Vegetarianism?

[Ligeia]

My question:
Is it ethical, unethical, moral, amoral or immoral to eat meat?
What's wrong or right about eating meat?

Is vegetarianism reasonable or not?

I've already read a lot of threads on here about the topics of veganism, vegetarianism, biocentrism..and so on but I would like to know your opinions on this questions (especially if there are morals behind eating meat or not, or ethics...)

I'm not sure if this is the right section....but I mostly post questions on the "Learning" section.

[bcbm]

Is it ethical, unethical, moral, amoral or immoral to eat meat?

no

[Ligeia]

A little bit of explanations while answering would be nice. :closedeyes:
I'm asking out of curiosity and to gain knowledge on this subject (learn).
Thanks.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

My question:
Is it ethical, unethical, moral, amoral or immoral to eat meat?
What's wrong or right about eating meat?

Is vegetarianism reasonable or not?

I've already read a lot of threads on here about the topics of veganism, vegetarianism, biocentrism..and so on but I would like to know your opinions on this questions (especially if there are morals behind eating meat or not, or ethics...)

I'm not sure if this is the right section....but I mostly post questions on the "Learning" section.


For me, im vegan because I think eating meat is wrong. Animals are living sentient beings, and the conditions in which they are kept and the methods by which they are slaughtered are barbaric.

However there is also the logistical argument for vegitarianism, which is that you can feed more people growing vegitables than livestock, Livestock take up a lot of space and resources. For that reason it it logical to expect that in post revolutionary society peoples diets would change to either eating less meat and animal products or none at all.

Animal liberation isnt really part of the revolutionary movement in the same way womens liberation, LGBTQ liberation etc is. This is because we could easily have communism with out Animal Liberation so many revolutionaries see it as irrelevent. But my personal stance is that im against all exploitation and oppression, and so im against the expolitation of Animals.

[FSL]

My question:
Is it ethical, unethical, moral, amoral or immoral to eat meat?
What's wrong or right about eating meat?

Is vegetarianism reasonable or not?

I've already read a lot of threads on here about the topics of veganism, vegetarianism, biocentrism..and so on but I would like to know your opinions on this questions (especially if there are morals behind eating meat or not, or ethics...)

I'm not sure if this is the right section....but I mostly post questions on the "Learning" section.


You have teeth that allow you to eat meat so you can safely assume you're supposed to eat it. Tigers kill poor antilopes that are much cuter than cows and have no guilt for doing so.

[Ravachol]

You have teeth that allow you to eat meat so you can safely assume you're supposed to eat it. Tigers kill poor antilopes that are much cuter than cows and have no guilt for doing so.

Despite the fact that I eat meat I must respond to this as this argument is total bullshit. The difference between Human beings and Tigers is that we have a CHOICE not to eat meat. Certain acts cause objective suffering (in the form of pain,stress,etc) and I believe that an act limiting unnecessary suffering is a noble one. We're not 'intended' to do anything, that's just mystical teleology.

[Tatarin]

As socialists, we are not against anyone being a vegetarian, however we are not "for it" in any specific way, well, at least not most of us. Yes, the food industry is barbaric but nevertheless a practice that is only the symptom of the capitalist system. Barbarism can also be seen in the human society, at work, in companies and their practices, and so on.

I don't know about everyone else, but as long as you are aware why the meat industry functions the way it does, and understand the need for a completely new system, I'm happy.

[FSL]

Despite the fact that I eat meat I must respond to this as this argument is total bullshit. The difference between Human beings and Tigers is that we have a CHOICE not to eat meat. Certain acts cause objective suffering (in the form of pain,stress,etc) and I believe that an act limiting unnecessary suffering is a noble one. We're not 'intended' to do anything, that's just mystical teleology.


Your eyes are at the front of your head and not on the sides and your teeth have a certain shape not as a result of chance or because God looks that way but so that you achieve survival. If your teeth were designed to be unable to rip flesh off of something, you'd belong in a long deceased tribe of men who'd be too weak, as a result of lack of proteins, to fight other animals.

And pleeeeease, don't argue against mysticism only to support the notion that not eating meat is a "noble act". The concept of noble belongs to the realm of ideas whereas the base in this case is a person's eating habits. Noble is then what helps someone attain a strong health. Meat is nutricious. Eat some. Prefer white.

