Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.
Replies
-
As far as ethics go, parents can explain their positions and let the kids choose, vegan or otherwise. As far as health goes, I think all parents can do is the best they can and hope they're right...even though they won't be from time to time.
Personally, I don't happen to believe there's anything wrong with eating dead animals as a generalization, though I'm sure there would complications and exceptions to that. Being part of the society I'm in, I still think it's taboo to eat other people, for example. Other people obviously think there's a problem with eating "animals" and that's fine. At some point it just boils down to people holding different values as "Truths."
I do think there are ethical problems with the way we raise the animals that we do generally consider to be acceptable food options. I'm against torture, though not killing. I think animals can be killed humanely. There's definitely contention on that point, I realize.
Interesting that we humans tend to separate ourselves from animals. Last I checked, however, the Animal Kingdom includes all animals, which includes humans. What is it that keeps us from acknowledging all living things as a right to natural death? It's what we humans strive for yet we disallow it for food? ...because we can? In the springtime, we love seeing the new calves out in the fields with their mothers, not realizing that none of them gets the luxury in this world to have a natural death.
Interesting, too, that those who give thanks for their sustenance mostly thank the externals - like those who prepared and grew the food, and God who created the food. I rarely hear anyone give thanks for the actual food that died so that we could eat that meal. In fact, no animal (human or other) can survive, let alone thrive, without chlorophyll which is found only in plants. One would think that both the brown, red, and green food we eat would get more respect!
-Debra
And you are amazing.0 -
My question is, would you let your child choose? Or force them into eating how you eat? Is it too much to make seperate meals? Or is it worth it to let your child feel in control?
The way these questions read to me--a vegetarian parent who is raising her children vegetarian:
1. "My question is, would you let your child choose?" No one would simply answer 'No' to this question, since s/he would worry about coming across like a controlling monster. It's a closed question, much like 'How often do you beat your wife?' .'
2. "Or force them into eating how you eat?" The word 'force' is a strongly emotive word. Again this is a closed question. Would anyone answer this way: "Yes, I'm a horrible parent who forces my kids to be little clones of me. I tolerate no individuality in my children".
3. "Is it too much to make separate meals?" The phraseology here implies laziness on the part of vegetarian parents. Most vegetarian parents aren't lazy, but are making active decisions to feed their families how they see fit.
4. "Or is it worth it to let your child feel in control." Again, who's going to answer 'No' to this. It's another closed question.0 -
Interesting that we humans tend to separate ourselves from animals. Last I checked, however, the Animal Kingdom includes all animals, which includes humans. What is it that keeps us from acknowledging all living things as a right to natural death? It's what we humans strive for yet we disallow it for food? ...because we can? In the springtime, we love seeing the new calves out in the fields with their mothers, not realizing that none of them gets the luxury in this world to have a natural death.
Interesting, too, that those who give thanks for their sustenance mostly thank the externals - like those who prepared and grew the food, and God who created the food. I rarely hear anyone give thanks for the actual food that died so that we could eat that meal. In fact, no animal (human or other) can survive, let alone thrive, without chlorophyll which is found only in plants. One would think that both the brown, red, and green food we eat would get more respect!
Although I can understand, I think, where you are coming from, I have to disagree. Humans are fundamentally different from other animals and the evidence of that is that we are having this discussion. I don't see anything like this discussion going on in the animal world (beyond humans). Human life is different from animal life insofar as we are capable of activities and understanding and choosing that go beyond mere animal existence. If you can show me that animal life other than human life is able to be concerned about their existence, the morality of taking their lives, questions of meaning, etc., then we can make a reasonable comparison. I don't see any evidence of that. Having said that, I don't think animal life should be treated as "nothing." We should be grateful for the human benefits derived from the use of other animals and plants. I don't see anything wrong with keeping that in mind as part of our overall attitude of gratitude as we receive the food (and other things) necessary for our own lives in this world.
I have to disagree here - I don't think that just because other animals don't possess the same intellect gives us carte blanche to slaughter them. To make a bit of an extreme comparison, there are humans who lack the mental capacity to ponder their own existence, question the meaning of life, etc - but that doesn't give us permission to eat them.
