Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2012, 08:20 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
I don't know if this helps, but throughout history humanoid species who were either vegies or meaties all went extinct.
Homo sapiens (us) were/are omnivores. As climate changed for better and worse our ancestors made it.
The reasonable position today is to consider eating meat "not so desirable" and becoming less so as we move forward. Good work from the vegans to bring up the points of animal cruelty. At least we are letting the chickens run around a bit before we lop off their head and throw then into a sandwich.
BTW, only 1 percent of the population are vegans are just 1/2 of them are for reasons of animal rights. Per Tom Regan, Philosopher, Animal rights advocate, NC State University.
I imagine the future as animal harvest free. Technology and population will cause/help us to find better nutrition sources.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thomas's post
29-04-2012, 08:31 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(28-04-2012 05:57 PM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  
(28-04-2012 04:49 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  NSV still has not answered my question. Is nature immoral? I know that the nature argument is "over", but I still want that question answered.
Yes, nature in my eyes is very immoral. Millions and millions of years it has been nothing but constant struggle, fear, and pain.
(28-04-2012 04:20 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your requiring a justification for the argument from nature is backwards. You are the "doer", the one making the claim.
We evolved as omnivores and you are saying that we should change that.
You might be correct on this. Nevertheless, I have offered arguments for why I suggest we need to change.

Quote:The pedophile argument is specious. This isn't natural; the child is not biologically ready.
A child at the age of 10-11 fully capable of a sex drive and the ability to reproduce isn't natural? Please explain.
Quote:Self interest is not trivial.
It is when the self interest I am referring to is merely a preference of what someone's dinner tastes like at the expense of unimaginable suffering.


BTW, how about acknowledging the fact that animals feel pain. I linked you a video, and I would like to hear you correct your statement or tell me your view of what the pig might actually be feeling at that point. Post #122.
I never denied that animals feel pain.

A 10-11 year old is prebuscent, not yet sexual. The definition of pedophilia is the unnatural sexual attraction to prepubescent children.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2012, 01:09 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
I must confess to eating a fatty kransky roll at the football last Saturday.

It was just a crazy urge and I felt a bit sick afterwards; don't know if it was guilt or indigestion Ohmy
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2012, 09:46 AM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2012 10:08 AM by NotSoVacuous.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(29-04-2012 12:56 PM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  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.
First of all, doesn't necessarily have to be applied to everyone. I have already stated that if things are not within your control, then you do not carry the responsibility of acting morally. And are you really stating that because people in third world countries starve, then this is justification for you eating meat?

Quote: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".
Never said what the animal feels like or thinks about it's prey.

Quote: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.
Nope, I am only concerned about the justification. I know where our hunger for meat came from.

Quote: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.
I already touched down on this, but once more shall I? So until everyone has the luxury, then it isn't immoral? You are not addressing the idea that it is immoral. You are merely searching for a loophole. This is a poor and disrespectful attempt at using starving people to justify your actions of eating meat.


Quote: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.
Still off base. My entire argument is based on well being. Walking on four legs or two has no bearing on the well being of anyone--except for my own back of course. I walk up right and that is that. No justification is required because it does not trespass on anything or anyone else. Just as blinking needs to justification. Now if I was to walk on my two legs on your property, then this needs justification. Or if I was to step--with my two feet--on your wet concrete, this again needs justification.

Quote:Self-preservation does not always assume self-interest.
Not always; you are correct. However, the issue here is that this is not about self preservation. In a third world country--as you so selfishly attempted to portray--it is about self preservation. In this scenario I do not think they are morally reprehensible. Their hands are tied. In a world where your hands are not tied, you hold a moral responsibility, and you are only acting on self-interest. Unless you have a disease or complication of sorts.

Quote: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?
I am hurt. Personally because I think I have been lied to. Post #119. I comment with a paragraph about my view on the scenario presented in the movie alive. Their self-interest is irrelevant. No well-being was at stake. Again, see post #119.
Quote:I have read all your posts.
Yeah, see above. I don't think this is accurate. And the scenario was so specific too. Hard to miss.

Quote: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.
I will call it self interest. Because this has nothing to do with preservation, or anything else to that matter other than your trivial state of mind that will be unhappy if you don't have a happy meal with chicken nuggets in front of you three times a day.

It's you or them. Well, I didn't know you lived such a tough life in the wilderness. Remember, sleep with one eye open. Predators are everywhere in the human populated civilized area you inhabit.

The moral high road is irrelevant in a discussion on morality... Wow...
(29-04-2012 08:31 PM)Chas Wrote:  I never denied that animals feel pain.

A 10-11 year old is prebuscent, not yet sexual. The definition of pedophilia is the unnatural sexual attraction to prepubescent children.


