How do Aethist think about veganism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2014, 11:40 PM
RE: How do Aethist think about veganism?
(29-04-2014 08:20 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Eating an animal necessitates killing that animal.
No, no it doesn't. You can, in theory, wait for an animal to die of natural causes and then eat it.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
30-04-2014, 12:47 AM
RE: How do Aethist think about veganism?
(29-04-2014 11:40 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-04-2014 08:20 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Eating an animal necessitates killing that animal.
No, no it doesn't. You can, in theory, wait for an animal to die of natural causes and then eat it.

I'm not sure I'd want to eat the meat of a creature which died to, say disease...

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 01:00 AM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2014 01:03 AM by sporehux.)
RE: How do Aethist think about veganism?
(29-04-2014 11:40 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(29-04-2014 08:20 PM)Michael_Tadlock Wrote:  Eating an animal necessitates killing that animal.
No, no it doesn't. You can, in theory, wait for an animal to die of natural causes and then eat it.


LMaO i just pictured a farm with lots of dangerous objects laying around waiting for Cows to have fatal accidents.

Have a game show , if your nominated cow dies you can have the meat. Survivour "choice cuts"

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like sporehux's post
30-04-2014, 01:07 AM
RE: How do Aethist think about veganism?
(30-04-2014 01:00 AM)sporehux Wrote:  LMaO i just pictured a farm with lots of dangerous objects laying around waiting for Cows to have fatal accidents.

Have a game show , if your nominated cow dies you can have the meat. Survivour "choice cuts"
That sounds like something the Japanese would do. Laugh out load

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
30-04-2014, 01:32 AM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2014 01:45 AM by Tartarus Sauce.)
RE: How do Aethist think about veganism?
Alright, so let me break this down having read all of it now.

First of all, I can see where you are coming from ethically and at face value it makes sense. Secondly, although I disagree with your position on veganism being both the best diet and your argument that it is a morally superior choice, I do now think that your intentions were indeed meant to spark debate and not meant to pamper a superiority complex. This has become more apparent the further along the thread has progressed.

However, inversely, while you have distanced yourself (at the cost of being somewhat contradictory from your original post) from what at first appeared to be a tone of implicit condescension ---having now acknowledged moral subjectivity and that your argument is not applicable to somebody that disagrees with the morality of killing animals--- it has become increasingly clear that your argument actually fails to support itself in full. I would like to discuss the technical problems and practical quandaries you have failed to account for within your own axioms.

For starters, the crux of your argument is flawed since you fail to disentangle the technical aspect of your argument from its actual real world applicability. Yes, we don't have to eat meat to survive the way we did when we were hunter-gatherer's since the surpluses we produce agriculturally are more than enough to feed everyone (although globally they are severely inequitable in terms of geographic distribution) and we can replace the necessary proteins and nutrients from meat with supplements and substitutes. Yes, practically speaking, in order to meet the demand for meat consumption, we have to cultivate them to be slaughtered, so you're eating meat that was voluntarily killed by humans.

However, it is still false to state that universally speaking it is immoral to eat optional meat because a human had to kill the animal not out of necessity but desire, since no human actually technically HAS to kill an animal in order to harvest its meat in all scenarios. You could, for example, eat the meat of an animal that recently died from natural causes, or scavenge meat from an animal that was killed by a predator or accident (such as a fall). These situations discredit your universal association of optional human consumption of meat necessarily being preceded by it being optionally killed by human hands. If in such situations, you would still refuse to eat meat, then your veganism would in such cases no longer be a moral choice but a personal preference since a human had no role in the animal's death. Therefore, you can't claim that all instances of optionally eating meat are immoral according to your central axiom because your central axiom is incorrect in intrinsically linking the act of eating meat with the act of killing the animal. This is the usual case in practice, but is not the only possibility.

Secondly, you seem to treat the concept of killing an animal in an isolated moral vacuum, not considering instances where it might be straight out beneficial to kill an animal for reasons other than consuming them. What about if we killed the animal for other reasons that were justifiable and then tacked on harvesting their meat as an added bonus? What if we decided to hunt a catastrophic invasive species and every individual specimen we killed paid a price that was well worth the ecological gain? If in this instance, we decided to eat its meat as an afterthought, the original cost-benefit analysis of an animal paying with its life solely for yours or somebody else's pleasure in consuming it is no longer relevant.

Thirdly, why is it only immoral to kill animals for optional consumption? It's clearly not an issues of treating all life as sacred since otherwise you wouldn't endorse the consumption of plant life either. I've skimmed over some of your posts, so I might have missed a justification, but from what I've seen so far your special treatment of animals at this point seems arbitrary in terms of ascribing them moral significance. I would imagine it has something to do with our association of sentience with animals since they are the most complex of all organisms, and we seem to attribute greater degrees of perception, personal subjectivity (though I would hesitate to say self-aware consciousness which seems to be absent from most of them), and emotions to them.

