Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2012, 07:18 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
I can only speak for myself here...

My argument is not one of self-interest. My argument is that acts like slavery and pedophilia are not necessary for survival. You also cannot compare that to harming other species. This has nothing to do with us thinking we are superior. This has to do with self preservation. Yes, I fully agree we should respect animals. These torture farms disgust me. When I saw what KFC does to their chickens, I stopped eating there. In fact, I now buy organic or Amish chicken at the store.

As I stated, we cannot assume animals aren't intelligent. If I told people a few decades ago that several great apes have self recognition capabilities, I would have been laughed at. But you see, these other great apes are omnivores as well. This isn't for self-interest, this is purely for nutrients so they kill outside of their species to obtain meat.

The nature argument IS NOT about self interest. It is about self preservation.

The reason I find the question "Is veganism the moral baseline?" ridiculous is because it's an insanely arrogant stance to take. If you argue that it is the moral baseline, you are arguing that people without the luxury to choose veganism are being immoral.

Humans are omnivores out of pure necessity and that is our nature. I still stand strongly by my opinion when I say a vegan could not survive or at least live a healthy life with the luxury of the first world.

Would you start walking on all fours since we are the only animals that walk upright?

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2012, 09:25 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(29-04-2012 07:18 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  I can only speak for myself here...

My argument is not one of self-interest. My argument is that acts like slavery and pedophilia are not necessary for survival. You also cannot compare that to harming other species. This has nothing to do with us thinking we are superior. This has to do with self preservation. Yes, I fully agree we should respect animals. These torture farms disgust me. When I saw what KFC does to their chickens, I stopped eating there. In fact, I now buy organic or Amish chicken at the store.

As I stated, we cannot assume animals aren't intelligent. If I told people a few decades ago that several great apes have self recognition capabilities, I would have been laughed at. But you see, these other great apes are omnivores as well. This isn't for self-interest, this is purely for nutrients so they kill outside of their species to obtain meat.



The reason I find the question "Is veganism the moral baseline?" ridiculous is because it's an insanely arrogant stance to take. If you argue that it is the moral baseline, you are arguing that people without the luxury to choose veganism are being immoral.

Humans are omnivores out of pure necessity and that is our nature. I still stand strongly by my opinion when I say a vegan could not survive or at least live a healthy life with the luxury of the first world.
So are your argument is that of only an opinion that refraining from eating meat would make you significantly less healthy than a meat eater? I would like for you to back up this claim if you do not mind. Because I see no health retraction from my lifestyle. In fact I actually gain muscle and strength at the same rate at the gym on a vegetarian diet as I did on a meat diet. Multiple body builders that I either look up to or take advice from are vegetarians themselves. Ripped, bulky, in perfect cardiovascular health, and no obvious faults that I know of.

As far as veganism goes, I would say there might be health issues here. I believe in vegetarianism more though. A kind of species kinship. A chicken or cow could arguably live a much healthier and worry free life style if we adopted a "scratch your back, and give me eggs/milk" as payment. That means not stuffing them in cages and pumping them with hormones. Just gentle home on the prairie dairy/egg farming. This way the cow/chickens wouldn't be harmed, arguably have a better lifestyle safe from predators and medical care when needed.
Quote:The nature argument IS NOT about self interest. It is about self preservation.
Implying you can't preserve yourself in the current state on a vegetarian diet? Also, self interest is not related to self preservation? I am actually up 4lb since the switch and 10lb more on my bench. I am doing more than self preserving.
Quote:The reason I find the question "Is veganism the moral baseline?" ridiculous is because it's an insanely arrogant stance to take.
More arrogant than millions of animals having to die just to keep your nutritional value intake arguably 5% higher than a vegetarians?

Quote:Would you start walking on all fours since we are the only animals that walk upright?
This affects other creatures how? I am still shocked that you have distanced yourself from my point by so much. It wouldn't surprise me if you red 10% of my post then respond.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes NotSoVacuous's post
29-04-2012, 12:53 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Hey, Noah.

Quote:My argument is that acts like slavery and pedophilia are not necessary for survival.

Based on 7.5 years of personal experience (anecdotal to be sure, but there are others) neither is eating meat.

Quote:In fact, I now buy organic or Amish chicken at the store.

Good on ya, brother.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2012, 12:56 PM (This post was last modified: 29-04-2012 01:03 PM by NoahsFarce.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
I have read all your posts. It is you that keeps on misunderstanding my point. You talk about being able to maintain your health with your eating habits, but I pointed out that it's because you have the luxury to get essential nutrients like omega 3 elsewhere. Even protein is an issue without this luxury.

So again I ask you, how can your choice to not eat meat be the moral baseline when there are millions of people who do not have the luxury to obtain essential nutrients elsewhere like you do? Are these people immoral and treating animals like slaves and lesser beings?

You have locked yourself into a cognitive cave with this whole anti-natural agenda. Just because it's not a good enough explanation for you doesn't mean it's actually not good enough.

It's odd to me that you argue a moralistic point of view about how we are harming animals, yet you assume an arrogant mantle when it comes to the subject of intelligence by suggesting we are that much more intelligent than them. You assume animals kill their prey with complete disregard for life. You assume they do not and can not know any "better".

I understand what you're saying. You don't find the nature argument to be sufficient because we have the ability to understand life and suffering and the ability to discontinue taking the actions that "negatively" affects life as we know it. You're long concerned about where this hunger for meat originated, rather what is the justification for continuing to consume meat when we have the option not to.

I am trying to convey that this is not a fair subject of a moral baseline. I explained why by pointing out that people only become vegan/vegetarian because they have the luxury to do so. You take away first world luxury and you're left with the need to nourish yourself.

My walking on all fours analogy is not way off base. I can use your own arguments for not consuming meat to defend walking on all fours. It's not moral because it says we are better than all other animals. We should be like the animals and walk on all fours like them.

We have to justify walking upright just like we do with not committing pedophilia, wearing clothes, using technology, etc... the natural explanation is just self-interest.

Self-preservation does not always assume self-interest.

Have seen the movie or heard the story "Alive"? It's about plane crash victims who had to cannibalize the dead for survival. You think they had self-interest in mind here?

In the end, I personally continue my innate nature to be an omnivore because I will in fact be a highly irritable person if unable to consume meat. You can call that self-interest if you like. I'm fine with that. What I object to is the notion that I'm somehow immoral for this. I love animals, but when it comes to brass tax, it's me or them. Delve deeper into this mentality and you'll discover that it's my family or you. That might not even be the moral high road, but it's irrelevant. Whether you agree with it or not, that's how it is. Not everything is black and white and certainly not everything is goin to be agreeable.

Neither you nor I am right/wrong on this matter. This goes back to my very first comment... I eat meat, you don't. Great. Let's go on our way. Getting in my face like PETA does is like religion trying to shove itself into my science books.

You think you're takin he moral high road by not consuming meat. I applaud you. I just don't agree with you.
(29-04-2012 12:53 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Noah.

Quote:My argument is that acts like slavery and pedophilia are not necessary for survival.

Based on 7.5 years of personal experience (anecdotal to be sure, but there are others) neither is eating meat.

Quote:In fact, I now buy organic or Amish chicken at the store.

Good on ya, brother.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Again, as I pointed out numerous times... Eating meat is essential if you strip away our first world luxuries. Are you suggesting that a starving person in a third world county should turn down meat if available because of a supposed "moral baseline"?

If we were reverted back to gather/hunters, pedophilia and slavery still wouldn't be necessary for survival. Guess what you will need though? NUTRIENTS. I'm not saying you'll die if you still choose to be a vegan/vegetarian (although you very well might). I'm asking where you are going to get the high levels of things like protein and iron if not from meat? How much would you have to farm? How will you even farm? Meanwhile, omnivores will be getting ample protein and iron from a single hunt kill while supplementing that with vegetables. They will certainly be healthier and able to do physical activities more efficiently.

This isn't justification for continuing to eat meat in a first world setting. That point is one I make solely to emphasize the flawed analogy of pedophilia and slavery to eating meat.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2012, 02:18 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(29-04-2012 06:10 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Owning a slave or raping a woman, I am sure, are considered great things by the slave owners and rapists. But we don't accept these things. We demand arguments better than, and here's where I think NSV is talking about self-interest, because me wantie.

I think the obvious argument is, well these are things that harm other people. I agree. But I think there is a case to extend that same protection to animals. Human exceptionalism tells us fuck that, we're special, we aren't a part of the environment, we can do what we want, they are property, no more. But human exceptionalism is a crock of shit. This is not to say that eating meat necessarily "harms" other animals (accepting that we're taking a life every time we do it) but that our empathy can be extended to animals. This is why so many hunter societies thank the spirit of the killed animal because they understand that they have taken a life and, thanks to the fact that they have extended their empathy to other species, they understand the gravity of that. But factory farming is torture. If we extend our empathy to other species, then we have to accept that that sort of thing is unacceptable. It's just as bad, if not worse, than rape or slavery.

When the argument "yeah, but meat is tasty" is given, I think that we can ask "does the 'me wantie' argument suffice here?" When the argument "humans are supposed to/designed to eat meat" is given, does that invalidate the question, not of meat eating in general, but of factory farming in partucular? Does the self-interested desire to eat meat trump the torture we subject factory farmed animals to?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Any animal has that "viewpoint".

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2012, 04:46 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
I feel ignored Sad

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like nach_in's post
29-04-2012, 05:01 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(29-04-2012 07:18 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  I can only speak for myself here...

My argument is not one of self-interest. My argument is that acts like slavery and pedophilia are not necessary for survival. You also cannot compare that to harming other species. This has nothing to do with us thinking we are superior. This has to do with self preservation. Yes, I fully agree we should respect animals. These torture farms disgust me. When I saw what KFC does to their chickens, I stopped eating there. In fact, I now buy organic or Amish chicken at the store.

As I stated, we cannot assume animals aren't intelligent. If I told people a few decades ago that several great apes have self recognition capabilities, I would have been laughed at. But you see, these other great apes are omnivores as well. This isn't for self-interest, this is purely for nutrients so they kill outside of their species to obtain meat.

The nature argument IS NOT about self interest. It is about self preservation.

The reason I find the question "Is veganism the moral baseline?" ridiculous is because it's an insanely arrogant stance to take. If you argue that it is the moral baseline, you are arguing that people without the luxury to choose veganism are being immoral.

Humans are omnivores out of pure necessity and that is our nature. I still stand strongly by my opinion when I say a vegan could not survive or at least live a healthy life with the luxury of the first world.

Would you start walking on all fours since we are the only animals that walk upright?
I think you equivocate when you rely on starving third world countries need of meat in order to survive, to support your argument.

In Western society meat is grossly overused, not to maintain health but for the pleasure factor and this is encouraged by misleading advertising. People become addicted to meat and not simply once or twice a day but also as an on going snack.

Presently I am eating fish maybe once a week;prior to that, some eight years back, I went for long periods as an ova/lacto vegetarian at which time I was donating blood four times a year. At no time was my haemoglobin level low and I did not take an iron supplement.

Essentially everyone has to make their own personal decision. Here in Australia, on Australia Day we have a huge advertising campaign for lamb, with the claim that its un-Australian not to eat lamb, particularly on that day.,

There was also recent strong controversy over the shipment of live cattle to Indonesia where they were brutally slaughtered, some being slowly drained of blood to suit the Muslims. This caused a degree of outrage but the mega rich meat industry won't be held back for long.

As I indicated in a previous thread it is the over indulgence of many meat eaters and greed that heightens both the ethical problem and also that of sound nutrition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2012, 06:23 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Hey, Noah.

Please don't speak to me as if I'm NSV. You're having your argument with him, not with me. I even complimented you. Chillax, bro?

There is a single nutrient that is impossible to get from plants. B-12. That's it. There are no other nutrients. There are non-animal, non-supplement pill options like nutritional yeast, but granted, in the unlikely event that we return to the hunter gatherer lifestyle, vegans would likely have to eat a lil' sumthin' sumthin' animal style to get b-12. That being said, it wouldn't require then to become ravenous meat eaters.

I never said anything about anyone turning anything down and I never said that veganism was the moral baseline; in fact, I said that it wasn't.

You simply alluded to meat being necessary for survival. I mentioned that from personal experience, that's not true. You and I live in the first world so we have access to all the technology that makes veganism easy. In terms of the third world, we really have to put this ooga booga they rub sticks together stuff behind. My family comes from one of the single poorest countries in the world and we Facebook. They aren't quite as helpless as their reputation suggests. If someone decided to become a vegan, they would have options. In fact Jainists, of which there are about 10-15 million in India plus more around the world, are strict vegetarians: no meat, no fish, no eggs. Some of them live in some of the poorest conditions in the world and they do just fine. To be honest, I don't know how they get around the b-12 thing, but they seem to have figured it out. All of this is to say that whether we live in the first world, the third world or 20 000 years ago, veganism is an option. Meat eating is not necessary for survival.

As far as protein and iron go, I was a vegan bodybuilder and never once supplemented with iron in 7.5 years and had perfect iron levels (measured by a physician).

And to be clear, I didn't compare rape and slavery (I don't know where you got pedophelia from) to eating meat. I compared them to factory farming. I have no issue with meat eating if it comes from a good source; like the meat you eat or what Stark farms or what Filox hunts. What I said was that slavery and rape fall into the 'me wantie' category and are eschewed because they hurt other humans and aren't necessary. Eating factory farmed meat falls into the 'me wantie' category and, I suggested, perhaps should be frowned upon more often because meat in and of itself is not necessary for survival (particularly in the first world where most factory farming occurs) and because, if we extend our empathy to animals, factory farming tortures them unnecessarily. I think that we can look at that question and ask ourselves whether the ends justify the means. We can also do it without shitting on eating meat per-se.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to eat some tuna and feel shitty about it Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2012, 06:28 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
I remember seeing something a while ago that explained how the "third world" or even hunter-gathers get certain vitamins and we don't now (actually they say it applies to all people, not just veg*n's): cleaning of food wasn't as good, so when they ate fruit/veggies, the produce had dirt on it, which had bacteria in it, which indirectly/directly provided the nutrients.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2012, 07:13 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(29-04-2012 06:23 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Noah.

Please don't speak to me as if I'm NSV. You're having your argument with him, not with me. I even complimented you. Chillax, bro?

There is a single nutrient that is impossible to get from plants. B-12. That's it. There are no other nutrients. There are non-animal, non-supplement pill options like nutritional yeast, but granted, in the unlikely event that we return to the hunter gatherer lifestyle, vegans would likely have to eat a lil' sumthin' sumthin' animal style to get b-12. That being said, it wouldn't require then to become ravenous meat eaters.

I never said anything about anyone turning anything down and I never said that veganism was the moral baseline; in fact, I said that it wasn't.

You simply alluded to meat being necessary for survival. I mentioned that from personal experience, that's not true. You and I live in the first world so we have access to all the technology that makes veganism easy. In terms of the third world, we really have to put this ooga booga they rub sticks together stuff behind. My family comes from one of the single poorest countries in the world and we Facebook. They aren't quite as helpless as their reputation suggests. If someone decided to become a vegan, they would have options. In fact Jainists, of which there are about 10-15 million in India plus more around the world, are strict vegetarians: no meat, no fish, no eggs. Some of them live in some of the poorest conditions in the world and they do just fine. To be honest, I don't know how they get around the b-12 thing, but they seem to have figured it out. All of this is to say that whether we live in the first world, the third world or 20 000 years ago, veganism is an option. Meat eating is not necessary for survival.

As far as protein and iron go, I was a vegan bodybuilder and never once supplemented with iron in 7.5 years and had perfect iron levels (measured by a physician).

And to be clear, I didn't compare rape and slavery (I don't know where you got pedophelia from) to eating meat. I compared them to factory farming. I have no issue with meat eating if it comes from a good source; like the meat you eat or what Stark farms or what Filox hunts. What I said was that slavery and rape fall into the 'me wantie' category and are eschewed because they hurt other humans and aren't necessary. Eating factory farmed meat falls into the 'me wantie' category and, I suggested, perhaps should be frowned upon more often because meat in and of itself is not necessary for survival (particularly in the first world where most factory farming occurs) and because, if we extend our empathy to animals, factory farming tortures them unnecessarily. I think that we can look at that question and ask ourselves whether the ends justify the means. We can also do it without shitting on eating meat per-se.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to eat some tuna and feel shitty about it Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
The only comment directed at you was the paragraph after what I quoted from you. The rest was a continuation to my debate on this subject. Vacuous brought up slavery and pedophilia.

Sorry for the confusion. You and I already have mutual respect for each other due to the other thread. I wouldn't go back to square one with you so easily lol.

You guys are misunderstanding my use of the third world analogy. In those situations, sometimes it is necessary. If you claim veganism is a moral baseline, then you are effectively calling these people immoral. I also brought up the example of the plane crash victims having to resort to cannibalism.

Also, I never once said you can't get those nutrients from plants. The only one I did question is omega3. But I alluded to the fact that you would certainly have to consume much more vegetables to get similar results from a single hunt kill.

And none of what I'm arguing is to defend the continual consumption of meat. The nature argument is to rebut the notion that veganism is the moral baseline. It cannot because our omnivore nature is attached to a need to nourish ourselves. This modern life is young in human history. For the vast majority of our history, we needed to hunt and kill for several reasons, food source being one of them.

I stand by my statement, you are only vegan/vegetarian because you have that luxury. Therefore, it cannot be a moral baseline. It might be the moral high ground, but IT IS NOT the baseline.

I hope I am articulating myself clearer now.

By the way Ghost...

1) I'm always calm on the Internet unless I'm in a heated video game match which I don't have time for lately

2) My family is of Korean descent. My parents born in the '40's in Korea. My wife is Filippino. I am very familiar with third world country situations. I'll tell you right now, inhave good money to bet that America has a much higher percentage of vegans/vegetarians than both Korea and Philippines. Of course, I am talking the animal lover variety and not the ones that dislike the taste of meat.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: