would remove a lot of incentive for people to change to a strictly veg(atari)an diet, but that can hardly be the goal right? A diet with no meat and a diet with no 'real' meat should be morally equivalent. Or at least, if the veggie-burger is to be considered morally superior to the lab-meat-burger, we would be forced to conclude that it is apparently not about the harming and killing of animals.
This is a classical example of "the total is more than the sum of its parts", I'll admit, but I can't help thinking that the bucket would be empty if it wasn't for all those individual drops.
If it wasn't for all those individual drops, sure. But for all of my own single little droplet, special as it may be, it would be just as full or just as empty. It's the tragedy of the commons, y'all :-).
@alnair: A place without electricity? Errr... Nice. Wouldn't be able to bear that as I'm afraid of the darkness. I can live without internet, tho, if only if weren'tt for my boyfriend to live in another country than mine... Plane tickets cost a lot, afterall, and writing letters just is too slow for me.
Comments
I was watching this discussion for a while, and thought how impressive it was that no one mentioned Nazis. Oh well.
I highly advise you to cover yourself in lemons as well to chase away the bugs. Your girlfriend will surely love it. It saves the lives of hundreds of poor mosquito's, so why wouldn't she love it, right? And don't use those repellants from big stores either, you never know whether some animal suffered during the production process, right? So go all the organic way and live the happy life!
But, yes, it was merely a joke referencing something that was said on one of the previous pages.
But anyway, I must say I'm quite lucky in that mosquitos usually ignore me altogether.
PS: if you finally made up your mind between 'getting on your nerves' vs. 'funny and interesting' and you want to continue being involved in the discussion, I would appreciate if you dropped the confrontational tone.[Edit: well, I guess I could also just stop answering you instead][Re-edit: you know what, I realise I'm being confrontational as well. Let's behave, shall we?]
"Godwin's law ...applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Nazis – often referred to as 'playing the Hitler card'. The law and its corollaries would not apply to discussions covering known mainstays of Nazi Germany such as genocide, eugenics, or racial superiority, nor, more debatably, to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies, if that was the explicit topic of conversation, since a Nazi comparison in those circumstances may be appropriate, in effect committing the fallacist's fallacy. Whether it applies to humorous use or references to oneself is open to interpretation, since this would not be a fallacious attack against a debate opponent.
While falling afoul of Godwin's law tends to cause the individual making the comparison to lose his argument or credibility, Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship, fallaciously miscasting an opponent's argument as hyperbole when the comparisons made by the argument are actually appropriate...
...Godwin's law does not claim to articulate a fallacy; it is instead framed as a memetic tool to reduce the incidence of inappropriate hyperbolic comparisons. 'Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust', Godwin has written."
As you said, you were joking, but since you seem to think it's also an accurate accusation, I'd say my argument doesn't qualify based on the above quotes taken from your link to the wiki page (I bolded the bits I thought were most relevant)... But, I guess I may be partial to my own arguments, so who knows.
Anyway, something else I've always wondered about. Vegans/vegetarians eat veggie burgers, right? Why? You see, the patty (pattie?) is made out of vegetables and what-not, I know, but doesn't it still denote the concept of 'meat' between two pieces of bread? Why wouldn't you just eat a salad instead? Same with all of those supposed vegetarian products in the shape of meat (sausages, patties, and so on). Is it just for visual pleasure then? But you're still putting your food in the shape of meat, right? If I were a vegan, I'd detest eating tofu sausages just because of the thought alone of it being a sausage. I'd eat a salad. So yeah, not sure whether I'm making myself clear enough here, but why patties (veggies in the shape of meat)?
I'd say it would definitely be more miserable if I didn't give a hoot about other beings' ones, actually. What gave you the impression that caring about animals doesn't allow those things? I'm sure all the vegan people that have been part of this discussion have good times, are in good health, and enjoy their dinners. I definitely do.
Meat is not patty-shaped, you know, nor sausage-shaped. Butchers give those shapes to ground beef or pork, i.e. to slaughtered cows or pigs. Why shouldn't we be allowed to use the same shapes for our veggies?
Very well, I shall continue to lurk.
Also, I think I've already said that Earth would be able to support a lot more people if they'd eat a vegan diet.
Sorry, I'm just feeling not so much motivated to repeat the same things over and over.
[Edit: seriously speaking, since I don't know what phone you're using, I guess it's possible that you have trouble following links on it; if that's the case just tell me and I'll sum up the content of that page]Re-edit: on second thought, I will just copy and paste some of the best answers from there:
I would definitely posit - as I already did in this thread - that human population should be diminished indeed, of course by means of birth control.
That way, and with an oculate use of technology, we could surely achieve a situation where human habitats can coexist with animal ones without encroaching one another.
I'll also add that I don't think there's such a thing as "THE food chain", rather each part of the ecosystem has a different (but partially overlapping with neighbouring parts) food network -- which, including plants and saprotrophs, is more similar to a ring than to a pyramid. Thus, there's no top position at all.
The other option is altruistic beyond belief: humans do not raise arms against any animal but simply try to avoid being prey - once you're prey the game is over since you won't raise arms against animals or interfere with their livelihood. (I think I recall a story of the Budda giving parts of his body to feed hungry animals so the concept isn't unheard of).
I think here again much hinges on what the moral value resides in. If it is in the improved state of the world, in some end goal, then the means can readily be justified. If it is more in one's character and motivations it gets trickier, but still doable to justify. If the morality is in the acts themselves however, the answer almost has to be negative, since immoral acts could be justified, not by the best of intentions nor the most favourable of outcomes. In your view, could the killing of an animal ever be morally justified, if it was somehow certain that in doing so you would convince a large number of people to become vegan (and thereby save a large number of animal lives)? Or to make it a bit harder: the killing has to be slow and theatrical.
You also have to consider, what is the alternative? If the goal is to establish a vegan, non-capitalist world, it might well be that the only way this can be attained is through the capitalist mechanisms currently in place. If so, there may not be much of a choice. Quite. The situation isn't much different with the quality of Dutch translations. Though admittedly my taste in fiction generally gears towards fantasy, which isn't exactly the easiest genre to translate to begin with. And much isn't being translated anyway. Other than children's tv/movies, absolutely nothing is dubbed either. We pretty much just leave it as is, and stick some subtitles under it. Much better that way, methinks.
As an aside, in particular to those who are in fact veg(etari)ans: what is your view on lab-grown meat, as was presented this week by some of my fellow Dutchmen? Would you consider that acceptable to eat? I was thinking about if the above scenario would change if the artifical wombs could be made to grow amorphous chunks of human meat, hence the question. In these two scenarios, I would quite agree that the involvement is morally wrong (taking a somewhat universalist stance on ethics there, but that seems appropriate for now). The crucial distinction being that here one is directly committing immoral acts, and therefore responsible. As stated, I am not a consequentialist, so in my view the outcomes by themselves do not define the moral worth of a course of action. Though in defense at least of utilitarians, they presumably would consider it immoral as well (John Stuart Mill certainly did, at any rate; slavery at least, he was quite dead when the Nazi's came to power). The reason I refer to the negligible consequences is because I am looking for the argument against eating meat. I'm not offering it as a consequentialist defence of my own view, since as you note I am not a consequentialist. The point in me bringing it up is rather as a counter to the notion that a chicken dies as a direct consequence of me choosing to buy and eat a piece of chicken. This claim has been made in this thread, and generally tends to in this sort of discussion. *If* this were the case (even in a somewhat less directly causal way), then it might indeed serve as the basis of a moral argument against eating meat (not necessarily just a consequentialist argument, by the way). But as far as I can see such a relation between meat-consumption and killing animals does not exist at the level of the individual carnivore, and therefore any arguments against eating meat requires another foundation. The drop is part of a whole, sure. But when I consider the relative worth of my contribution to the bucket, I find that it is imperceptibly close to zero. A reasonable quantification of the difference my action makes would be the relative change to the total water volume my single droplet would make. I grant that mathematically this does in fact depend on the actions of others, since those cause the total water volume to fluctuate. However, given the enormous difference in droplet-volume to total volume (as well as the presumably quite modest range of those fluctuations), the change in valuation is itself negligible. We could of course statistically model those fluctuations, but that seems overkill. Even if I round up a bit to err on the side of caution, the fact still remains that my single droplet is insignificant compared to the total. No amount of "but other people..." is going to change that. The worth of my individual drop, of any individual drop, remains effectively zero.
I appreciate a joke as much as the next gentleman, but I thought that, as you made it clear that you legitimately thought it to be the case, it would be appropriate for me to defend my position. Furthermore, I posit that all jokes, games, and things of a "fun" nature are pointless distractions at best and potentially quite evil. In future, please think twice before attempting to use any sort of levity in my presence. Good day.
Buzz Killington
@Morte50
It seems that the implied approval via indirect participation in the act is where our views differ. Furthermore, although I understand that each person's effect is largely insignificant compared to the total, I can't help but continue to see a moral culpability of each agent contributing to the demand which motivates the supply. So, I suppose that on these two points we have a fundamental difference of opinion.
I'd like to thank you and @alnair in particular, as my following of this thread has compelled me to put to task my own beliefs on the subject. I unfortunately have to admit to employing a sort of willful ignorance of my own over the last several years: a sort of continual refusal to sit down and decide resolutely my position on this matter. If the killing of nonhuman animals for consumption is immoral, then I must admit that I see the consumer as morally culpable. As I can't truly decide on the core question, and as I have no logical argument to refute it based on my current beliefs, it would seem at least morally negligent for me to continue involving myself in a situation which I see as morally dubious at best.
So, I suppose that I'll be making an attempt to discontinue my consumption of meat. Thanks @DJKajuru and @alnair for the grocery advice you gave to @belgarathmth as I'm sure it will come in handy.
I don't think there are species who actively prey on humans: the few examples of animals like lions or sharks eating people are exceptions to the norm, often even cases of self-defence.
Speaking of which, I think that self-defence is probably the only reason for which the use of violence on an animal is "allowed" even by vegans. Of course, I'd rather avoid as much as possible to be in a situation that could require such an extreme measure... hence the idea that human dwellings or activities shouldn't encroach animal habitats in the first place.
@jaysl659 You're very welcome, and <cheesy> I daresay thank you also on the behalf of the animals </cheesy>
@Morte50 Yes, and so would nuts, seeds, tubers (like potatoes) and roots (like carrots). That's why I still reserve judgment on the healthiness of such a diet, while I believe that simple raw veganism - which admits all of those things, if they can be eaten uncooked/dried/marinated - could actually be healthier than my current diet whose main staples are all based on cooked cereals. Is it? I guess Italians are more subject to American cultural imperialism, then, since ketchup and mustard as condiment for fries are definitely as common as mayonnaise (if not more), here... Definitely not my cup of tea, either... I'd say that capitalism is wrong in so far as it causes exploitation of beings (in my opinion people or animals alike, of course) and/or of the environment (again, in the broadest possible sense of the word). It's not the money making per se to be wrong; although I must say that I often semi-jokingly indicate money as the source of all evil in the world, it would be more correct to say that it's actually human greed... Hard question indeed. Good thing I don't really have to answer it
Also, one could argue that it can be viewed as an easy way out of the whole 'eating animals is immoral' debate, even easier considering that the scenario where human meat is commonly eaten is entirely hypothetical. The idea of eating it is overly gross and disgusting, personally.
The act of eating it could probably be acceptable, since no one is suffering for its production.
The act of producing it, on the other side, is in my opinion wrong on a lot of levels: for starters, it perpetuates the false idea that meat is a food suitable for humans; then there's also a host of other issues to be concerned about, not unlike it happens for GMO... This is a classical example of "the total is more than the sum of its parts", I'll admit, but I can't help thinking that the bucket would be empty if it wasn't for all those individual drops.
Anyway, I leave you guys to sort the matter
I personally have a harder time with Veganism than I do with vegetarianism, but I'm a pragmatist. If we cultivate fruit crops we are going to have to enlist bees for help in pollination. I have no problem with doing this and stealing honey from the bees. This is pretty close to a win/win situation.
Still a little confused. Arable land does not need to be as good quality land that you need for crops (hence mountains = sheep and cows not wheat and barley!) Can the fallacy that crops need less land end please. Due to nutrient loss, good farming practice would leave land fallow to recover, or to keep productivity, it would be allowed to go to pasture (good way to get the manure into the soil!)
Now chemical fertilizer and such can do away with this in the same way processed animal feed can be used instead of grown crops for animals. (They eat usually by products from human crops anyway!)
Sorry. But it got my beef up each time I read it...
Now the fact good quality farmland is being used for animals because farmers can make more money selling meat is altogether a different issue...
What I certainly would want to conclude, as with animal meat, is that any immoratility of eating human meat does not derive from the possible immorality of the dinner-to-be being dead in the first place. In @jaysl659, the scenario was an obvious extreme of humans, infants even, being bred and killed specifically for the purpose. Such a scenario of course tends to evoke a certain visceral 'feel' that this is wrong. But what if we change the scenario: if the death is incidental, the deceased is an adult, the deceased is an adult and has explicitly consented to being eaten. I don't see it really changing the morality of the 'eating' part.
This leads me to the conclusion that if cannibalism is to be wrong, it has to be so on it's own merits rather than riding on the coattails of the cause of death. And given that, I can't see there being a great wrong in it. After all, we do all sorts of things to human remains. We dress them up and put them into a box, we put them into the ground to rot, we burn them, chuck them into the sea, cut them open for medical research, scoop out bits and pieces to put into other people... why would eating them be so very different? It seems hardly far-fetched to suppose that a culture would exist of has existed that honours their dead by eating (part of) them. Absorbing a piece of the deceased into their own essence, that sort of thing. Possible health issues aside, seems little wrong with that on a moral level. I would argue that meat is demonstrably quite suitable for humans as a food. Whatever other qualms people may have with the productions and/or consumption of meat, it certainly fulfills all the criteria for serving as food.
Besides, suppose that after further development it can compete with 'real' meat both on an economic and a culinary level. That consequently a large number of people would start eating lab-meat instead of 'real' meat, thus leading to a great reduction in animal death and suffering in the meat industry. Surely, from a veg(atari)an perspective this would seem to be a great development. I recognise that this would remove a lot of incentive for people to change to a strictly veg(atari)an diet, but that can hardly be the goal right? A diet with no meat and a diet with no 'real' meat should be morally equivalent. Or at least, if the veggie-burger is to be considered morally superior to the lab-meat-burger, we would be forced to conclude that it is apparently not about the harming and killing of animals. If it wasn't for all those individual drops, sure. But for all of my own single little droplet, special as it may be, it would be just as full or just as empty. It's the tragedy of the commons, y'all :-).
Anyway, have a good holiday.