Forcing Your Child to be Vegan/Vegetarian.

InnerFatGirl

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.

_VoV

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.

macpatti

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.

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.

lour441

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?

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.

Maybe we get defensive because it involves murder?

Killing animals is not murder. Murder is defined as unlawfully killing a person.

_VoV

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.

Turtlehurdle

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?

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.

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!

macpatti

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.

Good grief! I am on your side here (in regards to feeding your children what you want).

VegesaurusRex

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.

macpatti

Agreed. How does one even begin to process the notion that killing animals is murder!

I've been waiting a reply to this!

_VoV

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.

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.

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.

_VoV

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.

Good grief! I am on your side here (in regards to feeding your children what you want).

Okay, I'm getting caught up on the word 'defensive.' I'll drop it now. :flowerforyou:

vim_n_vigor

As a parent you are raising your children and influencing their lives forever. I have a feeling that I'll be forcing my little one to take a bath way more often then I am going to be shoving food down his throat.

This won't necessarily be true from the ages 2-4, kids don't really like to take the time out to sit at the table and eat - regardless of the choices!

VegesaurusRex

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?

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.

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!

For some of us, the question is how do we even begin to process the idea that killing animals is NOT murder. Killing unnecessarily is just wrong, period. If you need to survive, eat plants. If you want to protect the environment, eat plants. There is no NEED to kill animals.

bathsheba_c

I'm not saying that plants definitely feel pain. I am saying that we don't have evidence whether they do or don't. And that we only recently had evidence that animals do feel pain. Which makes it entirely possible that plants do feel pain, but we don't understand it yet because our frame of reference is an animal nervous system, so we don't know how to test whether or not they do.

Um, vegetarians? Do you not understand that us meat-eaters might be just a little tetchy about the vegetarianism thing when you literally believe we are murderers? Which might have something to do with us putting you on the defensive.

By the way, one might suggest that agriculture is immoral because it often involves the enslavement of animals to make use of their dung, milk, and physical labor. In which case, it's not clear what being vegetarian gets you.

VegesaurusRex

I'm not saying that plants definitely feel pain. I am saying that we don't have evidence whether they do or don't. And that we only recently had evidence that animals do feel pain. Which makes it entirely possible that plants do feel pain, but we don't understand it yet because our frame of reference is an animal nervous system, so we don't know how to test whether or not they do.

Um, vegetarians? Do you not understand that us meat-eaters might be just a little tetchy about the vegetarianism thing when you literally believe we are murderers? Which might have something to do with us putting you on the defensive.

By the way, one might suggest that agriculture is immoral because it often involves the enslavement of animals to make use of their dung, milk, and physical labor. In which case, it's not clear what being vegetarian gets you.

Again, there is no way plants can feel pain. No nervous system, no pain. Period.

Second, do you believe in killing animals when you don't need to to survive?

Thirdly, I agree about animal enslavement. It is wrong.

macpatti

For some of us, the question is how do we even begin to process the idea that killing animals is NOT murder. Killing unnecessarily is just wrong, period. If you need to survive, eat plants. If you want to protect the environment, eat plants. There is no NEED to kill animals.

That doesn't answer how killing animals is murder. I'm waiting for innerfatgirl to reply since she made the initial statement.

summertime_girl

Animal enslavement, is that like having a pet dog?

doorki

While plants do not feel "pain" due to their lack of a nervous system, they do react to negative stimuli in order to defend themselves. Since pain can be defined as our bodies way of alerting us of negative stimuli, we can say that plants do feel something akin to pain.

VegesaurusRex

For some of us, the question is how do we even begin to process the idea that killing animals is NOT murder. Killing unnecessarily is just wrong, period. If you need to survive, eat plants. If you want to protect the environment, eat plants. There is no NEED to kill animals.

That doesn't answer how killing animals is murder. I'm waiting for innerfatgirl to reply since she made the initial statement.

Innerfatgirl may certainly reply as she wishes, but I also feel that killing animals is murder, all the more so because it is unnecessary. Humans can survive quite nicely without killing other animals. Gratuitous killing and therefore gratuitous pain would offend the categorical imperative simply by virtue of being gratuitous.

VegesaurusRex

Animal enslavement, is that like having a pet dog?

I don't think the pets I have had feel enslaved. My dogs have had opportunities to run away, and never have. My cats have also had chances to escape, but always come back. Slaves don't exhibit that behavior.