But that brings me to another point that needs clarification; are you against the consumption of all animals, even the most structurally simple and primitive ones? If the deciding factor is sentience, then one could hardly claim that, say, an individual ant scurrying along has enough sentience to secure it preservation within the moral code. Would it be immoral to consume an ant (or I guess since one ant won't do much for ya, a couple hundred)? Why? They aren't sentient, they possess too simple a neural structure for nociceptors and therefore can't feel pain, and it's arguable whether they can even really "suffer" in the way we tend to conceive of it.

Do we owe ants and other low-tier sentient organisms the same respect to more structurally and neurally sophisticated animals? Is it something other than sentience preventing it from being morally acceptable to cultivate animals as auxiliary cuisine? Why is it okay to harvest the most intricate and biologically elaborate plant life but not the simplest and most inconsequential animal life? Or is it okay to consume some animals? What is the deciding criteria and what is moral to kill for consumption and what isn't?

Those are your problems you have yet to account for on the fundamental aspects of your moral construction. Now let me move onto the potential practical concerns of society as a whole adopting veganism.

You state, first of all, how consumption of meat is a "small pleasure." As previously mentioned, it is not necessary for us to have meat to survive resource-wise anymore since technological advances have produced massive surpluses of plant produce. However, the proteins contained within meat are still needed nutritionally, and one cannot survive purely on the nutrients possessed by flora since humans have evolutionarily adapted to absorb necessary nourishments from both meat and non-meat products. Our bodies still need those nutrients, and they have to come from somewhere.

You have gone to great lengths to detail the environmental and economic strains of the animal slaughtering industry, but you have failed to consider that the consequences of needing to create a suitable supply of nutritional supplements and replacements may not be much better. What sort of natural resources and organic materials must we pilfer and drain from the environment in order to maintain a sustainable and satisfactory quantity for our population? What sort of economic strain will be caused by the need to research, produce, stabilize, test, approve, and distribute newer and more efficient nutritional substitutes?

Perhaps even more importantly, you are not paying nearly as much attention as you should to potential harmful physiological effects of everybody within a population switching to an all vegan diet. You know what they say about substitutes, they don't beat the real thing. We've adapted to extracting the necessary nutritional resources from meat for hundreds of thousands (millions of years if you also include our ancestral species) of years. As Dom previously stated, we are just scratching the surface of nutritional knowledge. You know why ships used to be such miserable places to be on for extended periods of time? Because of scurvy, and it took awhile to figure out how to battle that.

We know what some of the most vital functions some of the nutrients and proteins in meat provide for us, but what about all those potentially invaluable minerals and nutrients whose role we haven't nailed down yet? I would not at all be surprised to see outbreaks of diseases and deficiencies that would not have been predicted based on our current nutritional knowledge of meat if we attempted to only supplant the known nutritional necessities. What if it also turns out that not all of these vital nutritions are feasible to artificially replicate or substitute? That would seriously alter the original cost-benefit analysis axiom (switching from we kill animals because we like their taste to we kill animals because we can't substitute all the vital nutrients of meat) to the point of invalidating veganism as a moral choice.

Granted, we don't know whether or not meat is the only reliable and practically extractable source of any such vital nutrients, so such consequences are merely hypothetical. Clearly it's not impossible, for vegans have managed to get by without dropping dead left and right, but we haven't had a large and dedicated enough sample size in order to truly examine the effects of removing meat from our diet. The point is that since we don't yet know all the ins and outs of meat's nutrition, to drastically cut it out of our diet on a societal level is simply too risky. Therefore, it's not really justifiable to simply dismiss meat in today's age as an optional dietary component since, although it's not mandatory, we might soon find out for any of the reasons mentioned above that it could be enormously beneficial and therefore highly advisable to keep it in our diets.

So while your moral approach to veganism is more noble than most, I still find it lacking in both fundamental framework and practical considerations, and suggest you examine more into the issues I have brought up.

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Tartarus Sauce's post
30-04-2014, 02:25 AM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2014 02:40 AM by Vosur.)
RE: How do Aethist think about veganism?

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  First of all, I can see where you are coming from ethically and at face value it makes sense.
While this wording isn't grammatically incorrect, it would be more elegant to write "and it makes sense at face value" instead of "and at face value it makes sense."

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Yes, we don't have to eat meat to survive the way we did when we were hunter-gatherer's [...]
*hunter-gatherers

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  [...] since the surpluses we produce agriculturally are more than enough to feed everyone (although globally they are severely inequitable in terms of geographic distribution) and we can replace the necessary proteins and nutrients from meat with supplements and substitutes. Yes, practically speaking, in order to meet the demand for meat consumption, we have to cultivate them to be slaughtered, so you're eating meat that was voluntarily killed by humans.
You made no mention of anything that could be referred to as "them" in this context in the previous sentence(s).

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  If the deciding factor is sentience, then one could hardly claim that, say, an individual ant scurrying along has enough sentience to secure it preservation within the moral code.
*its

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Now let me move onto the potential practical concerns of society as a whole adopting veganism.
*on to

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  However, the proteins contained within meat are still need nutritionally [...]
*needed

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  [...] and one cannot survive purely on the nutrients possess by flora [...]
*possessed

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  [...] since humans have evolutionarily adapted to absorb necessary nourishments from both meat non-meat products.
*and

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Perhaps even more importantly, you are not paying nearly as much attention as you should to potential harmful physiological effects [...]
*potentially

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  [...] of everybody within a population switching to an all vegan diet.
*on everyone within a population when switching to an all-vegan diet

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Because of scurvy, and it took awhile to figure out how to battle that.
*a while

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  We know what some of the most vital functions some of the nutrients and proteins in meat provide for us [...]
Well, that sentence is just a big mess. How about "We know that our body requires the nutrients and proteins found in meat to sustain some of its most vital functions"?

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  That would seriously alter the original cost-benefit analysis axiom (switching from "we kill animals because we like their taste" to "we kill animals because we can't substitute all the vital nutrients of meat") to the point of invalidating veganism as a moral choice.
Fixed.

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Therefore, its not really justifiable to simply dismiss meat in today's age as an optional dietary component since, although it's not mandatory, we might soon find out for any of the reasons mentioned above that it could be enormously beneficial and therefore highly advisable to keep it in our diets.
*it's

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  So while your moral approach to vegan is more noble than most, I still find it lacking in both fundamental framework and practical considerations [...]
*veganism

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  [...] and suggest you examine more into the issues I have brought up.
Fixed.

[Image: 2UyBXgB.png] [Image: 0t82Piy.png]
Apart from that, this was fucking beautiful. Sadcryface

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Vosur's post
30-04-2014, 02:38 AM
RE: How do Aethist think about veganism?
(30-04-2014 02:25 AM)Vosur Wrote:  

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  First of all, I can see where you are coming from ethically and at face value it makes sense.
While this wording isn't grammatically incorrect, it would be more elegant to write "and it makes sense at face value" instead of "and at face value it makes sense."

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Yes, we don't have to eat meat to survive the way we did when we were hunter-gatherer's [...]
*hunter-gatherers

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  [...] since the surpluses we produce agriculturally are more than enough to feed everyone (although globally they are severely inequitable in terms of geographic distribution) and we can replace the necessary proteins and nutrients from meat with supplements and substitutes. Yes, practically speaking, in order to meet the demand for meat consumption, we have to cultivate them to be slaughtered, so you're eating meat that was voluntarily killed by humans.
You made no mention of anything that could be referred to as "them" in this context in the previous sentence(s).

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  If the deciding factor is sentience, then one could hardly claim that, say, an individual ant scurrying along has enough sentience to secure it preservation within the moral code.
*its

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Now let me move onto the potential practical concerns of society as a whole adopting veganism.
*on to

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  However, the proteins contained within meat are still need nutritionally [...]
*needed

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  [...] and one cannot survive purely on the nutrients possess by flora [...]
*possessed

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  [...] since humans have evolutionarily adapted to absorb necessary nourishments from both meat non-meat products.
*and

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Perhaps even more importantly, you are not paying nearly as much attention as you should to potential harmful physiological effects [...]
*potentially

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  [...] of everybody within a population switching to an all vegan diet.
*on everyone within a population when switching to an all-vegan diet

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Because of scurvy, and it took awhile to figure out how to battle that.
*a while

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  We know what some of the most vital functions some of the nutrients and proteins in meat provide for us [...]
Well, that sentence is just a big mess. How about "We know that our body requires requires the nutrients and proteins found in meat to sustain some of its most vital functions"?

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  That would seriously alter the original cost-benefit analysis axiom (switching from "we kill animals because we like their taste" to "we kill animals because we can't substitute all the vital nutrients of meat") to the point of invalidating veganism as a moral choice.
Fixed.

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Therefore, its not really justifiable to simply dismiss meat in today's age as an optional dietary component since, although it's not mandatory, we might soon find out for any of the reasons mentioned above that it could be enormously beneficial and therefore highly advisable to keep it in our diets.
*it's

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  So while your moral approach to vegan is more noble than most, I still find it lacking in both fundamental framework and practical considerations [...]
*veganism

(30-04-2014 01:32 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  [...] and suggest you examine more into the issues I have brought up.
Fixed.

[Image: 2UyBXgB.png] [Image: 0t82Piy.png]
Apart from that, this was fucking beautiful. Sadcryface

Already fixed some of those before you posted. Tongue

[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 02:44 AM
RE: How do Aethist think about veganism?
(30-04-2014 02:38 AM)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:  Already fixed some of those before you posted. Tongue
Oh yeah? Hurry up and fix the rest, then. Angry

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
30-04-2014, 02:44 AM
RE: How do Aethist think about veganism?
Quote:Well, that sentence is just a big mess. How about "We know that our body requires requires the nutrients and proteins found in meat to sustain some of its most vital functions"?

Drinking Beverage

I'll just play the 'can I help you' lick!!!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 02:48 AM
RE: How do Aethist think about veganism?
(30-04-2014 02:44 AM)Monster_Riffs Wrote:  
Quote:Well, that sentence is just a big mess. How about "We know that our body requires requires the nutrients and proteins found in meat to sustain some of its most vital functions"?

Drinking Beverage
Yeah, I fixed that one about four minutes before you made your post. Tongue

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: