Vegan ethics

[Klytemnest]

For the last couple of days I have been having a little exchange of short messages on www.youtube.com on a video entitled "I, omnivore."

I went on, carrying the vegan flag, explaining why it is that I feel eating meat is unethical. It deliberately causes unnecessary suffering and death. Therefore it is unjustified and therefore it is unethical.

Well, a poster responded saying something like "You don't get to decide for everyone what is ethical and what isn't."

How would you respond to this? Are ethics really arbitrary? Is "It's ethical because I say so" really a sound argument? If not, then what is it that ethics rest on? Why is it that we feel eating meat is unethical, while our omnivorous brethren do not? Is it really a matter of agreeing to disagree?

Could it be that the word "ethical" adds to the confusion? If ethics are so maleable and changeable according to culture, time, and different from person to person, then perhaps the conversation should focus on something else, something more specific and to the point, namely - justification. In other words, perhaps the conversation should really be whether or not eating meat is justifiable. My argument is that deliberately causing unnecessary suffering and death is unjustifiable. But then again, what's to prevent someone from saying "I disagree - it's justifiable. Because I say so. We'll have to agree to disagree." Where can the conversation go from there? Without objective morality, without a fixed and unchangeable code of what is right and wrong in perpetuity, is it really a mere matter of opinion that torturing and killing innocent animals is unjustified?

[flying plum]

i wouldn't say ethics are arbitrary, but certainly ethics are not a steadfast concept. if they were, there would be no moral philosophy.

with regards to one unified concept of rights, there are two schools of thought - universalism and cultural relativism.

it's with relation more to human rights, but you can apply it to anything if you adapt the precepts of the debate, so i would say if you want an insight into the debate, i would try reading The Rights of Minority Cultures, ed. Will Kymlicka.

ethics are not 'arbitrary', but certainly do depend on ones own moral theory. many people do not think eating animals is wrong, not only because of social mores, but also because they do not think animals think and feel in the same way as us. therefore, they do not 'suffer' the way that we do, and do not have the same concept of death.

obviously we disagree, but it is very hard to argue with someone who takes a viewpoint such as that, for if you are arguing from not only different sides of a debate, but within different spheres of the moral spectrum, it is difficult to come to a conclusion. the very conflict between universalism and cultural relativism is whether there is one core of (human) values, or whether we, as liberals, need to accept that other moral codes also exist. it's harder to extrapolate this to animal rights, as teh subject is underdeveloped, and much of the rights debates stems for the idea of human dignity, thus requires modification to apply to animals - that doesn't mean it can't be done though

amanda

[Korn]

Where can the conversation go from there?

I'd probably try to explain this:

Ethics has to do with viewpoints about what is considered 'right' and 'wrong' - which of course is highly subjective, and in a way the very existence of subjectivity is a main reason veganism exists: A meat eater may subjectively think or feel that it's right/makes sense/is justifiable to kill another living being if he lakes the taste of meat, but that other living being won't agree. There's a difference in "viewpoints" - between a non-vegan and an animal. Meat eaters normally don't acknowledge that their claimed 'right' to eat meat / kill other living beings is based on a wish. or a subjectively declared 'right' to decide for others not only what's right or wrong, but even deciding whether they should live or die.

"You don't get to decide for everyone what is ethical and what isn't."

Precisely, so how can someone 'get to decide for everyone' if they shall become food or not?

I don't think we need to use the word 'ethics'. It's much simpler than that: Since I personally don't think that anyone who wants to harm, kill or eat me should do it, it doesn't make sense to claim that I should 'get to decide' over others lives either. It's The Golden Rule, basically.

We don't need knowledge about ethics, theory, philosophy or anything else to understand that if you don't want to be slapped in your face, it doesn't make sense to slap someone in their face. Even children (or: especially children?) have the mental/emotional capacity it takes to understand this.

I certainly can't decide what others think makes sense or not. But if someone kills an animal, or slaps a kid in the face, others certainly can't decide that I have no right to be against doing it - or tell them that I am...

[horselesspaul]

It's The Golden Rule, basically.

The main problem is that The Golden Rule is: Whoever has the gold makes the rules..

[Korn]

Sure, but the many variations of The Golden Rule rarely - if ever - include a disclaimer saying 'this does not apply to animals'...

[horselesspaul]

Too true.

[Jiffy]

I've thought about aspect this quite a bit. I have concluded that by speaking in terms of morals or ethics you are setting yourself up for the response described upthread. This inevitably leads to being accused of 'preaching' or setting one'self up at an official arbiter of what is morally acceptable.

If I am asked why I am vegan I usually respond by saying that if you consume meat or dairy, it follows that unless you are completely ignorant of how food gets to your table, there must be a tacit acceptance of what is done on your behalf, to the animals concerned, to the environment and to mankind.

I conclude by saying that as I do not find what is involved acceptable I follow my conscience and abstain from said products.

[Klytemnest]

i wouldn't say ethics are arbitrary, but certainly ethics are not a steadfast concept. if they were, there would be no moral philosophy.

with regards to one unified concept of rights, there are two schools of thought - universalism and cultural relativism.

it's with relation more to human rights, but you can apply it to anything if you adapt the precepts of the debate, so i would say if you want an insight into the debate, i would try reading The Rights of Minority Cultures, ed. Will Kymlicka.

ethics are not 'arbitrary', but certainly do depend on ones own moral theory. many people do not think eating animals is wrong, not only because of social mores, but also because they do not think animals think and feel in the same way as us. therefore, they do not 'suffer' the way that we do, and do not have the same concept of death.

obviously we disagree, but it is very hard to argue with someone who takes a viewpoint such as that, for if you are arguing from not only different sides of a debate, but within different spheres of the moral spectrum, it is difficult to come to a conclusion. the very conflict between universalism and cultural relativism is whether there is one core of (human) values, or whether we, as liberals, need to accept that other moral codes also exist. it's harder to extrapolate this to animal rights, as teh subject is underdeveloped, and much of the rights debates stems for the idea of human dignity, thus requires modification to apply to animals - that doesn't mean it can't be done though

amanda

Thank you, Amanda, for your excellent post. I agree with you.

Let me tell you what I think, and we can take it from there. I think the whole point of and need for ethics is founded on a concern for the suffering and happiness of others. Therefore, ethics are not a mere matter of consensus. After all, once upon a time most people had no problem with slavery or anti-miscegenation laws. The consensus was that slavery was OK and that the races ought not to mix. But when the suffering and happiness of the affected people is examined, it is clear that slavery and anti-miscegenation caused a lot of unnecessary suffering. Therefore, despite the consensus of previous generation, it is clear that slavery and anti-miscegenation laws are and always have been unethical.

If ethics are a matter of considering the suffering and happiness of others, then ethics are also not a personal matter. In other words, one cannot simply decide that eating meat is ethical or unethical according to one's own whim and personal preference. The ethical worth of an action is evaluated by whether or not it causes leads to the suffering or happiness of others.

I understand that different cultures have different mores, different traditions and rules of what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. But these rules are often the result of tradition, religion, perhaps even consensus. And consensus is not what determines whether an action is ethical or not. If it were a matter of consensus, then why have ethics at all? If any group could simply declare that certain actions are right and certain actions are wrong, as a mere matter of consensus, then the concept of ethics is just useless.

So I have a problem with the idea of multiculturalism and mere accepting that different cultures have different traditions and ideas about what is ethical and what isn't. There have to be reasons why an action is ethical or unethical. And these reasons have to address the issue of the suffering and happiness of others. Merely reaching a consensus that Jews should all be exterminated is not good enough to declare the extermination of all Jews an ethical action. The suffering and happiness of the Jews have to be considered.

This was one of the reasons I became a vegan almost two years ago. It finally dawned on me that being a ovo-lacto-pesco-vegetarian was not good enough, that I was contributing to the suffering and death of sentient beings - unnecessarily.

Discuss.

[Klytemnest]

Korn;459820]Ethics has to do with viewpoints about what is considered 'right' and 'wrong' - which of course is highly subjective.

But what is it that makes it highly subjective? I think things clear up quite a bit once we acknowledge that ethics deal with the question of whether or not actions cause the suffering or happiness of others.

In a way the very existence of subjectivity is a main reason veganism exists: A meat eater may subjectively think or feel that it's right/makes sense/is justifiable to kill another living being if he lakes the taste of meat, but that other living being won't agree. Meat eaters normally don't acknowledge that their claimed 'right' to eat meat / kill other living beings is based on a wish to decide for others not only what's right or wrong, but even deciding whether they should live or die.

You see - right there! Your position is much more reasoned, more reasonable than theirs. So the two positions are not on equal footing. Shouldn't reason trump unreason? I find it annoying when omnivores tell me that in their highly subjective view, eating meat is not unethical and that we should just agree to disagree. They act as if reason is irrelevant since they have merely declared eating meat to be ethical.

Precisely, so how can someone 'get to decide for everyone' if they shall become food or not?

They would argue that this objection applies to the issue of the life and death of other humans, but animals are a different story. And they feel justified by just declaring that it is OK to kill animals. End of discussion.

I don't think we need to use the word 'ethics'. It's much simpler than that: Since I personally don't think that anyone who wants to harm, kill or eat me should do it, it doesn't make sense to claim that I should 'get to decide' over others lives either. It's The Golden Rule, basically.

I agree that this is the basic idea. We suffer. We feel happiness. We realize that other people feel suffering and happiness just as we. We also realize that many animals are also sentient. Sure, they may not suffer in exactly the same way as we, but still, they have the capacity to suffer. They want to live just as much as we do. Therefore, if it is not necessary for us to enslave, torture and kill them, how can we be justified in doing so? We wouldn't like it if it were done to us, right?

We don't need knowledge about ethics, theory, philosophy or anything else to understand that if you don't want to be slapped in your face, it doesn't make sense to slap someone in their face. Even children (or: especially children?) have the mental/emotional capacity it takes to understand this.

Yes, Korn, but despite this, slavery has existed for the majority of human history and vegans comprise a tiny minority of the population. So I think what we need is much more attention to and education of ethics.

I certainly can't decide what others think makes sense or not. But if someone kills an animal, or slaps a kid in the face, others certainly can't decide that I have no right to be against doing it - or tell them that I am...

I don't think anyone was telling me that I don't have the right to express my objection to their omnivorous ways. But they were telling me that I am not the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong. Time and again I explained that deliberately causing suffering and death is unjustified if unnecessary, but my reasoning simply did not affect them one bit. They simply refused to acknowledge it and told me I had no right to tell them what is right and what is wrong. Apparently I also had no right to present my case as to why I feel eating meat is unethical.

[Klytemnest]

I've thought about aspect this quite a bit. I have concluded that by speaking in terms of morals or ethics you are setting yourself up for the response described upthread. This inevitably leads to being accused of 'preaching' or setting one'self up at an official arbiter of what is morally acceptable.

If I am asked why I am vegan I usually respond by saying that if you consume meat or dairy, it follows that unless you are completely ignorant of how food gets to your table, there must be a tacit acceptance of what is done on your behalf, to the animals concerned, to the environment and to mankind.

I conclude by saying that as I do not find what is involved acceptable I follow my conscience and abstain from said products.

Thanks for your reply. I do see your point. But at the same time I feel that a conversation on the ethics of eating meat needs to happen. I do not feel comfortable with people simply saying "let's agree to disagree; you say it's wrong, I say it's OK." Declaring something to be right or wrong by fiat is not good enough. It is not really a conversation. It is a conversation ender. Reason has to matter.

I guess, being new to veganism, I feel a bit more evangelical than most. I once was lost but now I'm found, was blind but now I see... The idealist that I am, I still think that reason is invincible, when in fact, people appear to be much more interested in finding convenient justification for whatever they need to. Truth be damned.

I agree with you about following one's conscience and not tacitly accepting and supporting what is being done to animals. I just feel that I ought to do more than merely abstain from animal products. I feel there needs to be an ongoing conversation about why it is that animals should not be deliberately enslaved, tortured and killed - unnecessarily.

[Korn]

If a vegan would ask you - several years before you became a vegan - how you could justify eating meat, Rami... what would your answer be?

Remember that reason is 'adjustable' to whatever people feel. If they have been trained to feel and think that eating meat is normal, natural, needed... they'll refer to meat eating animals and claim that humans are just meat eating animals as well. That would probably be their subjectively expressed reason to eat meat (plus the fact that they like the taste).

Likewise, if someone is defending country X's invasion of country Y, but se a documentary about children being killed in that war, they may actually start to feel how wrong that war is, and start to explain how wrong it is.

We can be influenced, and we are - all the time. That's why what someone considers right or wrong is subjective. I think it's always wrong to harm someone, but to simply claim that I think so, or even to explain why I think so, may or may not be enough for another person to understand/think/feel the same way.

ethics deal with the question of whether or not actions cause the suffering or happiness of others.

That's true for vegan ethics.

[mlg5454]

because the green movement is getting so strong these days, what i try to stress to people is that a diet based on meat and dairy is actually an unethical action because it hurts EVERYONE IN THE WORLD. equating eating beef to driving your car to someone who's trying to reduce emissions is more willing to listen.

but in general, as what fuels a lot of what makes us angry, most people just do what feels good to them immediately. the only time i even talk about veganism with anyone is when they offer me something, i reject it, say i'm vegan and they ask why. which happens only about once a week.

[Jiffy]

Thanks for your reply. I do see your point. But at the same time I feel that a conversation on the ethics of eating meat needs to happen. I do not feel comfortable with people simply saying "let's agree to disagree; you say it's wrong, I say it's OK." Declaring something to be right or wrong by fiat is not good enough. It is not really a conversation. It is a conversation ender. Reason has to matter.

I guess, being new to veganism, I feel a bit more evangelical than most. I once was lost but now I'm found, was blind but now I see... The idealist that I am, I still think that reason is invincible, when in fact, people appear to be much more interested in finding convenient justification for whatever they need to. Truth be damned.

I agree with you about following one's conscience and not tacitly accepting and supporting what is being done to animals. I just feel that I ought to do more than merely abstain from animal products. I feel there needs to be an ongoing conversation about why it is that animals should not be deliberately enslaved, tortured and killed - unnecessarily.

I agree that there needs to be a debate about ethics, I was merely describing my 'opening gambit' as it were, which inevitably leads to much discussion and disagreement about ethics. Sadly it usually involves such nonsense as 'yebbut we still have pointy teeth'. I take some small crumb of comfort from the fact that if they feel compelled to offer such pathetic justifications then deep down they realise that there is a least a small kernel of truth in the vegan viewpoint, which we can build upon.

Simply going all zealous and evangelical from the off just gets people's backs up IME, even the minority who are open to a reasoned debate.

[Klytemnest]

Korn;460089]If a vegan would ask you - several years before you became a vegan - how you could justify eating meat, Rami... what would your answer be?

Unfortunately nobody ever asked me to provide justification for it. If someone had perhaps it would have triggered something in mind and I would have become a vegan sooner. I never had to justifiy it, even to myself. Whatever pangs of guilt I might have had as a child, when I first found out that meat was actually the flesh of a once-living animal, they disappeared because everybody was doing it. So I never really thought about it until I thought about ethics and what ethics are - ethics in general. THAT is what made me question the morality of unsing animal products.

Remember that reason is 'adjustable' to whatever people feel.

But let's not equate reason with rationalization. Reason is critical, dispassionate. Adjusting "reason" to whatever one feels is not reason.

If they have been trained to feel and think that eating meat is normal, natural, needed... they'll refer to meat eating animals and claim that humans are just meat eating animals as well. That would probably be their subjectively expressed reason to eat meat (plus the fact that they like the taste).

Actually I don't think most people eat meat because they think they need the nutrition meat provides. They eat it because they like the taste. Hey, I grew up on meat. I loved the taste. I used to chew on chicken bones and suck out the bone marrow! So I get it. Some people just don't want to part with the taste - and so they set out to find convenient rationalizations as to why eating meat is OK.

You talk about what they have been trained to think. This is why I think it is important to have a conversation on this issue with them. If they think we were "made" to eat meat, they have been misinformed. If they think we must eat meat in order to survive and be healthy, they have been misinformed. It's merely a matter of correcting misinformation.

Sadly, in my experience, even correcting misinformation is a struggle where people's taste buds are involved. No matter how many times I tell them that we do not need animal products, they come back with "Yes, we do."

Likewise, if someone is defending country X's invasion of country Y, but se a documentary about children being killed in that war, they may actually start to feel how wrong that war is, and start to explain how wrong it is.

We can be influenced, and we are - all the time. That's why what someone considers right or wrong is subjective. I think it's always wrong to harm someone, but to simply claim that I think so, or even to explain why I think so, may or may not be enough for another person to understand/think/feel the same way.

Yes, I agree that we are all influenced all the time. I sure was - that's why I became a vegan. And I guess I don't understand why the reasons that convinced me don't work on everyone. I don't understand how someone could say that the unnecessary enslavement, torture and killing of innocent animals is justifiable.

OK, let's try something. Explain to me why it is that harming soming is always wrong. Right now I disagree with you. I want to see if reason works on me.

That's true for vegan ethics.

Actually, it is true for vegan ethics, but not only for vegan ethics. I got that from Sam Harris' The End of Faith, which has nothing to do with veganism, but has a lot to do with ethics.

[Klytemnest]

because the green movement is getting so strong these days, what i try to stress to people is that a diet based on meat and dairy is actually an unethical action because it hurts EVERYONE IN THE WORLD. equating eating beef to driving your car to someone who's trying to reduce emissions is more willing to listen.

but in general, as what fuels a lot of what makes us angry, most people just do what feels good to them immediately. the only time i even talk about veganism with anyone is when they offer me something, i reject it, say i'm vegan and they ask why. which happens only about once a week.

I've thought about that. Right now people are worried about global warming and the health of the planet in general, so pointing out the negative impact of the animal farm industry on the planet might be the msot effective way of persuading people to foreswear meat. That is what Bill Maher is trying to do.

I agree with you - most people will do what they want to do and then find a convenient rationalization for it. I guess I am just an idealist and believe that reason can actually win against personal bias. I figured it worked for me...

[mlg5454]

well all ethics are for the most part subjective. it's what we agree on.

there's really no point in trying to convert anybody to veganism. it is nice to have a good, solid, attractive reasoning behind your modest activism so you can talk about with potential "converts" however. i think that's nice.

on animal rights, i really don't think it's even worth getting into with anybody who eats meat. the conversation usually goes like this:

Mr. Carno Man: i'm an animal, they're animals, we're all animals. they eat meat, i should eat meat. it's natural.

Ms. Veginal Warts: but they don't have a choice. as humans - as animals which can reason to do something beyond instinct - we have a responsibility. in other words, they wouldn't eat other animals if they had the choice. maybe.

Mr. Carno Man: yeah they would. i'm them. and i do.

---

etc

which is why, again, i'm really diggin' on exploiting this green thing.

anyway. we're going to be the ones happy with rice, beans and apples post apocalypse.

[mlg5454]

I figured it worked for me...

rad. i like that. me too. well. emotions, too. vegan propaganda videos on youtube are pretty damn effective... nobody likes seeing animals get tortured like that. well. most people.

[Klytemnest]

Jiffy;460165]I agree that there needs to be a debate about ethics, I was merely describing my 'opening gambit' as it were, which inevitably leads to much discussion and disagreement about ethics. Sadly it usually involves such nonsense as 'yebbut we still have pointy teeth'. I take some small crumb of comfort from the fact that if they feel compelled to offer such pathetic justifications then deep down they realise that there is a least a small kernel of truth in the vegan viewpoint, which we can build upon.

The thing that frustrates me, Jiffy, is that it is difficult to have a reasonable discussion on this subject when they are misinformed. Yes, we have pointy teeth - but so what? Yes, we have evolved to be omnivores - but so what? What does that have to do with ethics? Nothing - since eating meat is entirely unnecessary for us. I mean, there isn't a single argument that we cannot defeat. It is frustrating that no matter what we say, they can always resort to "Who are you to decide what is ethical and what isn't? I say eating meat is not unethical." This is why I am arguing that ethics are not that maleable. There is an objective kernel to it all - a concern for the suffering and happiness of others.

Simply going all zealous and evangelical from the off just gets people's backs up IME, even the minority who are open to a reasoned debate.

I was using hyperbole. It's not like I am going from door to door, handing out pamphlets. I simply responded to a few posts on youtube.

[Klytemnest]

mlg5454;460177]well all ethics are for the most part subjective. it's what we agree on.

Well, I don't know that ethics are for the most part subjective. I am actually suggesting that there is an objective core to ethics - concern for the suffering and/or happines of others. Otherwise, ethics are not just subjective - they are arbitrary.

there's really no point in trying to convert anybody to veganism. it is nice to have a good, solid, attractive reasoning behind your modest activism so you can talk about with potential "converts" however. i think that's nice.

I haven't really set out to convert anyone. But I do think that it is important that we have this conversation with nonvegans. There is a lot of misinformation out there.

on animal rights, i really don't think it's even worth getting into with anybody who eats meat. the conversation usually goes like this:

Mr. Carno Man: i'm an animal, they're animals, we're all animals. they eat meat, i should eat meat. it's natural.

Well, I agree with Carno Man, mostly. We are animals. They are animals. Animals eat animals. We are omnivores. We are able to eat meat. It is natural. But from that it does not follow that we SHOULD eat meat. And we are living proof that we don't NEED to.

Ms. Veginal Warts: but they don't have a choice. as humans - as animals which can reason to do something beyond instinct - we have a responsibility.

But since this responsibility is self-imposed, then carno Man can just say "No, we have no such responsibility." I mean, I agree with you. We have an ethical responsibility - because, unlike other animals, we HAVE ethics. We can choose not to deliberately cause unnecessary suffering. If we know the suffering we are causing is unnecessary, how can we justify it?

The problem is that there is no one (like God) holding us accountable, demanding that we justify our actions. And so, there is nothing to stop someone from saying "eating meat is justifiable because I say so."

[Korn]

And I guess I don't understand why the reasons that convinced me don't work on everyone.

There could be many reasons. Some people are more open-minded/less stubborn than others. Some people are afraid of change. Lots of people aren't into what 'feels right', or 'reason'. Some people are ready for a change, for improvements in their lives, many are not.

OK, let's try something. Explain to me why it is that harming someone is always wrong. Right now I disagree with you.

Harming someone as an isolated action (violence, suppression, limiting others' freedom) is 'wrong', but if we should go deeper into this, I don't think harming is always wrong either. If a man makes a fortune on slaughtering animals, and slaughtering animals would be illegal, he would 'suffer' from that change. He would have to find a new job, and maybe not be able to afford to pay his loans. Maybe he wouldn't be able to see a dentist when he needed to, but I still think it would be better to 'harm' him than to let him slaughter animals.

Many vegans and non-vegans will agree with you that "the whole point of and need for ethics is founded on a concern for the suffering and happiness of others".

If we go further than that... maybe we don't really even need 'ethics'? I've never seen a child kill and eat a bird, cat or rat, and the reason isn't his vegan-like set of ethics. Killing a rat and eating just isn't something he wants to do (even if humans eat rats in some countries - if they are 'trained' to do it).

Most kids know what pain is, and they rarely cause physical pain others unless they are upset/lack sleep/have really low blood sugar/too young to see the consequences of what they do - need a catharsis and aren't mature enough to not let that outburst of feelings not come out as an attack on others. Even if most people are trained to accept violence against animals in the Western world, violence against animals or humans isn't a 'natural'/normal part of human nature.

A balanced child get no pleasure from hitting another child or torturing a mouse - and he doesn't even know what the word ethics means. If he's hungry, he'll choose a carrot over a trying to kill and eat a rabbit.

Furtermore, pain is more or less an objective phenomenon, and most people will agree that chicken in factory farms are treated badly. They suffer. There's some footage somewhere showing someone trying to kill a cow by throwing a huge stone on it's head while it's helplessly lying down, and I'm pretty sure even the average meat eater would find it hard to watch this, it's clearly/objectively an action of harming someone.

The problem arises when humans shall try to agree on when it's justifiable to harm someone, and when it's not. That's why I don't think we'll always get very far by telling a non-vegan that what he's doing is wrong - as long as he either feels it's right/justifiable/needed, or because he likes meat so much that he really doesn't care about what happens to the animals he eat.

We can say why we think it's wrong, what we feel about it, ask him if he really thinks he need it, suggest that he tries other alternatives and so on - but if it was as easy as saying that "eating meat deliberately causes unnecessary suffering and death, and therefore is unjustified/unethical", all non-vegans would go vegan after hearing that sentence. They don't.

The question is: why not?

Well, a poster responded saying something like "You don't get to decide for everyone what is ethical and what isn't."

Again, my response would be that based on that logic (that "I can't decide for everyone/others"), how is it that meat eaters think they can make decisions about others (animals') life and death?

IMO ethics is probably more about what we feel is right than what we think is right. Feelings and thoughts are a results of years of influence from people who do not think that eating meat is unjustified/unethical because it deliberately causes unnecessary suffering and death.

If Buddha would have been born in Belgium, Europe would probably have been dominated by Buddhism. It's dominated by Christianity. Most Buddhists/Christians/Muslims/Hindus probably feel that their religion (oops, let's not make this into another thread about religion, Rami! ) is something that hasn't been imposed on them, but something they have chosen. Likewise - people 'feel' that they have chosen to eat meat.

Maybe humans can't change anyone but ourselves, but at least we can all point others to a few things they may be interested in taking a new look at. Asking someone 'Are you sure you really have actively chosen to become a meat eater?' may have more effect that asking why they don't agree with viewpoints ("ethical values") that seem obvious for us - because there's a reason the same values aren't obvious for them.

[Korn]

there's really no point in trying to convert anybody to veganism.

I disagree, because people can be influenced - through media, movies, literature, cookbooks and so on. They are already massively influenced by those who disagree with us.

vegan propaganda videos on youtube are pretty damn effective... nobody likes seeing animals get tortured like that. well. most people.

For some people those animal torture videos may have a permanent effect, but for many others, they either go veg*n just for a while, or focus on getting meat from sources that treat animals better.

We are animals. They are animals. Animals eat animals. We are omnivores.

Some animals eat animals, others don't. As you may have noticed from other threads, I don't see that as a reason to claim that humans are natural omnivores. And - since we're talking about non-vegans who just don't get what we're talking about: A minority of vegans - and even a couple of pro vegan sites - are focused on claiming that humans are natural omnivores, which IMO makes it harder, and not easier for non-vegans to understand what we're talking about. But let's rather continue that discussion in another thread, if needed...

[Klytemnest]

Korn;460190]

Some animals eat animals, others don't. As you may have noticed from other threads, I don't see that as a reason to claim that humans are natural omnivores. And - since we're talking about non-vegans who just don't getwhat we're talking about: A minority vegans - and even a couple of pro vegan sites - are focused on claiming that humans are natural omnivores, which IMO makes it harder, and not easier for non-vegans to understand what we're talking about. But let's rather continue that discussion in another thread, if needed...

I don't think it matters whether we are natural omnivores or not. We are capable of eating and digesting meat, so I suppose that means we are omnivores. But the relevant fact is that we do not need to eat meat in order to live and be healthy. This renders the "argument from nature" irrelevant. Even if we have evolved to have the capacity to eat meat, that does not mean that we have to eat meat in order to survive. Besides, just because something is "natural" that does not mean it is "good."

Now, Korn, you should know better than to get me going on the subject of religion!

Sorry, it this hemisphere it's the middle of the night. I'll have to respond to your thoughtful post later.

Thanks for engaging in this conversation.

Rami

[ALexiconofLove]

The problem arises when humans shall try to agree on when it's justifiable to harm someone, and when it's not.

This is so true. All the problems I run into when thinking about ethics are based on this question. But isn't it an important question? Don't situations sometimes occur where one must decide whether or not to harm another being in some way for one's own preservation? If it's always unjustifiable to harm, shouldn't we just shoot ourselves where we stand, because all of our actions lead to harm (even if we don't mean them to).

[ALexiconofLove]

A minority of vegans - and even a couple of pro vegan sites - are focused on claiming that humans are natural omnivores, which IMO makes it harder, and not easier for non-vegans to understand what we're talking about.

There are also vegans and vegan sites focused on claiming that humans are natural herbivores or fruitarians, which I also think can also make things harder to understand for non-vegans, because isn't it a non-issue? We can survive on a plant-based diet, so what is "natural" is somewhat irrelevant... especially given that species can evolve to eat or not eat meat, to eat more meat, to eat less meat, etc. What is "natural" to a species at one point in history may not be natural to its descendents at some other point (or to its ancestors).

[Klytemnest]

There are also vegans and vegan sites focused on claiming that humans are natural herbivores or fruitarians, which I also think can also make things harder to understand for non-vegans, because isn't it a non-issue? We can survive on a plant-based diet, so what is "natural" is somewhat irrelevant... especially given that species can evolve to eat or not eat meat, to eat more meat, to eat less meat, etc. What is "natural" to a species at one point in history may not be natural to its descendents at some other point (or to its ancestors).

Well said. I agree entirely. This appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. Just because other omnivores eat meat that does not in any way mean that we must, need to, or even should. The question of whether or not meat is a necessary component of the human diet has already been settled - clearly, it is not. This is a fact that one would think would trump all appeals to nature.

But, much to my disillusionment, people just like to hold on to the arguments that support the point of view they need to prop up. And so they go on and on about how they were made to be omnivores by nature and that since this is their natural state, there is nothing wrong with killing innocent animals.

OK, well, then there is nothing wrong with enslaving human beings, torturing them and slaughtering them for their meat? After all, we are omnivores and nature has made us to eat meat, right? Cannibalism exists in nature, right? It's natural. So, there is nothing unethical about it?

[Klytemnest]

This is so true. All the problems I run into when thinking about ethics are based on this question. But isn't it an important question? Don't situations sometimes occur where one must decide whether or not to harm another being in some way for one's own preservation? If it's always unjustifiable to harm, shouldn't we just shoot ourselves where we stand, because all of our actions lead to harm (even if we don't mean them to).

Again, I am in complete agreement. Like it or not, we are driven by self-preservation. And sometimes, when acting out of this instinct, we end up harming other beings. Sure, it is a noble and heroic thing to sacrifice oneself in order to let another being survive (I am thinking of the end of Titanic...), but is it really unjustifiable to strive for one's own survival?

If I were dying of hunger and my only two options were to die of starvation of kill a chicken, I would kill the chicken and eat its flesh. Yes, it sucks big time, but frankly I would rather remain alive. Can you blame me? The reason I became a vegan was because I concluded that using animal products was unnecessary for me - who am privileged enough to live a comfortable life in an wealthy country. Therefore, I concluded, it was unjustifiable for me to contribute to the exploitation of innocent animals.

And yes, I agree with you that the issue of justification is an important one. Heck, it's everything in regard to ethics. Like it or not, we cannot possibly eliminate all suffering. All we can do is work to minimize it. And I HUGE step forward would be to minimize unnecessary suffering, to treat unnecessary suffering and death as unjustifiable.

The problem I have encountered is that this argument simply does not resonate with people. What's in it for them? Why should they give up the taste of meat? How does it make their lives better when animals are not tortured?

I suppose that is really the angle one should take when addresing the issue. Give up meat and your life will get better - you will enjoy better health, your planet will enjoy better health. The alleviation of animal suffering will then become a mere side-effect for us, vegans, to enjoy. It's just that for me better health and the health of the planet were secondary benefits... But hey, whatever works!

[powder]

I guess, being new to veganism, I feel a bit more evangelical than most. I once was lost but now I'm found, was blind but now I see... The idealist that I am, I still think that reason is invincible, when in fact, people appear to be much more interested in finding convenient justification for whatever they need to. Truth be damned.

I agree with you about following one's conscience and not tacitly accepting and supporting what is being done to animals. I just feel that I ought to do more than merely abstain from animal products. I feel there needs to be an ongoing conversation about why it is that animals should not be deliberately enslaved, tortured and killed - unnecessarily.

I'm glad to see you are continuing to ask questions after going vegan. Veganism is the starting point, not the endpoint. From all your posts, it seems you might benefit from reading the book Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? I'm particularly concerned with the sentiment expressed at the end of this thread: "whatever works." After all some people do go vegan for environmental or health reasons (even though neither issue demands veganism over a plant-based diet. The only solid grounds for becoming vegan (and not simply a strict or pure vegetarian) are to abstain from using or consuming animals for ethical reasons (i.e., our use or consumption of them is unjustifiable).

Unfortunately nobody ever asked me to provide justification for it. If someone had perhaps it would have triggered something in mind and I would have become a vegan sooner. I never had to justifiy it, even to myself. Whatever pangs of guilt I might have had as a child, when I first found out that meat was actually the flesh of a once-living animal, they disappeared because everybody was doing it. So I never really thought about it until I thought about ethics and what ethics are - ethics in general. THAT is what made me question the morality of unsing animal products....

Yes, I agree that we are all influenced all the time. I sure was - that's why I became a vegan. And I guess I don't understand why the reasons that convinced me don't work on everyone. I don't understand how someone could say that the unnecessary enslavement, torture and killing of innocent animals is justifiable.

OK, let's try something. Explain to me why it is that harming soming is always wrong. Right now I disagree with you. I want to see if reason works on me.

The word "justify" (or justifiable/justification) is key for all three paragraphs quoted above.

[Korn]

There are also vegans and vegan sites focused on claiming that humans are natural herbivores or fruitarians, which I also think can also make things harder to understand for non-vegans, because isn't it a non-issue?

It's not a non-issue for people who think that humans are not naturally equipped to kill animals, tear their skin and flesh apart and eat/digest it without unwanted health side effects - and/or for people who claim that humans are not natural omnivores because 'we are equipped with the mental capacity to catch/kill animals, so we should do it'. The main thing is of course that it's not a non-issue for all those non-vegans who use 'it's natural to eat meat' as an argument against going vegan.

Not only do I think that it's relevant, I think promoting the idea that we are natural omnivores is a main reason that so few people are vegans. The 'We are natural omnivores but 'can survive' on a vegan diet'-idea makes it sound like a vegan diet is either unnatural for humans, or only almost as good as an omnivorous diet, but there are loads of statistics showing health issues associated with an omnivorous diet. But again - we already have a number of threads about that topic already, which you'll see if you go to the tags window and click on 'natural' or 'human evolution'.

[ALexiconofLove]

Not only do I think that it's relevant, I think promoting the idea that we are natural omnivores is a main reason that so few people are vegans.

I think so few people are vegans because so many people like eating meat and don't think about where it comes from.

The 'We are natural omnivores but 'can survive' on a vegan diet'-idea makes it sound like a vegan diet is either unnatural for humans, or only almost as good as an omnivorous diet, but there are loads of statistics showing health issues associated with an omnivorous diet.

Do the statistics show the health issues associated with an omnivorous diet in general, or the health issues associated with today's omnivorous diet? People in Western countries today eat huge amounts of meat (almost certainly a lot more than human beings did in the recent past), and they eat meat from animals that have been bred away from natural forms. The animals are full of antibiotics, hormones, etc.... If we rest our argument for Veganism on an argument about health or what's best for humans, we are basing our argument on something that can be falsified later. What if scientists found that it was healthiest to eat a little organic meat each year, or to include egg whites or what not? Then our argument would be falsified.

I like to explain Veganism to people based on ethics rather than food science or evolution because I think it puts our argument on firmer footing, but also because that's truly what I believe. I don't think a Vegan diet is the right choice because it's healthy or natural for humans, I think it's the right choice because it eliminates unnecessary cruelty. The status of human beings as omnivores or herbivores (classifications that are actually not all that easy to make for every animal in every situation, and classifications which change as animals evolve) is irrelevant as long as humans can thrive on an herbivorous diet.

[Korn]

think so few people are vegans because so many people like eating meat and don't think about where it comes from.

Sure - I was thinking of those who are exposed to people who promote vegan viewpoints and still aren't interested - which of course have several reason for not going vegan, but the idea some vegans send out (eating meat is natural, eating vegan isn't, we still suggest that you eat vegan) sends out a very confusing signal.

What if scientists found that it was healthiest to eat a little organic meat each year, or to include egg whites or what not? Then our argument would be falsified.

No, it wouldn't, because 'healthiest' is always a relative thing, since there are so many variations of eg. eating vegan that isn't defined as the vegan diet. I'm sure there are useful nutrients in worms, dog brains and what not, but even if you'll get more nutrients in your body by eating dog brains or egg whites, that doesn't mean that that diet is healthier than 'a vegan' diet, because there isn't 'a' vegan diet. 'A vegan diet' can be anything.

You have seen this thread... right?

Nutrient deficiencies more common in meat eaters than in vegans

If you have any evidence or indications that humans are 'meant to' eat meat, that it's natural for humans, that eating meat or dairy products causes no unwanted side effects... please post a message about this in one of the threads about human evolution or the 'naturalness' of food (but please read some of the old posts first). The topic has been discussed on this forum over several years, and I have yet to see one person post something that have convinced me that we are 'natural omnivores'. In a way it is an important topic, because so many people are more or less trained to believe that whatever their parents and grandparents ate has to be 'natural'. It is used as an excuse to eat meat by many, even if humans are very different from animals that eat meat.

Even apes who may eat up to circa 5% insects, larvae and other animal products are used as way to explain that since they are our 'closest relatives', it's 'natural' for humans to eat meat (a lot more than 5%). My closest relatives aren't apes, it's other humans, of which there are hundreds of millions that don't eat meat. Since there's no reason to believe that we are equipped to behave or eat the same way a species that was genetically divided from humans 2 million years ago, the 'closest relatives' thing is a totally irrelevant as a reference for our diet, and if it would have been used as a reference for our diet, we should eat insects, not beef anyway.

Not only that, but I consider our Indian members on this forum a way much closer references/'relatives' than apes, and people have been living on a meat free diet in India for thousands of years. Besides, some of my actual closest relatives (near family) are eating meat, and that's not dictating my diet anyway!

Some vegans almost seem 'obsessed' with promoting that idea of humans being natural omnivores. They use arguments like 'I know x omnivores who aren't sick, or chronic diseases rare in hunter-gatherer societies, so humans are natural omnivores'. Even if people don't get sick from eating certain amounts of something (like leaves from trees, paper, dirt, sand, mud) this isn't an evidence that we are natural mud (etc.) eaters... right?

[cobweb]

are some vegans really obsessed with saying that humans are omnivores?
personally i believe that humans are natural herbivores but are flexible enough to exist on many different diets (exist as opposed to flourish).

when a meat-eater argues with me that 'we're omnivores' i just say that we can be whatever we choose to be, and there are many healthy people living happily on plant foods.

[Korn]

Obsessed is probably a too strong word.

[ALexiconofLove]

when a meat-eater argues with me that 'we're omnivores' i just say that we can be whatever we choose to be, and there are many healthy people living happily on plant foods.

Sounds perfect.

[Korn]

Hi ALexiconofLove, I've responded to your belief about humans being omnivorous in another thread - here - and since I partially agree that discussions about 'natural' aren't relevant ethical questions, and this is a thread about ethical questions, I created a new thread out your post - here: Vegan/non-vegan: does 'natural' matter?

[ALexiconofLove]

Sheesh, you've now created three posts stating that I believe humans are omnivores, which was something I thought a few months ago and not something I stated in this argument (I don't think, anyway!).

[Klytemnest]

ALexiconofLove;460618]I think so few people are vegans because so many people like eating meat and don't think about where it comes from.

I agree. It really was that simple for me. I loved the taste of meat. I ate meat every day of my life. And I saw no reason to stop - nor did it ever cross my mind that I should or ought to. Like I said earlier, I was never asked to justify my dietary choices.

Do the statistics show the health issues associated with an omnivorous diet in general, or the health issues associated with today's omnivorous diet? People in Western countries today eat huge amounts of meat (almost certainly a lot more than human beings did in the recent past), and they eat meat from animals that have been bred away from natural forms. The animals are full of antibiotics, hormones, etc.... If we rest our argument for Veganism on an argument about health or what's best for humans, we are basing our argument on something that can be falsified later. What if scientists found that it was healthiest to eat a little organic meat each year, or to include egg whites or what not? Then our argument would be falsified.

I like to explain Veganism to people based on ethics rather than food science or evolution because I think it puts our argument on firmer footing, but also because that's truly what I believe. I don't think a Vegan diet is the right choice because it's healthy or natural for humans, I think it's the right choice because it eliminates unnecessary cruelty.

Exactly. For you and me it's about primarily about ethics - ethics founded on the concern for the suffering and/or happiness of other sentient beings . That was the argument that persuaded me, and this is the reason why I am still a vegan. Even if scientists were to announce tomorrow that eating one chicken breast per week would prolong one's life by 10 years, I would remain a vegan for the rest of my life - because health concerns are only secondary for me. And as I have said before, what is "natural" for us humans is simply not relevant to me. Of course it is "natural" for us to eat meat. I did it for most of my life. But why does it matter? It has already been proven that eating meat is not necessary for our health, longevity or survival. Heck, abstaining from meat may even lead to better health and survival. So, since meat consumption is unnecessary for those of us who are privileged enough to live in countries where it is easy to meet one's dietary needs from non-animal sources, what justification can there possibly be for continuing to contribute to the exploitation and killing of animals? None.

The problem is that there is no arbiter to whom to be accountable. I feel accountable to myself and my own conscience. But for several decades my conscience did not prevent me from ordering the Santa Fe Chicken Sandwich.

The status of human beings as omnivores or herbivores (classifications that are actually not all that easy to make for every animal in every situation, and classifications which change as animals evolve) is irrelevant as long as humans can thrive on an herbivorous diet.

I am in complete agreement. I get you. I just get you, Lexy.

[ALexiconofLove]

I just get you, Lexy.

Wow, that was hot.

[Klytemnest]

Wow, that was hot.

Wasn't it, though?

But seriously... When I read your posts I cannot help but think to myself "S/he is my kind of trash..." We vegans are a surprisingly diverse bunch. We have not all arrived at veganism by taking the same path. I think you and I probably took similar paths. Our arguments are basically the same. I love that you get me.

Ciao,

Rami

[ALexiconofLove]

I feel the same way. It's nice having you out there, because otherwise I would feel like such an oddball.

If for some awful reason you're ever in Indiana, we'll have to hang out.

Peace,
Lexy

[Klytemnest]

I feel the same way. It's nice having you out there, because otherwise I would feel like such an oddball.

If for some awful reason you're ever in Indiana, we'll have to hang out.

Peace,
Lexy

You're a dear. Yes, it would be lovely to hang out. Can we invite Korn too? Any good vegan restaurants out there?

We should probably continue this shameless love fest privately...

Hugs,

Rami

[RationalVegan74]

Klytemnest,

as you say, ethics are not subjective. The fact that some individuals choose to believe that they are has no more to do with reality than do the beliefs of a person who assumes the world is flat. People whose ethics are not based on reason will necessarily contradict themselves in moral code due to the anomalies in the logic structure of their ideas. The more irrational the ethics, the more contradictions it will contain.

I frequently endure this irritatingly common idea that all truth is relative, that there are no absolutes. A bit of consideration of this family of assertions leads promptly to the conclusion that it cannot possibly be true. It is an implied paradox: "There are absolutely no truths. (And this is an absolute truth.)" Regardless of how we choose to interpret this paradox, we reach the inevitable conclusion that there must be some absolute truths, some guidelines that any sapient entity, regardless of individual circumstances, must internalize if reasoning is performed carefully enough and long enough.

To assume there are no universal ethical principles is to say that "anything goes." Maybe I have a more vivid imagination than most, but I don't have to imagine very long before I can think of some things that wouldn't "go" anywhere, that essentially no person would consider viable as guidelines for ethical behavior. Our society is overflowing with laws and mores and customs based on absolutely nothing reasonable or practical, but a very small percentage of the rules do have a logical foundation, even if most people are unaware of it.

Consider, for instance, the idea that somewhere in the universe there is a society of approximately equal mortal beings for whom it is perfectly acceptable--even thought of as one of a great pleasures of life--to end the lives of others in that society more or less randomly according to opportunity. Since this action necessarily deprives the victim of the ability to enjoy that pleasure ever again (among numerous other pleasures), no individual in that society would ever wish to be the victim, only the perpetrator. How could this society possibly maintain the notion unanimously that this activity was ethically acceptable?

If we grant that there are pleasures to be had in life that cannot be had in death, and that we are all comparably vulnerable to being murdered, then no rational person would grant that giving everyone free rein to perform murder would be desirable. I am aware of no society on Earth that does grant such free rein, and there seems to be a logical basis for this rule. It stands to reason that there are probably other logical ethical rules, too, if we look for them carefully.

The respectful treatment of sentient beings similar to us is such a rule.

I'm perfectly aware that there may be no way at all to get through the denial layer of the person with whom you were conversing, but logic and the nature of our universe dictate correct ethics to exactly the same degree that they dictate correct physics. One's personal upbringing has no bearing on reality or natural consequences, only on the nature of one's misconceptions.

It would be very nice if society could come to understand this inescapable truth.