NSV:They still feel suffering and pain, and they have a life that was given to them just as equally as ours was to us. Perception does not waver this. It is a fact.
Quote:Chas: Saying something is a fact doesn't make it a fact.
Quote:Chas: I never denied that animals feel pain.
So by saying that animal suffering is not a fact, is not denying that animals feel pain???

Are you denying that children of the age of 10-11 have never reached puberty at these young ages? And once hitting puberty at these ages it isn't acting as a pedophile to want to or to have committed the act of having sex with them? This is rhetoric nonsense.

"We Humans are capable of greatness." -Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2012, 10:25 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
NSV, would you please elaborate on why not killing animals for food causes less suffering than doing so? If you manage to do that you might have an actual point instead of just a moral intuition about meat

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2012, 10:47 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Quote: First of all, doesn't necessarily have to be applied to everyone. I have already stated that if things are not within your control, then you do not carry the responsibility of acting morally. And are you really stating that because people in third world countries starve, then this is justification for you eating meat?
No I am not. I brought up the third world country to refute the claim that veganism is the moral baseline. I said this multiple times already. This is not a justification.

Quote: Never said what the animal feels like or thinks about it's prey.
You broached the subject. I forgot which post, but it was something to the effect of "Lions kill prey because they do not know any better". Again, before you fly off the arrogant handle here, I THINK that's what you said. I guess I'll fish for that statement if you like.
Quote: Nope, I am only concerned about the justification. I know where our hunger for meat came from.
My apologies, the "long" was supposed to "not". That was a consequence of me typing that comment via iPhone. So yes, I know that you know where our hunger for meat came from. I said you're concerned with the CONTINUAL consumption of meat and NOT the origin of this desire.

Quote: I already touched down on this, but once more shall I? So until everyone has the luxury, then it isn't immoral? You are not addressing the idea that it is immoral. You are merely searching for a loophole. This is a poor and disrespectful attempt at using starving people to justify your actions of eating meat.
No, I never once stated that anything is moral. I neither said veganism nor being an omnivore are moral/immoral acts. I did say veganism COULD be the moral highground. That doesn't mean consuming meat is immoral though. Just that if veganism is moral, it very well could be MORE moral.

So it is you who misunderstand my use of the third world country analogy to the point where you believe it's a poor and disrespectful attempt. Ironic seeing as how you initiated disrespect in our little quibble.

Quote: Still off base. My entire argument is based on well being. Walking on four legs or two has no bearing on the well being of anyone--except for my own back of course. I walk up right and that is that. No justification is required because it does not trespass on anything or anyone else. Just as blinking needs to justification. Now if I was to walk on my two legs on your property, then this needs justification. Or if I was to step--with my two feet--on your wet concrete, this again needs justification.
Again, this is based off your assumption that animals are so much more less intelligent than we are. What if they are offended by our arrogant upright walking when the rest of them walk on fours? Yes, it does sound silly, but it is still a valid exercise of logic.

Quote: Not always; you are correct. However, the issue here is that this is not about self preservation. In a third world country--as you so selfishly attempted to portray--it is about self preservation. In this scenario I do not think they are morally reprehensible. Their hands are tied. In a world where your hands are not tied, you hold a moral responsibility, and you are only acting on self-interest. Unless you have a disease or complication of sorts.
Again ironic to call my analogy selfish when it is you who selfishly painted all of us meat-eaters ignorant with one stroke. Your iron-fisted views on the morality of meat eating is selfish. I'll ask again for the umpteenth time:

How can veganism be the moral baseline if there are people who have no choice in the matter? This is where third world country people come into play. This is where our ancestors come into play. If veganism is the moral baseline, then these people must have been/are immoral. They are not excused from morality because of their situation. I argue that veganism isn't a moral baseline hence these people aren't immoral. I don't even think this is a good subject to discuss morality in the first place. It's about consumption of other animals. This isn't unique to human beings.

If you want to talk about the way we kill the animals, then morality matters a great deal IMO.
Quote: Yeah, see above. I don't think this is accurate. And the scenario was so specific too. Hard to miss.
Again with the arrogance. Hard to miss amongst 16 pages of this thread with numerous walls of text? Yes, I admit, I skimmed through a lot. I did in fact miss your reply. But continue on with your arrogance.

Difference between you and I:

I work on opinion as there is no way to factually debate this subject. I openly admit my ignorance in some areas and admit that these are my opinions.

You work on the basis that you're right and everyone else against you are ignorant. And you have the audacity to call me selfish?

Quote: I will call it self interest. Because this has nothing to do with preservation, or anything else to that matter other than your trivial state of mind that will be unhappy if you don't have a happy meal with chicken nuggets in front of you three times a day. It's you or them. Well, I didn't know you lived such a tough life in the wilderness. Remember, sleep with one eye open. Predators are everywhere in the human populated civilized area you inhabit.

The moral high road is irrelevant in a discussion on morality... Wow...


Oh so my state of mind is trivial, but when it comes to animals... show all respect that you possibly can. Nice, you respect other species more than your own.

Yes, the moral highground is irrelevant in this discussion. What matters is the main point about veganism being the moral baseline. Something you seem to have a problem comprehending. What matters is that neither vegans nor omnivores are immmoral. It does NOT matter if one is more moral than the other.

You complained about me being unintelligent and childish, yet you have a childish arrogance in every single one of your replies. You want an intelligent discussion on this topic, yet you unintelligently lock out all opposing opinions. You cry about comprehension when you yourself cannot comprehend the rebuttals.

You keep demanding justification for the continued consumption of meat (via slaughter) when justification is not required.

By the way, if you want to argue that the moral high ground is relevant here, you better be able to back this up with other aspects in your life. I highly doubt you take the moral highground in all areas of your life. And that's what makes the moral HIGHGROUND irrelevant.

In case you aren't comprehending this, I am talking about the moral HIGHGROUND, not morality itself. Two actions can be moral, but one more moral than the other.

“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
30-04-2012, 10:54 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
The HIGHGROUND? Well, we all know how important the highground is.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Ghost's post
30-04-2012, 10:59 AM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2012 11:00 AM by NoahsFarce.)
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(30-04-2012 10:25 AM)nach_in Wrote:  NSV, would you please elaborate on why not killing animals for food causes less suffering than doing so? If you manage to do that you might have an actual point instead of just a moral intuition about meat
How can he when he doesn't even know for sure whether or not the animals actually suffer during the killing process? This is the huge problem with his debate style on this subject. He assumes his opinions are factual. He assumes that there is a factual foundation upon which to discuss morality. There isn't. It's almost exclusively subjective which makes it a, "Who has the most convincing opinion?" debate.

Of course, this excludes slaughterhouses that blatantly mistreats the animals. That video of the cow being rammed by a forklift comes to mind.

I saw a video showing a sushi chef in Japan filleting a fish, but keeping it alive in a tank. Many outraged vegans and animal lovers complained about cruelty. Now, I won't say any of the following is fact, but it is to the best of our scientific knowledge that fish are incapable of feeling pain. The "evidence" that the feel pain is circumstantial at best. The evidence that they don't feel pain is far greater based on other nervous systems and brains in the animal kingdom. I hesitate to call it fact because well, we don't even fully understand cuddlefish or octopuses.

But let's hypothetically say that it is a fact that fish do not feel pain. What argument do vegans and animal lovers have now for cruelty? Because with that fact in mind, we can now argue that plants should be treated with equal respect as they are living organisms that do not feel pain.

Don't get me wrong, this is a very fun subject to debate and ponder on. I just disagree with how Vacuous argues his points. He assumes he's right from the get-go and closes his mind completely to opposing opinions.
(30-04-2012 10:54 AM)Ghost Wrote:  The HIGHGROUND? Well, we all know how important the highground is.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
You sir win the INTERNET for tying Star Wars into a thread about meat eating/meat nunning.

“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
30-04-2012, 11:09 AM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
(30-04-2012 09:46 AM)NotSoVacuous Wrote:  So by saying that animal suffering is not a fact, is not denying that animals feel pain???

Are you denying that children of the age of 10-11 have never reached puberty at these young ages? And once hitting puberty at these ages it isn't acting as a pedophile to want to or to have committed the act of having sex with them? This is rhetoric nonsense.
Women who have children very early are far more prone to have complications. Thus men, attracted to said young women had less opportunity to have children. On the other hand, those males who found slightly older women attractive had far more success.

Eventually the majority evolved to find children at that age to not be sexually attractive, despite whether they were going though their puberty or not.


Again, a natural answer always exists...shocking how that works out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2012, 12:00 PM
RE: Is veganism at the "moral baseline"?
Hey, Noah.

Quote:But let's hypothetically say that it is a fact that fish do not feel
pain. What argument do vegans and animal lovers have now for cruelty?
Because with that fact in mind, we can now argue that plants should be
treated with equal respect as they are living organisms that do not feel
pain.

On the feeling pain tip, if they don't feel pain, then there isn't a cruelty argument for slaughtering them. There is, however, a strong argument for storing them in cramped aquariums and there certainly is a commercial fishing argument.

On the plants feeling pain tip, pain requires the sense of touch. The sense of touch requires a central nervous system. Plants don't have one. End of debate. But plants don't care where they're planted so long as they are. (on second reading I realised you didn't say they do feel pain)

For those concerned with the food supply, there are arguments against plant farming practices. Monocropping is a terrible practice, not for the plant, it's not cruel, but for the planet.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: