Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Replies
-
I would hope I would never eat another human being, but I have no problem giving up meat.Honestly, I just don't see the big moral dilemma either way. But then if it really came down to it and I found myself in a situation like the Donner party, I would eat a human as well... And if my doctor told me I needed to cut out all meat products, then I would do that too.... I find this all as much of a moral dilemma as I do killing yet another mosquito.
I would hope I would never have to either...0 -
My only moral objection to eating meat is the deplorable conditions that the animals live in with factory farming. If I'm going to eat meat -- and I do on occasion, after bouts with both being vegan and vegetarian -- I prefer to buy local from cage-free, organic farms.0
-
I've actually learned much from a vegan in this thread and I've done some research. I am a meat-eater, but I do not want to condone slaughterhouses and cruelty to animals. I'm doing some research to see how I cn eat meat without supporting that.0
-
I don't think the lines we draw should be arbitrary nor do I think they cannot be called in question once they are drawn.
Agreed. I always say, if you can't provide support for an argument, then how can you win? People have, in debates past, changed the way I think of certain things, because it in turn makes ME delve deeper into my way of thinking on the subject(s), and helps support my thinking, or forces me to change it.
While this thread is nothing new for me, as far as meat eating vs. vegetarian lifestyles, one thing I do struggle with in my life is whether or not I should eat meat. So I enjoyed reading this entire thing, as it's a personal inner struggle, if you will.
0 -
Summertime, MacPatty(i) and Kimmy - you inspire! You are each at different stages in your curiosity and research regarding what you eat but you are all curious, aware, and engaged. I thought I finally had it all figured out with a pescetarian diet but then had to amend that slightly when I became seriously allergic to soy isolate protein recently. :sad: My research, though, and curiosity allowed me the ability to flex appropriately when the universe seemed to deem I needed to. We all have to do the best we can and really, with valid information easily available, the only excuse is willful ignorance.
Three cheers to you three :drinker: :drinker: :drinker:
-Debra0 -
:drinker:Summertime, MacPatty(i) and Kimmy - you inspire! You are each at different stages in your curiosity and research regarding what you eat but you are all curious, aware, and engaged. I thought I finally had it all figured out with a pescetarian diet but then had to amend that slightly when I became seriously allergic to soy isolate protein recently. :sad: My research, though, and curiosity allowed me the ability to flex appropriately when the universe seemed to deem I needed to. We all have to do the best we can and really, with valid information easily available, the only excuse is willful ignorance.
Three cheers to you three :drinker: :drinker: :drinker:
-Debra0 -
1. The power of "transcendence" is the capacity that humans have to experience and freely direct themselves towards the ultimate reality (God). This gives inestimable value to each human life since union with God (the ultimate goal of our transcendent longings) is infinitely valuable (deriving its value from the infinite good which is God). Human life is then valuable because of its capacity for union with God, the infinitely valuable reality. Our value is derived from and dependent on God as the final goal of our longings/desires. Other species do not have this power of transcendence and therefore their value is found entirely in the limited horizon of material, sensory, worldly existence. These limited "goals" or aims of their desires correspond to the finite, limited value of the creatures themselves. So, my point is that the value of a "life" is measured by the "end" or "goal" towards which it is oriented (by intrinsic orientation and capacity).
*********************
Right. And do you know that your definition would be utterly meaningless to an atheist. Actually it is uttlerly meaningless to me. It is a random definition designed to tautologically prove your argument, i.e., the definition is so totally meaningless but includes the conclusion you wish to make. I.e., Humans define god. Only humans can achieve god. Therefore, animals can be eaten. This is utter garbage, More Catholic hokus pokus. Do you want to have a serious discussion or do you want to keep pitching dogma. Philosophically and practically this definition is simply not viable. For the following reasons:
1. Not all humans believe in god.
2. You cannot prove there is such a thing as the "infinite good." And if the history of the Catholic Church is the example you hold up, the only thing you might be able to prove is that there is infinite evil.
3. If you are going to discuss the world use the standard model of physics. You cannot postulate a god, you can only speculate about he/she/it.
4. I do not accept your definition of god and most rational people, including I suspect most people born Catholic (like my wife) would not either.
5. You cannot prove that animals do not have this mystical quality you have defined.
6. Your term is vague, amorphous and rests on other vague amorphous terms, like "union with god."
7. Your definition is, as I said tautological, and assumes that everyone is going to accept your definition of god, which I certainly don't.
8. Actually, you have not defined god, other than to make it something that the whole house of cards depends upon
9. You cannot or have not proven that human existence transcends the material
10. You cannot, and have not proven that our value as a species depends upon god, but you have postulated it.
11.You cannot and have not proven that if our species depends upon god, other species do not depend upon god.
12. Your dichotomy between infinite and finite is nonsense and meaningless.
And actually I have to go to my health club in five minutes, and I cannot complete this list, but I do not accept your definition and I will not argue it since it is built upon a lot of mystical crap you haven't defined, and which I doubt can be meaningfully defined.
I see God as full of compassion, not full of whatever your stuff is. A being of infinite compassion would not condone pain or murder.
***************************0 -
On my way out the door. Your definition is circular: Man defines god. Defining god defines humans. Even a Jesuit wouldn't buy this argument.0
-
Okay, at work. Good workout, an hour strong cardio, half hour resistance. Busy day today, so I won't be able to spend much time here this morning. Most likely no time until I get home. Tomorrow 25 mile bike race.
Anyway, there are so many things wrong with your definition I could probably spend all day just compiling a list. But I think I can cut right to the chase.
Is your God a God of infinite love?
If yes, does infinite love include infinite compassion?
If yes, how can you have infinite compassion and NOT include all sentient beings?
Bytheway, for purposes of the above question, I assume God exists. In reality, you need to prove that from first principles, or at least show some coherent basis for belief in God. (Because my Priest told me so is not a coherent reason.) My ethics, as I told you, is not based upon God, but upon universal principles such as the Categorical Imperative. An atheist could accept my ethics without giving up his atheism. In that sense, and others it is far broader than your ethics, and , dare I say, more universal.0 -
So I have read through a lot of this debate and I think a lot of good points have been made by both sides, but I think in the end the vegetarians who do not eat meat for moral issues are akin to pro-lifers who think life begins at conception. Once a person decides, in both cases, that something is a conscious life form and has value they consider it's killing murder. Those who do not think it is conscious do not believe it is murder. Once the lines have been drawn, there really isn't much way for either side to back away from their stance.
I was thinking the same thing. And what I am getting from this conversation is people who thing it's morally wrong to kill and eat a an animal but it's perfectly fine to abort a human fetus.. :huh:0 -
So I have read through a lot of this debate and I think a lot of good points have been made by both sides, but I think in the end the vegetarians who do not eat meat for moral issues are akin to pro-lifers who think life begins at conception. Once a person decides, in both cases, that something is a conscious life form and has value they consider it's killing murder. Those who do not think it is conscious do not believe it is murder. Once the lines have been drawn, there really isn't much way for either side to back away from their stance.
I was thinking the same thing. And what I am getting from this conversation is people who thing it's morally wrong to kill and eat a an animal but it's perfectly fine to abort a human fetus.. :huh:
Call me biased, but my thinking goes the other way - I am always surprised when the same people who argue for the rights of a cluster of cells take no issue with the needless slaughter of other sentient creatures.0 -
So I have read through a lot of this debate and I think a lot of good points have been made by both sides, but I think in the end the vegetarians who do not eat meat for moral issues are akin to pro-lifers who think life begins at conception. Once a person decides, in both cases, that something is a conscious life form and has value they consider it's killing murder. Those who do not think it is conscious do not believe it is murder. Once the lines have been drawn, there really isn't much way for either side to back away from their stance.
I was thinking the same thing. And what I am getting from this conversation is people who thing it's morally wrong to kill and eat a an animal but it's perfectly fine to abort a human fetus.. :huh:
Okay, if you are referring to me, do not make assumptions. This is a philosophical discussion. Just because I ask a question like, "If someone has a low IQ why can't we eat them." Do not assume that I am advocating eating people with low IQs. That is NOT how a philosophical discuission works. When I truly advocate something, it will not be ambiguous.0 -
So I have read through a lot of this debate and I think a lot of good points have been made by both sides, but I think in the end the vegetarians who do not eat meat for moral issues are akin to pro-lifers who think life begins at conception. Once a person decides, in both cases, that something is a conscious life form and has value they consider it's killing murder. Those who do not think it is conscious do not believe it is murder. Once the lines have been drawn, there really isn't much way for either side to back away from their stance.
I was thinking the same thing. And what I am getting from this conversation is people who thing it's morally wrong to kill and eat a an animal but it's perfectly fine to abort a human fetus.. :huh:
Call me biased, but my thinking goes the other way - I am always surprised when the same people who argue for the rights of a cluster of cells take no issue with the needless slaughter of other sentient creatures.
Hear! Hear!0 -
Let's try not making this personal, shall we? You ONLY know my Jesuit background because of my private conversation with your wife.. Even a Jesuit wouldn't buy this argument.0 -
So I have read through a lot of this debate and I think a lot of good points have been made by both sides, but I think in the end the vegetarians who do not eat meat for moral issues are akin to pro-lifers who think life begins at conception. Once a person decides, in both cases, that something is a conscious life form and has value they consider it's killing murder. Those who do not think it is conscious do not believe it is murder. Once the lines have been drawn, there really isn't much way for either side to back away from their stance.
I was thinking the same thing. And what I am getting from this conversation is people who thing it's morally wrong to kill and eat a an animal but it's perfectly fine to abort a human fetus.. :huh:
Call me biased, but my thinking goes the other way - I am always surprised when the same people who argue for the rights of a cluster of cells take no issue with the needless slaughter of other sentient creatures.
Hear! Hear!
I wasn't linking the two things philosphically, but the arguments remind me of each other. Once a person has been convinced something is murder, it's easy to see why they feel so strongly about it. That's the only point I was trying to make.0 -
1. The power of "transcendence" is the capacity that humans have to experience and freely direct themselves towards the ultimate reality (God). This gives inestimable value to each human life since union with God (the ultimate goal of our transcendent longings) is infinitely valuable (deriving its value from the infinite good which is God). Human life is then valuable because of its capacity for union with God, the infinitely valuable reality. Our value is derived from and dependent on God as the final goal of our longings/desires. Other species do not have this power of transcendence and therefore their value is found entirely in the limited horizon of material, sensory, worldly existence. These limited "goals" or aims of their desires correspond to the finite, limited value of the creatures themselves.So, my point is that the value of a "life" is measured by the "end" or "goal" towards which it is oriented (by intrinsic orientation and capacity). So by your definition in # 1, the only thing people who participate in dog fighting are guilty of is destruction of property? Because with that position I can not see how animal cruelty would be a big deal. As far as this whole transendence argument, it sounds great and fantastical and all, but I don't buy into it.
Adrian,I do not see this as an either/or situation. It is not either animals are exactly the same as humans and therefore should be treated identically or we can treat them any way we wish. I think animal cruelty is wrong but not because there is no difference between us and them.0 -
Summertime, MacPatty(i) and Kimmy - you inspire! You are each at different stages in your curiosity and research regarding what you eat but you are all curious, aware, and engaged.
I will begin participating in "Meatless Mondays" this Monday!0 -
I understand the associaton you were making, Adrian. My reply to this would be that I can explain WHY I believe the murder of human beings is wrong. I ground my morality in God and Christianity (regardless if anyone else buys into that). However, I do not see how a vegan or vegetarian can proclaim that it is morally wrong to eat meat because Jesus was a vegetarian (they are then grounding their morality in Jesus and Christianity), but have no source to back that up. That was my initial point of contention.I wasn't linking the two things philosphically, but the arguments remind me of each other. Once a person has been convinced something is murder, it's easy to see why they feel so strongly about it. That's the only point I was trying to make.0 -
Let's try not making this personal, shall we? You ONLY know my Jesuit background because of my private conversation with your wife.. Even a Jesuit wouldn't buy this argument.
You are right. That was tasteless. However I did think about the fact that I knew what you had told my wife, and decided I would make the comment anyway, because it is what I would have said had I NOT known what you told her. I did think you would think that I only made that comment because of your conversation. But I also considered that if I didn't make the comment when I otherwise would have, that would be hypocritical.
So there you go. When it comes to debating, I am a savage.0 -
Summertime, MacPatty(i) and Kimmy - you inspire! You are each at different stages in your curiosity and research regarding what you eat but you are all curious, aware, and engaged.
I will begin participating in "Meatless Mondays" this Monday!
Wow! It must have been something my wife said, because it certainly wasn't anything I said.0 -
So I have read through a lot of this debate and I think a lot of good points have been made by both sides, but I think in the end the vegetarians who do not eat meat for moral issues are akin to pro-lifers who think life begins at conception. Once a person decides, in both cases, that something is a conscious life form and has value they consider it's killing murder. Those who do not think it is conscious do not believe it is murder. Once the lines have been drawn, there really isn't much way for either side to back away from their stance.
I was thinking the same thing. And what I am getting from this conversation is people who thing it's morally wrong to kill and eat a an animal but it's perfectly fine to abort a human fetus.. :huh:
Okay, if you are referring to me, do not make assumptions. This is a philosophical discussion. Just because I ask a question like, "If someone has a low IQ why can't we eat them." Do not assume that I am advocating eating people with low IQs. That is NOT how a philosophical discuission works. When I truly advocate something, it will not be ambiguous.
I wasn't referring to anyone in general. Just find it ironic that some people are against killing animals but not human fetuses. The same way people who are against the death penalty are also pro-choice.0 -
So I have read through a lot of this debate and I think a lot of good points have been made by both sides, but I think in the end the vegetarians who do not eat meat for moral issues are akin to pro-lifers who think life begins at conception. Once a person decides, in both cases, that something is a conscious life form and has value they consider it's killing murder. Those who do not think it is conscious do not believe it is murder. Once the lines have been drawn, there really isn't much way for either side to back away from their stance.
I was thinking the same thing. And what I am getting from this conversation is people who thing it's morally wrong to kill and eat a an animal but it's perfectly fine to abort a human fetus.. :huh:
Call me biased, but my thinking goes the other way - I am always surprised when the same people who argue for the rights of a cluster of cells take no issue with the needless slaughter of other sentient creatures.
Both of which have heartbeats. I suppose I would be more empathatic if they were against the slaughter of both.0 -
I have a problem with this myself! Same for the pro-lifers who believe abortion is wrong, but then support the death penalty.The same way people who are against the death penalty are also pro-choice.0 -
I understand the associaton you were making, Adrian. My reply to this would be that I can explain WHY I believe the murder of human beings is wrong. I ground my morality in God and Christianity (regardless if anyone else buys into that). However, I do not see how a vegan or vegetarian can proclaim that it is morally wrong to eat meat because Jesus was a vegetarian (they are then grounding their morality in Jesus and Christianity), but have no source to back that up. That was my initial point of contention.I wasn't linking the two things philosphically, but the arguments remind me of each other. Once a person has been convinced something is murder, it's easy to see why they feel so strongly about it. That's the only point I was trying to make.
As I have said many times there are many, many versions of Jesus and Christianity. I have come to my own conclusions about both, and as I have also said before, I am a Chruch of one. I do not believe you must have a deity on which to base morality. In fact I have my own opinion on Jesus and Christianity, which we are likely never to get to since we are continually debating Catholic Dogma.0 -
Now here is a philosophical discussion... which came first? a diety or morals?0
-
As I have said many times there are many, many versions of Jesus and Christianity. I have come to my own conclusions about both, and as I have also said before, I am a Chruch of one.
Oh, I didn't realize we weren't speaking of the same Jesus and the same Christianity. So, YOUR Jesus was a vegetarian. Please educate me on your Jesus and what sources you have that prove he was a vegetarian. If it's simply because you WANT to believe Jesus was a vegetarian, that's fine. I have no problem with people making their own choices. It's when you start making statements to others that it is wrong to do something because Jesus didn't do it. Like I said, I assumed we were speaking of the same Jesus, so that may have been when the confusion began.0 -
Now here is a philosophical discussion... which came first? a diety or morals?
Well, since atheists have their own moral system, I guess morals came first.0 -
Now here is a philosophical discussion... which came first? a diety or morals?
A person who does not believe in God can have morals. I do not think one has to have a diety to be a moral human being. I have friends who are atheists, and they are kind, loving people who do not go around killing people or eating babies. A deeper philosophical discussion on morality would take us into what "grounds" someone in their morality. Adrian and I have danced this one before.
0 -
Now here is a philosophical discussion... which came first? a diety or morals?
Well, since atheists have their own moral system, I guess morals came first.
But were there atheists at the beginning of humanity? Seeing as it seemed like every tribe and people group had their own version of god (albeit similar... this is even evident after the crossing of the ice bridge from the Eastern Hemisphere to the Western)... and while atheists may have their "own" moral system... it still seems to mirror off the same ole, same ole...0 -
I'm not saying that there aren't good and moral atheists... I know that there are... I am friends with quite a few... and I have no problem with them... some of them live their life better than those that are religious.0
This discussion has been closed.