[Ravachol]

Your eyes are at the front of your head and not on the sides and your teeth have a certain shape not as a result of chance or because God looks that way but so that you achieve survival. If your teeth were designed to be unable to rip flesh off of something, you'd belong in a long deceased tribe of men who'd be too weak, as a result of lack of proteins, to fight other animals.

And pleeeeease, don't argue against mysticism only to support the notion that not eating meat is a "noble act". The concept of noble belongs to the realm of ideas whereas the base in this case is a person's eating habits. Noble is then what helps someone attain a strong health. Meat is nutricious. Eat some. Prefer white.

You're stunningly capable of missing the point. I pointed out it's the fact that we have choice to ignore our 'evolutionary purpose' (whatever that may be) in favor of morality. If we consider unnecessary harm (in the form of pain and stress, which is verifyable harm) ammoral and we have a choice to limit this, is it not moral to do so?

Also, 'meat is nutricious' really doesn't apply to the fast-food bullshit that gets spewn out of most of today's fastfood chains and meat-processing plants. Besides, there's plenty of meat-substitutes one can eat which are just as nutricious.
I eat meat as I said before but I consider it a personal vice more than anything else. Your argument just doesn't make any sense and I'm trying to point that out.

[Chimurenga.]

As a vegan and a Communist, I'm aware that a lifetime of meat consumption is terrible for the human body and the meat industry is extremely capitalistic. HOWEVER, I also know that the working class are not exposed to the information and/or knowledge that I was exposed to. I absolutely do NOT look down or condemn anyone for eating meat or working for a company like, or example, McDonalds, that is absolutely capitalistic. I am very much against the meat industry and factory farming but at the same time, I am very understanding. I have met a handful of vegans/vegetarians in my day that came off as rather condescending and I'm very much against that attitude.

[FreeFocus]

I eat meat, but I hate factory farming and capitalist food production and distribution. There's nothing immoral about eating meat, and most people are being ground under by capitalism and aren't able to think about things like factory farming conditions. In a socialist society, factory farming needs to be abolished or seriously reformed. It is brutal and unnecessary.

[FSL]

You're stunningly capable of missing the point. I pointed out it's the fact that we have choice to ignore our 'evolutionary purpose' (whatever that may be) in favor of morality. If we consider unnecessary harm (in the form of pain and stress, which is verifyable harm) ammoral and we have a choice to limit this, is it not moral to do so?

Also, 'meat is nutricious' really doesn't apply to the fast-food bullshit that gets spewn out of most of today's fastfood chains and meat-processing plants. Besides, there's plenty of meat-substitutes one can eat which are just as nutricious.
I eat meat as I said before but I consider it a personal vice more than anything else. Your argument just doesn't make any sense and I'm trying to point that out.

I didn't miss the point. A morality independent from this world and our material needs doesn't exist. Fastfood chains are common because they provide strong profit margins for their owners. Starting from there, the corresponding ethics evolve. People can meet friends in fast foods, have fun in fast foods, kids love them because of all the toys and weirdly dressed clowns involved. Thus going to fast food is, in our present society where capital dominates, not only "moral" but the average family's favourite pastime.

Now from a socialist economy there will arise a new set of ethics -worker ethics. This economy's principal aim will be the satisfaction of people's needs, not of the need for profit.

Cows can't eat meat or digest it so it's safe to assume they don't need it. Otherwise they'd be dead. People -the ones that have survived to this day- need meat (more acurrately, some of the chemical substances inside it ) as shown by the fact they needed to develope the ability to eat and digest it.

Now, if we agree that people need meat then we should agree that people should consider eating meat as something normal and not a crime.

Since science or food technology has provided us with food suplements and meat substitutes, one could argue that it is no longer necessary to eat meat. You could be indifferent at this point but it still doesn't harm you so you can't consider it bad, not unless you idealize morals.

And I'd like to see someone popping pills or eating soy-made anythings in order to be closer to nature.

[un_person]

I'm a vegetarian because I think it is immoral and unethical to eat meat. I don't think it's wrong to eat meat if you or a close friend raised the creature from birth, took good care of it, and killed it in a humane manner. My main problem with eating meat is the way they are treated on factory farms. If you wanna know what I'm talking about watch Meet Your Meat you can see it on youtube or peta's website.

[APathToTake]

I don't see anything wrong with eating meat.
But just like FreeFocus mentioned, there are serious problems with factory farming. When the revolution finally comes, these things will need to be reformed. Although, I can understand how that really isn't the easiest of task, due to the huge amount of consumption.

One thing I've never really understood/agreed with, was Vegetarians who don't eat meat simply based on their dislike of Factory Farming. I understand if they're against the idea of eating meat as a whole, but simply because of the way it is farmed, seems a little odd, to me.

I always thought, instead of cutting something out of your diet, that you do enjoy, why not search a little harder for meat that is farmed in a much more human way?!? Granted, it's going to cost a little more because mass produced F.F. Will be the cheaper option. But I've always felt that if enough people started taking the initiative to buy more humanly produced products, it would help generate more business for smaller and more humane companies. Thus leaving a company with the choice of either reforming it's own farming or risk losing more customers.


If a company loses a customer who decides they'd rather not eat meat because of the farming involved, it's not really going to make a difference to the company.
But if that same company loses a customer to another company because of the humanity involved, it then has to face the prospect of more customers following suit and having to deal with more rivalry. Isn't it then plausible that it might reconsider how it chooses to farm the animals.


I'm not the most eloquent of people when it comes to words. I hope this made some sort of sense.

[Revy]

I don't favor eating animal products. Yes, I am a vegan. There will have to be a better treatment of animals.

Although insects and household pests like roaches is where I draw the line. I have no problem with killing them.

[Spencer]

Personally, I don’t think this is an area where morality and such like necessarily apply. You only need to look at the way a great white shark or a crocodile kills its prey to see this (not mentioning all the nasty parasites etc. etc.)

As far as suffering goes you could probably make moral arguments either way as to whether eating meat or not eating meat was the kinder option, but why bother? I seriously doubt anyone sits down and declares that it is morally right to eat lamb chops, it only comes into the equation because a vegetarian proclaims that it is morally right not to. You only have a choice to exclusively eat plants because of modern society, being part of which isn’t a moral choice either but more a necessary precondition for your existence. Therefore, isn't it more of a question of whether or not it's in your interests (socially and individually)?

I’d have said that it makes no sense for it to be ‘wrong’ to eat meat, but ‘right’ to exist (or for the wrongness of your existence to go uncommented on) when that existence causes the suffering/death of animals through the destruction of their habitat, food sources or whatever, but maybe that’s already taken into consideration? I think I probably made a bit of a pigs ear of explaining that, but I thought I’d labour on in a shameless bid to up my post count to two.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

Cows can't eat meat or digest it so it's safe to assume they don't need it. Otherwise they'd be dead. People -the ones that have survived to this day- need meat (more acurrately, some of the chemical substances inside it ) as shown by the fact they needed to develope the ability to eat and digest it.

Now, if we agree that people need meat then we should agree that people should consider eating meat as something normal and not a crime.



Im sorry but this is just bollocks. Im a vegan, and I also play ice hockey for my university and regular work out. Your views on eating meat come from a prjudiced view of vegetarians and vegans that has no grounding in reality, and probably no research into the vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. Also Not every vegetarian or vegan sees people who eat meat as commiting a crime, many of us are understanding of peoples reasons for eating meat even if we are against eating meat and the meat industry.

[Revy]

Ethics isn't the only part of the equation, there are also environmental and health reasons, although morality is the main reason for most. There is also the fact that even if vegans did get disillusioned with the moral arguments, veganism itself proves itself to be much more appetizing. I say this as someone who has been vegan for six years. Suppose I thought it was morally okay to eat animals I still would not prefer to eat animal products, as I find the thought of eating them rather disgusting.

I think the main thing why vegans become ex-vegans is only a social reason. People want to be more connected to others and don't want food dividing them. I think it's a terrible reason to stop being vegan but I understand it.

[Floyce White]

People can easily catch frogs, snakes, tortises, and obtain turtle and bird eggs. Of course we evolved to tolerate such foods in addition to our majority diet of fruit and seeds. There is no right or wrong about it. Morality or ethics are not an issue in our natural diet.

You could make a valid argument that it is unethical to hunt, fish, or ranch as an agribusiness. But I think that's more an argument against agribusiness than a condemnation for individuals born into ranching cultures.

BTW, bcbm, is it unethical for you to make a one-word post when you are aware that so many others received verbal warnings for spam for doing so? Personally, I don't agree that one-word posts must be spam, and I don't believe that your post was spam, but the ethical question lingers.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

My question:
Is it ethical, unethical, moral, amoral or immoral to eat meat?
What's wrong or right about eating meat?

Is vegetarianism reasonable or not?

I've already read a lot of threads on here about the topics of veganism, vegetarianism, biocentrism..and so on but I would like to know your opinions on this questions (especially if there are morals behind eating meat or not, or ethics...)

If ethics are objective, vegetarianism is required of most people. Therefore, it would be immoral for someone not to do it.

If ethics are relative, it depends.

If ethics are subjective, it's determined by your emotions.

If ethics don't exist, it's amoral, and then who cares, right?

***

For the most part, there isn't a non-contradictory set of ethical beliefs that goes against vegetarianism while maintaining our common beliefs about what behavior is ethical.

What I find fascinating is the focus vegetarianism gets. People who eat meat are often obsessed with justifying their behavior. They want to look at themselves as an "ethical" person. I'm vegetarian, and I don't consider myself an ethical person. Assuming ethics are objective, the demands to be acting in accordance with them would, most likely, be extremely high.

I find the idea of objective ethics fascinating even though I think humans are ether unlikely or incapable of conforming to them, at least at this point in time. If you really want to get what I'm talking about, bring up other ethical issues where someone is clearly making the less ethical decision. Take these situations:

1. Why don't you volunteer?
2. I don't have time.
3. Honest answer: I'm selfish, lazy, and tired from working. I don't want to volunteer. I want to relax. I know volunteering is the more ethical choice, but I'm (1) not going to feel guilty and (2) not going to do it.

And then see what happens when people actually do something they think is ethical. Most of them are very vocal about it. I hear people put down non-voters all the time. They think voting gives them moral superiority. A person who gives fifty sense to a homeless person has done significantly more than they have. However, they'll go on about moral duty, etc, then ask them about something else, like charitable donations. It's likely a low amount, which they will make an excuse for.

The moral of the story. Vegetarianism is better within an objective context, but most vegetarians actually aren't unreasonable about what others do. It's just that people insist on making excuses for their behavior.

I'm not 100% committed to any ethical theory. I find all of them intriguing. It's just there is a lot less to say about this topic if ethical questions have no right or wrong answers, even in a contextual sense.

[FSL]

Im sorry but this is just bollocks. Im a vegan, and I also play ice hockey for my university and regular work out. Your views on eating meat come from a prjudiced view of vegetarians and vegans that has no grounding in reality, and probably no research into the vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. Also Not every vegetarian or vegan sees people who eat meat as commiting a crime, many of us are understanding of peoples reasons for eating meat even if we are against eating meat and the meat industry.


Yes, I have done no research in the "vegan lifestyle" because I don't feel it's needed. I'm guessing you do take your proteins from some kind of food or supplement. Eating meat would probably be better for you, ask a dietician.

I'm honestly surprised people elsewhere seriously consider eating vegetables a part of revolutionary politics. I thought it was just something thrown at anarchists to piss them off.

[Chambered Word]

Wanna know who was a vegitarian?

Hitler!

Wanna know who's a stupid fucking troll?

You!

Enjoy your ban, wanker.

[Ligeia]

If ethics are objective, vegetarianism is required of most people. Therefore, it would be immoral for someone not to do it.

If ethics are relative, it depends.

If ethics are subjective, it's determined by your emotions.

If ethics don't exist, it's amoral, and then who cares, right?

***

For the most part, there isn't a non-contradictory set of ethical beliefs that goes against vegetarianism while maintaining our common beliefs about what behavior is ethical.

What I find fascinating is the focus vegetarianism gets. People who eat meat are often obsessed with justifying their behavior. They want to look at themselves as an "ethical" person. I'm vegetarian, and I don't consider myself an ethical person. Assuming ethics are objective, the demands to be acting in accordance with them would, most likely, be extremely high.

I find the idea of objective ethics fascinating even though I think humans are ether unlikely or incapable of conforming to them, at least at this point in time. If you really want to get what I'm talking about, bring up other ethical issues where someone is clearly making the less ethical decision. Take these situations:

1. Why don't you volunteer?
2. I don't have time.
3. Honest answer: I'm selfish, lazy, and tired from working. I don't want to volunteer. I want to relax. I know volunteering is the more ethical choice, but I'm (1) not going to feel guilty and (2) not going to do it.

And then see what happens when people actually do something they think is ethical. Most of them are very vocal about it. I hear people put down non-voters all the time. They think voting gives them moral superiority. A person who gives fifty sense to a homeless person has done significantly more than they have. However, they'll go on about moral duty, etc, then ask them about something else, like charitable donations. It's likely a low amount, which they will make an excuse for.

The moral of the story. Vegetarianism is better within an objective context, but most vegetarians actually aren't unreasonable about what others do. It's just that people insist on making excuses for their behavior.

I'm not 100% committed to any ethical theory. I find all of them intriguing. It's just there is a lot less to say about this topic if ethical questions have no right or wrong answers, even in a contextual sense.
Thank you, that's pretty much what I was looking for.

If ethics are objective, vegetarianism is required of most people. Therefore, it would be immoral for someone not to do it.
So, now .... why is that?

[Invincible Summer]

I used to be pretty militant in my vegetarianism, but now I just take the stance "I eat what I would feel comfortable killing myself." My main problem w/ eating meat is that I think lots of people take it for granted, and are totally disconnected from their food. They see beef or chicken as just something to eat, not what used to be a dead animal.

I don't feel comfortable killing any animals, but I do kill insects. I don't eat them, however.

[(A)narcho-Matt]

Yes, I have done no research in the "vegan lifestyle" because I don't feel it's needed. I'm guessing you do take your proteins from some kind of food or supplement. Eating meat would probably be better for you, ask a dietician.

I'm honestly surprised people elsewhere seriously consider eating vegetables a part of revolutionary politics. I thought it was just something thrown at anarchists to piss them off.


Yeh I drink protein shakes like most athletes vegan or not, apart from that i dont take any supplements. There are many profesional athletes who are vegan, for example NHL player George Laraque. It is possible to lead a healthy life without eating meat. I Dont get how you can be so judgemental about people who dont eat meat when you know practically nothing about vegetarianism or veganism...

[FreeFocus]

I used to be pretty militant in my vegetarianism, but now I just take the stance "I eat what I would feel comfortable killing myself." My main problem w/ eating meat is that I think lots of people take it for granted, and are totally disconnected from their food. They see beef or chicken as just something to eat, not what used to be a dead animal.

I don't feel comfortable killing any animals, but I do kill insects. I don't eat them, however.

Good post, especially the bold. Personally, although I eat meat, I hope to ween myself off of factory-farmed meat and just hunt and fish. I'd like the challenge and I want to acquire the skills.

[Misanthrope]

You have teeth that allow you to eat meat so you can safely assume you're supposed to eat it. Tigers kill poor antilopes that are much cuter than cows and have no guilt for doing so.

This is with the assumption that tigers are as intelligent as humans.

Just because a bodily appendage has the ability to perform a task doesn't mean that said task is just.

It has nothing to do with being "cute"..

[Kléber]

I'm guessing you do take your proteins from some kind of food or supplement. Eating meat would probably be better for you, ask a dietician.Depends. In general, yes. However the cheap meat available in fast foods is so loaded with additives that I'd consider it less healthy than most crappy fake meat.

Personally I avoid meat if I can but I wouldn't push that on anybody. It's purely a personal preference. If I have to ask for something without meat, or go out of my way to get vegetarian food, then I will say "Fuck it" and eat the more readily available meat.