I don't believe it's the question of "can they think" or "can they reason" rather than "can they suffer". In 2012, the consumption of meat is completely unnecessary for human survival - we can thrive on a meatless diet. Any consumption of animal flesh or secretion is done out of pure greed and gustatory pleasure, no matter how much "gratitude" we show.
^0 -
I have to disagree here - I don't think that just because other animals don't possess the same intellect gives us carte blanche to slaughter them. To make a bit of an extreme comparison, there are humans who lack the mental capacity to ponder their own existence, question the meaning of life, etc - but that doesn't give us permission to eat them.
I don't believe it's the question of "can they think" or "can they reason" rather than "can they suffer". In 2012, the consumption of meat is completely unnecessary for human survival - we can thrive on a meatless diet. Any consumption of animal flesh or secretion is done out of pure greed and gustatory pleasure, no matter how much "gratitude" we show
No, we can't eat humans that lack the capacity to think, ponder their own existence, etc. I am not arguing that humans are valuable only when they are using the powers of rationality, freedom, etc. I'm arguing that humans are intrinsically valuable because they are the sort of creatures who can exercise such powers (under the right conditions). Consequently, infants, young children, the mentally retarded, the comatose and those who sleep (and any I left out) are still intrinsically valuable because, again, of the kind of creatures they are, not merely because of what they happen to be do doing at the moment. I suppose the question I have for you is: What is it that makes animal life intrinsically valuable and what makes it morally wrong to take the life of an animal? I've explained why I think it is wrong to take human life: We are capable of transcending our material existence in rational thought, free actions, love, hope, and, I believe, unending happiness in union with God. I don't see evidence for any of these in other animals. So, again, what basis do you have for saying it is morally wrong to take the life of an animal?
I do not see why being born a human automatically gives you a birthright to lord power over the other living beings that share this Earth.
What makes human life more intrinsically valuable and morally wrong to take, just because they are human? Oh, because we are 'capable of transcending our material existence in rational thought, free actions, love, hope, and, I believe, unending happiness in union with God. I don't see evidence for any of these in other animals.'. So why does that mean it's not okay to skin us alive and keep us locked up for life before slitting our throats, but it's okay to do that to an animal?
Whatever the superficial differences, both animals and humans can feel pain and fear. Both will fight to live. That's all that matters.
By the way, there is PLENTY of evidence to suggest animals can feel emotion and show it too. I'm pretty sure animals have rational thought - my dog certainly shows it. And dropping a ball down the stairs and looking at me until I throw it for him doesn't sound like instinct to me. Animals do have free actions.0 -
Interesting that we humans tend to separate ourselves from animals. Last I checked, however, the Animal Kingdom includes all animals, which includes humans. What is it that keeps us from acknowledging all living things as a right to natural death? It's what we humans strive for yet we disallow it for food? ...because we can? In the springtime, we love seeing the new calves out in the fields with their mothers, not realizing that none of them gets the luxury in this world to have a natural death.
Interesting, too, that those who give thanks for their sustenance mostly thank the externals - like those who prepared and grew the food, and God who created the food. I rarely hear anyone give thanks for the actual food that died so that we could eat that meal. In fact, no animal (human or other) can survive, let alone thrive, without chlorophyll which is found only in plants. One would think that both the brown, red, and green food we eat would get more respect!
Although I can understand, I think, where you are coming from, I have to disagree. Humans are fundamentally different from other animals and the evidence of that is that we are having this discussion. I don't see anything like this discussion going on in the animal world (beyond humans). Human life is different from animal life insofar as we are capable of activities and understanding and choosing that go beyond mere animal existence. If you can show me that animal life other than human life is able to be concerned about their existence, the morality of taking their lives, questions of meaning, etc., then we can make a reasonable comparison. I don't see any evidence of that. Having said that, I don't think animal life should be treated as "nothing." We should be grateful for the human benefits derived from the use of other animals and plants. I don't see anything wrong with keeping that in mind as part of our overall attitude of gratitude as we receive the food (and other things) necessary for our own lives in this world.
I have to disagree here - I don't think that just because other animals don't possess the same intellect gives us carte blanche to slaughter them. To make a bit of an extreme comparison, there are humans who lack the mental capacity to ponder their own existence, question the meaning of life, etc - but that doesn't give us permission to eat them.
I don't believe it's the question of "can they think" or "can they reason" rather than "can they suffer". In 2012, the consumption of meat is completely unnecessary for human survival - we can thrive on a meatless diet. Any consumption of animal flesh or secretion is done out of pure greed and gustatory pleasure, no matter how much "gratitude" we show.
Good post. You sum it up nicely.
To add a few things, I wonder how many people here believe that might makes right. If we were capable of conquering a specific country and enslaving their population, would that be the right thing to do just because we can?
Putting it another way, Immanual Kant formulated the ultimate ethical principle, as have most religions: Kant called it the "Categorical Imparative," but most people call it the Golden Rule. Kant said act in such a way that your actions can be universalized. Most people say, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
If you feel that is true, why on earth would you exclude animals. (Okay, not talking here about being attacked lions or being put in a position where you have to defend yourself.)0 -
You're way too defensive. I'm not a vegan/vegetarian, but I'll answer after yours.The way these questions read to a vegetarian parent who is raising their children vegetarian.
I would answer NO very easily. I'm not a "controlling monster", but my kids eat what we feed them.My question is, would you let your child choose?" No one would simply answer 'No' to this question, since s/he would worry about coming across like a controlling monster. It's a closed question, much like 'How often do you beat your wife?'
You don't HAVE to answer like that. I would say, "Yes, I probably do force them to eat like I do since I'm the one buying the food and cooking". Example: I am allergic to all seafood and fish. We don't buy it, and it doesn't come in to our home. So, one could say "I refuse to allow" my children to have fish and seafood.2. "Or force them into eating how you eat?" The word 'force' is a strongly emotive word. Again this is a closed question. Would anyone answer this way: "Yes, I'm a horrible parent who forces my kids to be little clones of me. I tolerate no individuality in my children".
This does not imply laziness to me. I'm not lazy, but I'm not catering to the different "wants" of my kids. They have options: take it or leave it.3. "Is it too much to make separate meals?" The phraseology here implies laziness on the part of vegetarian parents. Most vegetarian parents aren't lazy, but are making active decisions to feed their families how they see fit.
I'd answer 'No' to this! Sorry, but there are some things my children do not control, and that's fine with me.4. "Or is it worth it to let your child feel in control." Again, who's going to answer 'No' to this. It's another closed question.0 -
You're way too defensive. I'm not a vegan/vegetarian, but I'll answer after yours.The way these questions read to a vegetarian parent who is raising their children vegetarian.
I would answer NO very easily. I'm not a "controlling monster", but my kids eat what we feed them.My question is, would you let your child choose?" No one would simply answer 'No' to this question, since s/he would worry about coming across like a controlling monster. It's a closed question, much like 'How often do you beat your wife?'
You don't HAVE to answer like that. I would say, "Yes, I probably do force them to eat like I do since I'm the one buying the food and cooking". Example: I am allergic to all seafood and fish. We don't buy it, and it doesn't come in to our home. So, one could say "I refuse to allow" my children to have fish and seafood.2. "Or force them into eating how you eat?" The word 'force' is a strongly emotive word. Again this is a closed question. Would anyone answer this way: "Yes, I'm a horrible parent who forces my kids to be little clones of me. I tolerate no individuality in my children".
This does not imply laziness to me. I'm not lazy, but I'm not catering to the different "wants" of my kids. They have options: take it or leave it.3. "Is it too much to make separate meals?" The phraseology here implies laziness on the part of vegetarian parents. Most vegetarian parents aren't lazy, but are making active decisions to feed their families how they see fit.
I'd answer 'No' to this! Sorry, but there are some things my children do not control, and that's fine with me.4. "Or is it worth it to let your child feel in control." Again, who's going to answer 'No' to this. It's another closed question.
You do realize these are leading questions, right? They show a bias. That's what I'm getting at.
And I'm merely debating, not 'being defensive.' I have two successful, full grown young adults who I raised as life-long vegetarians. I can spike the ball at this point.0 -
Some basic information showing that plants do not want to die, and will cooperate to avoid it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yXlyXsnK5_IJ:scidiv.bellevuecollege.edu/rkr/biology213/lectures/pdfs/PlantDefenses213.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShDIon-Pbz6l7Dz6pqWtuAnSvNxP22O1qlE2LkM3pCJQCIaPupksZHbyxLmtEOkHOOreg3ZcefUquV3LBnYTOFojruYo0fXUbHbKT6meEnkJfMBGa-3BkGRi5Fd38wrsuANeBMm&sig=AHIEtbQw8WNVeet8r2belt5wP_y-6veP_A&pli=1
Of course, it is not pleasant to admit that maybe killing plants is NOT more moral than killing animals because it means that we live in a universe that is predicated on death and suffering (plants and animals must die to feed us, plants must die to feed animals, animals must die to feed plants, etc.). But admitting that is better than giving up steak.
Oh, there's always someone. Well done. Well done for posting something stupid.
Number one - your point is moot from the beginning. Animals eat plants, you're eating animals - you're doing twice the 'harm', darling.
Secondly, plants do not have a central nervous system, so I'm unsure of how they'd feel pain? And WHY would they feel pain? Humans and animals feel pain and can get away from the source of the pain. Plants can't.
Also, plants exist in a different way from animals. Their survival often depends on being eaten (seeds being spread through manure, etc). They can also grow back.
An animal life (and that includes humans, seeing as we are animals) can not be replaced. There will never be another soul like it. My dog may die. I can rescue another dog that looks exactly the same. It's still not him.0 -
Again, I think you're just seeing it like that because you're a vegetarian. I'm suggesting that you should not feel like you need to defend your choices, any more than I do about what I serve my children.You do realize these are leading questions, right? They show a bias. That's what I'm getting at.0 -
Did you know that it was only in the past few years that scientists could prove that animals feel pain, and that it's not just a genetic defense against harm? So I'm not entirely sure why you think that not having a nervous system in the same sense animals do means that plants can't feel. Furthermore, there are a number of animal species that do effectively function as a single organism, including getting smarter in proportion to the number of individuals in the hive, in which case, the individual animal is analogous to your white blood cell example.Some basic information showing that plants do not want to die, and will cooperate to avoid it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yXlyXsnK5_IJ:scidiv.bellevuecollege.edu/rkr/biology213/lectures/pdfs/PlantDefenses213.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShDIon-Pbz6l7Dz6pqWtuAnSvNxP22O1qlE2LkM3pCJQCIaPupksZHbyxLmtEOkHOOreg3ZcefUquV3LBnYTOFojruYo0fXUbHbKT6meEnkJfMBGa-3BkGRi5Fd38wrsuANeBMm&sig=AHIEtbQw8WNVeet8r2belt5wP_y-6veP_A&pli=1
Of course, it is not pleasant to admit that maybe killing plants is NOT more moral than killing animals because it means that we live in a universe that is predicated on death and suffering (plants and animals must die to feed us, plants must die to feed animals, animals must die to feed plants, etc.). But admitting that is better than giving up steak.
I am sorry, but the fact that plants have genetic defenses against environmental stress and pathogens does not mean that they "want" to survive, in the sense that they are "thinking." This is akin to white blood cells in humans. The white blood cells do not have mentation ability any more than plants do, and do not feel pain, any more than plants do. It is basic biology that only the higher animals, i.e., those with nervous systems and brains can think, fear or feel pain.
Your analogy between plants and animals does not hold.
First of all, I have no idea how an organism that does not have a nervous system, nerve ganglia, or brain can feel pain. Where does it feel it? In its reproducive system? I read one of the articles you cited, and it never once mentioned that plants can feel pain. If you read an article that claims plants feel pain, and if that article gives a scientific basis for that opinion, kindly cite it because I would love to read it. Until then, I cannot take your statements seriously.0 -
Again, I think you're just seeing it like that because you're a vegetarian. I'm suggesting that you should not feel like you need to defend your choices, any more than I do about what I serve my children.You do realize these are leading questions, right? They show a bias. That's what I'm getting at.
This is a DEBATING board. I am DEBATING.0 -
Macpatti: Let me flip the questions on their head. Try to read them anew, and see how they sound to you.
Forcing your child to EAT DEAD ANIMAL BODY PARTS. My question is, would you let your child choose? Or force them into eating how you eat? Is it too much to make seperate meals? Or is it worth it to let your child feel in control?0 -
Did you know that it was only in the past few years that scientists could prove that animals feel pain, and that it's not just a genetic defense against harm? So I'm not entirely sure why you think that not having a nervous system in the same sense animals do means that plants can't feel. Furthermore, there are a number of animal species that do effectively function as a single organism, including getting smarter in proportion to the number of individuals in the hive, in which case, the individual animal is analogous to your white blood cell example.Some basic information showing that plants do not want to die, and will cooperate to avoid it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_defense_against_herbivory
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yXlyXsnK5_IJ:scidiv.bellevuecollege.edu/rkr/biology213/lectures/pdfs/PlantDefenses213.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShDIon-Pbz6l7Dz6pqWtuAnSvNxP22O1qlE2LkM3pCJQCIaPupksZHbyxLmtEOkHOOreg3ZcefUquV3LBnYTOFojruYo0fXUbHbKT6meEnkJfMBGa-3BkGRi5Fd38wrsuANeBMm&sig=AHIEtbQw8WNVeet8r2belt5wP_y-6veP_A&pli=1
Of course, it is not pleasant to admit that maybe killing plants is NOT more moral than killing animals because it means that we live in a universe that is predicated on death and suffering (plants and animals must die to feed us, plants must die to feed animals, animals must die to feed plants, etc.). But admitting that is better than giving up steak.
I am sorry, but the fact that plants have genetic defenses against environmental stress and pathogens does not mean that they "want" to survive, in the sense that they are "thinking." This is akin to white blood cells in humans. The white blood cells do not have mentation ability any more than plants do, and do not feel pain, any more than plants do. It is basic biology that only the higher animals, i.e., those with nervous systems and brains can think, fear or feel pain.
Your analogy between plants and animals does not hold.
First of all, I have no idea how an organism that does not have a nervous system, nerve ganglia, or brain can feel pain. Where does it feel it? In its reproducive system? I read one of the articles you cited, and it never once mentioned that plants can feel pain. If you read an article that claims plants feel pain, and if that article gives a scientific basis for that opinion, kindly cite it because I would love to read it. Until then, I cannot take your statements seriously.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissssssssssssssssssssssssss0 -
To add a few things, I wonder how many people here believe that might makes right. If we were capable of conquering a specific country and enslaving their population, would that be the right thing to do just because we can?
Putting it another way, Immanual Kant formulated the ultimate ethical principle, as have most religions: Kant called it the "Categorical Imparative," but most people call it the Golden Rule. Kant said act in such a way that your actions can be universalized. Most people say, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
If you feel that is true, why on earth would you exclude animals. (Okay, not talking here about being attacked lions or being put in a position where you have to defend yourself.)
No, I don’t think “might makes right.” That does leave a question, however, what does make something “right”? I have been arguing that what makes human life intrinsically valuable is its capacity and orientation towards transcendent knowledge and experience (as seen in the unique features of human experience like religion, reflective self-knowledge, longing for unending love and friendship, scientific knowledge, etc.). Merely being a material, biological organism is not a sufficient basis for an intrinsic, inalienable “right to life.” If a mosquito lands on my skin, I don’t feel morally obligated to allow it to live. If a weed sprouts in my yard, I don’t feel moral qualms about plucking it up.
Concerning Kant’s Categorical Imperative (putting aside a host of problems with his approach to ethics in general), I can easily universally will that human beings make moderate use of animals for food and clothing (the same with plants). Kant’s Categorical Imperative is essentially that we should only will to do what we can universally will be done. For instance, I cannot universally will that people lie (otherwise no basis of trust or societal unity would exist) therefore I should not make an exception for myself and lie. I cannot universally will that humans be killed for no reason and therefore I should not kill an individual for no reason, etc. By the way, Kant specifically excluded animals from his treatment of humans. He argued that humans should be treated as “ends” and not “means.” He argued that, since other animals lack the power of logical, reflective thinking, we cannot hold them to the standard of moral logic and therefore animals are outside the range of the Categorical Imperative. (This makes total sense, by the way. Even though you may want humans to apply to animals the same privileges and “rights” given to humans, you cannot expect those animals to follow the same moral “laws”; they simply don’t have the capacity to understand moral reasoning.) Kant did think that people who are cruel to higher animals (those more similar to humans) are morally deficient since, to the degree you see similarities between animal suffering and human suffering, you should shy away from inflicting suffering on an animal. He certainly did not, however, think that lower animals and humans are in the same category in terms of moral duties and obligations.0 -
Macpatti: Let me flip the questions on their head. Try to read them anew, and see how they sound to you.
Forcing your child to EAT DEAD ANIMAL BODY PARTS. My question is, would you let your child choose? Or force them into eating how you eat? Is it too much to make seperate meals? Or is it worth it to let your child feel in control?
Yes, I "force" my children to eat chicken, pork, steak, hamburger, etc. I do not let them choose what I serve for dinner. I do allow them to request their favorites, but our meals usually include meat. I "force" them to eat how I eat insofar as they eat what I buy and cook. I will not make separate meals just to allow my children to feel in control. I'm in control of the food that comes into our home and gets served to the family. They may choose to add ketchup, put it on bread, mix it up with their vegetables, etc. So, they have choices in how they eat what I cook, but they eat what I make.
I didn't even feel defensive in replying to that. It just is what it is. I respect that your family does not eat meat, and I support your decision to have your children eat as you do. I just don't see why some vegetarians get so defensive on this topic. I couldn't care less if you think I'm eating DEAD ANIMAL BODY PARTS. I like meat and so does my family. I couldn't care less if you don't like dead animal parts.0 -
Isn't feeding your child as you yourself eat a typical part of parenting? I don't consider "forced" vegan/vegetarianism any more than I consider it "forced" omnivorism. Or "forced" kosher. Or "forced" organic foods, etc.
Though I do have to add, that if my child chose vegan/vegetarian, I'd support that completely. If one of them didn't want to eat meat/animal products, that's fine, and their choice. I suspect my daughter will be a vegetarian eventually. She eats very little meat as it is. My son, on the other hand, is an avowed carnivore.
As long as they eat in a healthy way, I'm ok with it. We're not ok with the candy and ice cream diet though.0 -
I just don't see why some vegetarians get so defensive on this topic. I couldn't care less if you think I'm eating DEAD ANIMAL BODY PARTS. I like meat and so does my family. I couldn't care less if you don't like dead animal parts.Macpatti: Let me flip the questions on their head. Try to read them anew, and see how they sound to you.
Forcing your child to EAT DEAD ANIMAL BODY PARTS. My question is, would you let your child choose? Or force them into eating how you eat? Is it too much to make seperate meals? Or is it worth it to let your child feel in control?
Maybe we get defensive because it involves murder?0 -
Macpatti: Let me flip the questions on their head. Try to read them anew, and see how they sound to you.
Forcing your child to EAT DEAD ANIMAL BODY PARTS. My question is, would you let your child choose? Or force them into eating how you eat? Is it too much to make seperate meals? Or is it worth it to let your child feel in control?
Yes, I "force" my children to eat chicken, pork, steak, hamburger, etc. I do not let them choose what I serve for dinner. I do allow them to request their favorites, but our meals usually include meat. I "force" them to eat how I eat insofar as they eat what I buy and cook. I will not make separate meals just to allow my children to feel in control. I'm in control of the food that comes into our home and gets served to the family. They may choose to add ketchup, put it on bread, mix it up with their vegetables, etc. So, they have choices in how they eat what I cook, but they eat what I make.
I didn't even feel defensive in replying to that. It just is what it is. I respect that your family does not eat meat, and I support your decision to have your children eat as you do. I just don't see why some vegetarians get so defensive on this topic. I couldn't care less if you think I'm eating DEAD ANIMAL BODY PARTS. I like meat and so does my family. I couldn't care less if you don't like dead animal parts.
I asked the questions this way for one reason alone: to show the culture bias and lack of neutrality. Again, I am not 'defensive.' I don't think you would survive long as a vegetarian in this meat-loving culture without pluck and a sense of non-conformity. I am just challenging the implicit bias in the way these questions were asked.
You sound highly intelligent, and tuned into the logic of language. Do you not see this?0 -
Maybe we get defensive because it involves murder?
Ahhhh. See, there's the difference. I was replying to vergingonvegan defending her choices for her own family. That is different than having an agenda to conform the meat-eating world because you think it's murder.0 -
I asked the questions this way for one reason alone: to show the culture bias and lack of neutrality. Again, I am not 'defensive.' I don't think you would survive long as a vegetarian in this meat-loving culture without pluck and a sense of non-conformity. I am just challenging the implicit bias in the way these questions were asked.
I respect your choices for your family. Like I've said, I don't think that needs defending. If you're talking about defending veganism or vegetarianism, that I totally get. You should see me defend my religion! 0 -
Maybe we get defensive because it involves murder?
Ahhhh. See, there's the difference. I was replying to vergingonvegan defending her choices for her own family. That is different than having an agenda to conform the meat-eating world because you think it's murder.
Oh, right, I see.
But still, if I had children, I would also defend my choices for my children to be raised vegan because I believe it's murder/ethically immoral.0 -
Plants are heliotropic and their roots grow in the direction of water and needed soil nutrients. That is adaptive, but in no way implies cognition or an ability to perceive pain and suffering. Robots can be programmed to avoid obstacles. Missiles can seek heat. No one would say they feel 'pain.'
Also, pain and suffering exists on a continuum. Having a root canal done on a live tooth can be intensely painful without analgesia, or it can be mildly painful with it (hopefully just the pinch of the needle). But from the individual's point of view, the experiences are vastly different. Even if it could be proven that a plant experiences mild sensations of 'pain', that is likely to be hugely different than what an animal with an organized central nervous system would experience.0 -
I don't think you should have to defend that choice for you children. It's too bad that meat-eaters put vegans/vegetarians on the defense.But still, if I had children, I would also defend my choices for my children to be raised vegan because I believe it's murder/ethically immoral.0 -
I just don't see why some vegetarians get so defensive on this topic. I couldn't care less if you think I'm eating DEAD ANIMAL BODY PARTS. I like meat and so does my family. I couldn't care less if you don't like dead animal parts.Macpatti: Let me flip the questions on their head. Try to read them anew, and see how they sound to you.
Forcing your child to EAT DEAD ANIMAL BODY PARTS. My question is, would you let your child choose? Or force them into eating how you eat? Is it too much to make seperate meals? Or is it worth it to let your child feel in control?
Maybe we get defensive because it involves murder?
Killing animals is not murder. Murder is defined as unlawfully killing a person.0 -
I asked the questions this way for one reason alone: to show the culture bias and lack of neutrality. Again, I am not 'defensive.' I don't think you would survive long as a vegetarian in this meat-loving culture without pluck and a sense of non-conformity. I am just challenging the implicit bias in the way these questions were asked.
I respect your choices for your family. Like I've said, I don't think that needs defending. If you're talking about defending veganism or vegetarianism, that I totally get. You should see me defend my religion!
I am on a debating board, discussing a topic that is of interest to me. You do know that in law, points are argued and one side is called the 'defense' and they DEFEND a position. Being 'defensive' is only natural in debate, though I think you are implying something quite different.0 -
I just don't see why some vegetarians get so defensive on this topic. I couldn't care less if you think I'm eating DEAD ANIMAL BODY PARTS. I like meat and so does my family. I couldn't care less if you don't like dead animal parts.Macpatti: Let me flip the questions on their head. Try to read them anew, and see how they sound to you.
Forcing your child to EAT DEAD ANIMAL BODY PARTS. My question is, would you let your child choose? Or force them into eating how you eat? Is it too much to make seperate meals? Or is it worth it to let your child feel in control?
Maybe we get defensive because it involves murder?
Killing animals is not murder. Murder is defined as unlawfully killing a person.
Agreed. How does one even begin to process the notion that killing animals is murder!0 -
Good grief! I am on your side here (in regards to feeding your children what you want).I am on a debating board, discussing a topic that is of interest to me. You do know that in law, points are argued and one side is called the 'defense' and they DEFEND a position. Being 'defensive' is only natural in debate, though I think you are implying something quite different.0 -
To add a few things, I wonder how many people here believe that might makes right. If we were capable of conquering a specific country and enslaving their population, would that be the right thing to do just because we can?
Putting it another way, Immanual Kant formulated the ultimate ethical principle, as have most religions: Kant called it the "Categorical Imparative," but most people call it the Golden Rule. Kant said act in such a way that your actions can be universalized. Most people say, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
If you feel that is true, why on earth would you exclude animals. (Okay, not talking here about being attacked lions or being put in a position where you have to defend yourself.)
No, I don’t think “might makes right.” That does leave a question, however, what does make something “right”? I have been arguing that what makes human life intrinsically valuable is its capacity and orientation towards transcendent knowledge and experience (as seen in the unique features of human experience like religion, reflective self-knowledge, longing for unending love and friendship, scientific knowledge, etc.). Merely being a material, biological organism is not a sufficient basis for an intrinsic, inalienable “right to life.” If a mosquito lands on my skin, I don’t feel morally obligated to allow it to live. If a weed sprouts in my yard, I don’t feel moral qualms about plucking it up.
Concerning Kant’s Categorical Imperative (putting aside a host of problems with his approach to ethics in general), I can easily universally will that human beings make moderate use of animals for food and clothing (the same with plants). Kant’s Categorical Imperative is essentially that we should only will to do what we can universally will be done. For instance, I cannot universally will that people lie (otherwise no basis of trust or societal unity would exist) therefore I should not make an exception for myself and lie. I cannot universally will that humans be killed for no reason and therefore I should not kill an individual for no reason, etc. By the way, Kant specifically excluded animals from his treatment of humans. He argued that humans should be treated as “ends” and not “means.” He argued that, since other animals lack the power of logical, reflective thinking, we cannot hold them to the standard of moral logic and therefore animals are outside the range of the Categorical Imperative. (This makes total sense, by the way. Even though you may want humans to apply to animals the same privileges and “rights” given to humans, you cannot expect those animals to follow the same moral “laws”; they simply don’t have the capacity to understand moral reasoning.) Kant did think that people who are cruel to higher animals (those more similar to humans) are morally deficient since, to the degree you see similarities between animal suffering and human suffering, you should shy away from inflicting suffering on an animal. He certainly did not, however, think that lower animals and humans are in the same category in terms of moral duties and obligations.
Thank you for your comments. I condensed what I had to say about Kant because I did not expect that anyone on this board would be so familiar with his philosophy.
Please also understand that knowledge of biology and psychology during Kant's time (18th century) was extremely primitive as compared with today. His assertions about animals were undoubtedly based on perceptions of that day, and as you can imagine, I agree with some of them and disagree with some.
http://www.beholders.org/mind/environmental/149-talkingkoko.html
As you can see from my link, some animals can be shown to be logical and able to use language to communicate with other species such as humans. Needless to say, the article also shows how compassionate these creatures are. These are well developed sentient beings who have as much intrinsic right to live as we do. Indeed, Koko, has more ability to communicate than some retarded humans. Therefore, the categorical imperative should be broadened, even by your own criteria, to include sentient beings. I can think of no logical argument to exclude them.0 -
I've been waiting a reply to this!Agreed. How does one even begin to process the notion that killing animals is murder!0 -
I don't think you should have to defend that choice for you children. It's too bad that meat-eaters put vegans/vegetarians on the defense.But still, if I had children, I would also defend my choices for my children to be raised vegan because I believe it's murder/ethically immoral.
Anyone living a minority lifestyle sees defensiveness going both ways.
When I home schooled my children years ago, I found it interesting how my choice of an educational alternative made many people feel the need to attack and/or defend their more conventional choice. On more than one occasion, the first thing out of a stranger's mouth was "So what's wrong with public schools?" This would happen mostly when my kids were out with me during conventional school hours, and people would ask why my kids weren't in school.
Vegetarians get this too. I tend not to announce my dietary choice in public, but sometimes people guess, based upon what I order in a restaurant. A frequent first comment is, "I don't eat much meat." It actually makes me feel bad, since I think that a comment like that is defensive, when I have no desire to make them uncomfortable.0
This discussion has been closed.