But I think that if there was a fake meat that tasted exactly the same as real meat, and was just as nutritious and affordable, healthy people would choose that instead of something that required violence to prepare. So I think that the solution to this problem is to wait for the productive forces to develop to the point where we have viable meat substitutes. Some of the latest products of this type are actually very good. I was mocked by a bourgeois friend in high school who was convinced that some Morning Star fake chicken I was cooking was real meat after he smelled and tasted it. Eat it for long enough and you'll seek alternatives, but.. the technology is improving. I know some people who've tasted the more rubbery meat substitutes will laugh at this suggestion, but it actually is getting better. And on top of all that, raising an animal with a brain and organs developed for a wide range of activities, that you are just going to kill for its meat, is really inefficient. One solution that I hear some scientists are working on, is to alter the DNA of food animals to make them grow as just lumps of meat, without unnecessary organs. Sounds great.. culinary Taylorism! Better yet, a harmonious union of efficiency and egalitarian, peaceful human instincts.

I see two extremes here, both of which are problematic. And by here I mean in general, not the people in this thread. On the one end you have the vegan petty bourgeois subculturalists who care more about the cows and chickens than the oppressed workers killing them.. on the other hand there are conservative, ascetic workerists who cover up their own middle-class inadequacies by taking a holier-than-thou attitude to any behavior that violates the stereotypical image of a Budweiser-sipping, wife-beating proletarian.

[Revy]

Here's some perspective. My most prominent childhood fast-food memory was when I was at McDonald's, eating a Big Mac (of course, my "favorite", or so I thought). Immediately afterwards I had to puke and I did it in a nearby trashcan.

That's what society is telling us is "real food". Furthermore, aside from the meat, dairy and eggs, which have enough health concerns on their own, there are the the sugary cereals, the candy, the potato chips, a heavy use of butter/margarine and salt, among other things, including some very nasty condiments.

I'm ranting so I'll cut this short. We can debate ethics, but there's no denying current ways of eating are all taking a toll on human health....

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Thank you, that's pretty much what I was looking for.

So, now .... why is that?

Alright, I'll get an example. Obviously, I can't address every moral theory and every situation. So if you have a specific case in mind, I'll consider it.

I'm also not touching abnormal situations. For instance, someone with limited access to food eating meat is an abnormal situation. A person who, for some reason, needs meat is an abnormal situation, etc. Most people are intuitionist about such matters. Basically, since it seems ridiculous to require someone with limited resources to forgo meat, it is obviously acceptable for them to eat it. I value intuitions for the following reason: they show either that something is wrong with a proposition or (2) that something we believe, though incorrectly, is making the proposition seem ridiculous. For instance, someone who believes gay people are evil may believe gay marriage is unethical based on "intuitions." In reality, the problem exists with their intuitions being unfounded. Intuitions have degrees of commitment by which people hold them. Striking a balance is important, I think, but others ignore intuition entirely.

So after that unnecessary aside, I'll consider the everyday situation. A person can afford to be vegetarian, though it is somewhat inconvenient.

1. Suffering is undesirable unless justified by significant pleasurable gains. For example, me getting tortured is not worth the privilege of eating a candy bar. However, someone becoming tired is generally worth the benefits of having sex.

2. Refraining from eating animals, ignoring animal suffering, is actually utility maximizing for most people. They'll be healthier. They'll get to feel better about themselves. People quickly change their mind about how vegetarianism is "stupid" if they actually adopt the position. The environment is helped, etc.

3. More importantly, the utility of animals is significantly increased by failing to eat them. It's very unrealistic to suggest the pleasure we get from eating an animal exceeds the pleasure the animal would've got from life. Or in other cases, people say "the animal would've never been born." In those cases, the animal has no quality of life whatsoever, usually. They would've been better off not being born.

Another attempt to refute this argument is so-called free range, humane slaughtering. The animal lives a decent life, and then we kill it. If the animal was old enough to be considered having a future with no worthwhile prospects, that would be alright. Otherwise, no. This is the exact argument people often use to justify capitalism. If I make the wage slave "better off," why is it legitimate for them to complain?

This is a more controversial example. It becomes less controversial if you use someone who is disabled and essentially doesn't earn their rewards in full. They are still entitled to treatment above and beyond neutrality + 1. You can't simply give an person with an absolutely neutral quality of life a single benefit and consider yourself just.

Some people will try and backpedal around this by giving disabled people little or no more standing. Then you give them children. They'll give the children moral standing for future actions. However, I think the problem here is the not extending moral standing to the disabled.

Here is a more emotionally charged example. If I adopted a foreign child, raised them, then sexually exploited them, I could very well still give them a life better than the one they had. Given the right circumstances, I could still give them a life worth living. It would be hard given the horrendous nature of sexually exploitation, but we could conceive of a situation. We see pretty much a similar situation with so-called trophy wives. Although they willingly enter into the relationship, the situation makes it an obvious choice (similar to the adopted child).

It's not justified to give someone mere existence +1 cookie and consider yourself free from blame.

I think I addressed the general worries. Some people don't give moral standing to non-rational animals, but that's an artificial use of the word rationality, which is poorly defined. There is little evidence there is a black/white distinction between human and animal rationality. Furthermore, rationality is irrelevant for moral standing, in my view.

There are ethical egoists and what I'd consider Kantian ethical egoists - they suspend egoism for self-gaining cooperation. However, I'm not sure either position is rational. Standard modern Kantians who actually consider harm and the interests of others would also be obliged to consider animals as undeserving of such treatment (it's pretty evident why).

***

I still don't advocate forcing vegetarianism on people or anything. This position might be an irrational one. I'm not sure. The issue is that it's very evident there is something wrong with eating meat. People just have an obsession with thinking their hands aren't clean. Even if you want to place humans above animals, which I am somewhat sympathetic (though neutral) to, you have to consider things realistically. Our everyday lifestyles in the West, even among activists, largely ignore the plight of third world countries and the suffering of human beings. Just because we don't stick a knife in someone doesn't mean we don't harm them. We "choose" to do nothing as much as we could "choose" to stab someone. It's just a mechanical distinction. People like to deny this (irrationally) to further avoid guilt.

I don't always agree with Peter Singer, but I have a great deal of respect when it comes to his honesty. He gives, I believe, 33% of his income to charity. This is a somewhat arbitrary amount he came up with, and he admits this. He also recognizes that he should do more for others. He doesn't, and I haven't read enough about him, but I suspect he realizes he won't do much more than he does, within reason. He also says rich people who give 10% of their income look charitable, but it's relatively little considering that. Even so, he says he discourages (not sure I agree here) criticism of this. He encourages praising a billionaire for giving 10,000 dollars to charity as it might've not happened otherwise. And we want to encourage admirable behavior regardless of the persons situation. Honestly, now I'm agreeing with him. It's a tough issue for me. I think it depends on the context in which you discuss the issue.

Singer actually gets criticized for advocating a utilitarian view that "asks to much" of people. Nobody said ethics had to be convenient. It's ridiculous to assume something like that if you're actually taking ethics as a serious pursuit (except for egoists, perhaps). Singer says "you should do this." "I should do this." I don't. Part of being human is working to improve yourself.

I try to improve myself as my life goes on. I try to learn more. I try to get better at my academic field. I try to eat healthier. I don't expect these things to happen overnight, though I'd be nice. Maybe I should add trying to be ethical to my list?

Becoming vegetarian might be too much for some people, even though they ideally "should" do it. However, it's important to distinguish between the deterministic aspect of this and making excuses for behavior. This requires a very strong self-realization. You need to know when you're actually tired and when you're simply being lazy. It takes time, practice, and "honesty!"

Sartre talks about bad faith. It's everywhere. I have depression so I experience uncontrollable circumstances of fatigue, unmotivated. I am also lazy like anyone else. I have to be very self-critical. I have to always challenge myself when I think I'm too tired. Sometimes I pick up a book and end up studying for an hour. I wasn't too tired. I was lazy. Sometimes I pick up a book and struggle through 2 pages, the lines start getting blurry, and I become even more tired. Maybe I should've pushed that much more. Maybe that's all I could do. The determinist aspect of such views will say "of course it's all you could do." However, you have to suspend such a rationalist outlook when it comes to "what can I accomplish." You are the deterministic mechanism that decides what happens. You simply have physical limitations you become aware of precisely by "pushing" your limits. Runners do this. A lazy person stops after ten meters. A strong person pushes themself. Some people are naturally lazy. Some people are what I'd call "second-level lazy." They rationalize a situation of inactivity despite their physical and mental capacity to theoretically do said activity.

People second-level rationalize ethics all the time. Vegetarianism is "very" clearly the preferable option. A new atheist will be dumbfounded about how they and anyone else ever "or does" believe religious propositions. Maybe he just has a new dogmatism. I think otherwise. I think she's reached a position of clarity. Vegetarians are dogmatic because it's a position of clarity.

It's "really," really, philosophically obvious that vegetarianism is morally preferable. Most philosophers I know are either vegetarian, moral skeptics, or willingly admit that vegetarianism is preferable and eat meat anyway.

I just don't like dishonest. I think it leads people and humanity in the wrong direction. I think a person who is a serial killer is probably compelled to do it. However, I think they should actually embrace being a villain rather than feel guilty (unless the guilt stops crimes, which it usually doesn't). At least that's honest. There is no point in feeling guilty unless the guilt has a real chance of motivating you to change the behavior. We generally can know when this is the case.

Anyway, that's a rant.

[Black Sheep]

Human existence depends on the exploitation of earth's resources.

In moderation, meat is good for you.Because it is food.Every type of food that we consume is a plant/animal or a product of them, i see no moral reason or ground whatsoever to apply to this choice, 'to eat meat or not to eat meat'.

Eating meat provides you nurishment that you require.Also, killing harmful bugs provides you not being stung, fishing kills fish and gets you fishsticks, and pesticides kill pests to prevent the spoiling of crops.

So what? We kill other animals in order to guarantee a better quality of life for our species, and leftism has nothing to do with that (profit oriented animal slaughter aside).Leftism isn't some kind of 'whoooho we love the earth and all the animals guys', despite the fact that it has been merged with it, since the hippie days i imagine.

IMO, vegeterianism is more or less a choice, like a hobby or to be fair, like not littering, like helping grandpa cross the street and getting the kitty down from the tree.
It is a 'good deed', but don't act like it is a radical act in any way, ffs.

[Kléber]

Something people are failing to consider here is that the meat we eat does not come from healthy animals that we would even consider eating if we were hunting for ourselves. The animals we eat, unless you spend half your life looking for healthy alternatives, have heavily modified DNA and they could not survive 5 minutes in the wild let alone walk properly. They grow to adult age in a fraction of the time they are supposed to, they develop in totally unsanitary conditions, and have freakish deformed bodies that are loaded up with all kinds of chemicals to make them grow faster and bigger. I look forward to a rational, efficient system with brainless, boneless meat creatures that grow like fungus inside of vats.

Also fish are another point entirely. Many species are threatened and you have to research mercury levels to safely eat seafood these days.

[punisa]

I agree that eating industrially manufactured food is wrong. I still do it, but what can I do.
Essentially I have no problem with eating animals, but it would be so much better if that animal was not tortured prior to becoming your food.

Take chicken for example, the process in which they became supermarket food is gross.
First of all they are fed with all kinds of genetically modified crap, usually with having only one use - making the chicken bloated and big (many westerns are fat? Guess why?)

Second comes the electrocution (which sometimes just shocks the poor animal), then they tie them all by legs on this huge mechanical line which chops off their heads.

Not only is it an ugly procedure, but the meat is not all that healthy. It is a known fact that this amount of stress and shock can create "bad meat".

But if the situation is different, I would have no problem eating a chicken.
Say I raise it myself - feed it with stuff it actually likes to eat.
I have a lot of sun and so does the chick, we live this happy life until I get really hungry one day. They I sneak behind it and with one fast move *snap* - I break its neck. I prefer it over knife slaughter, although there is an ongoing debate over which method is more "humane".
Nevertheless, both methods are natural and the ecosystem lives on.

Only bad thing is that humans don't have a real predator. But if a wolf manages to sneak on me near my coop and brutally kills and eats me while I'm feeding the chicken, now that would be a fair and just system :)

[punisa]

Vegitarianism tends to be favored by the right-wing world.
And why would that be? :confused:

[Misanthrope]

Just think about it for a second. Vegetarianism is usually a trend of right-libertarians, but you can see this going on farther right, as well, even in fascists.

Generalization, stereotype, assumption.. what else? Bad post.

[#FF0000]

Just think about it for a second. Vegetarianism is usually a trend of right-libertarians, but you can see this going on farther right, as well, even in fascists.

There's nothing inherently left or right wing about vegetarianism.