Vegetarians Vs Paleo
Replies
-
I believe in free will with respect to food choices, but for plant foods only. Choose broccoli or spinach? Either is fine. Choose corn tortillas or pizza crust? Go for whatever you want. But animal products are different, in my opinion. Your free will to eat meat deprives a sentient animal of its life. Your decision involves animal suffering. Not to mention that animal products are highly subsidized by tax dollars and that they are killing this planet.0
-
I believe in free will with respect to food choices, but for plant foods only. Choose broccoli or spinach? Either is fine. Choose corn tortillas or pizza crust? Go for whatever you want. But animal products are different, in my opinion. Your free will to eat meat deprives a sentient animal of its life. Your decision involves animal suffering. Not to mention that animal products are highly subsidized by tax dollars and that they are killing this planet.
I think the animal/non animal choice is easy to see as a question of ethics, but what about the quality of life of farm workers exposed to pesticides and hazardous working conditions, damage to the environment through irresponsible agriculture, even transportation required in order to provide out of season produce? I think there are a lot of ethical choices we make every time we put our money down -- whether or not we consider the moral ramifications of our financial support is another matter. I certainly don't, not every time.
Maybe a better term than ethics is value judgement -- someone may value their ability to eat meat over the life of an animal, someone else may value inexpensive goods over the working conditions of those producing them, or the convenience of items at big-box stores over questionable labor practices. I don't think ethics is limited to the vegan/non vegan debate.0 -
Of course you disagree with me.... you have a different world view than me and you aren't ashamed to bash people over the head with it. As shown by the massive wall of texts that no one has time nor desire to read.
I tend to liken Vegetarians/Vegans such as the OP as the Veggieburger version of Evangelical Christians... always touting how right they are and wrong everyone else is that they can see absolutely nothing else.
At the end of the day, if my family is starving and it's the dead of winter with little to no other sustanence... I will not hesitate to take down the first piece of flesh that walks by me.... If it means my family can survive a few more days. If the Donner party can do it, well... then so can I.
This is the debating board, so it's a place for people to put forth their position. Would you care to support your statement that diet is not a moral issue? I'm genuinely curious how you see it that way.
Your example of starving in winter is a little extreme -- how about on a day to day basis where you have the choice of eating a plant-based or an animal-based meal? Do you see that as an ethical choice?
Questions of ethics often have more than one "right answer", so people that choose to eat factory-farmed animals are simply showing different values than those that don't, but I would argue that they are still making a moral decision.
You might consider reading The Omnivore's Dilemma -- it is a very good examination of where our food comes from and what is involved in getting it from the ground onto our plate. It is not vegetarian propaganda at all -- the author does not conclude that everyone should avoid animal products. I thought it was a very interesting and balanced book.0 -
I believe in free will with respect to food choices, but for plant foods only. Choose broccoli or spinach? Either is fine. Choose corn tortillas or pizza crust? Go for whatever you want. But animal products are different, in my opinion. Your free will to eat meat deprives a sentient animal of its life. Your decision involves animal suffering. Not to mention that animal products are highly subsidized by tax dollars and that they are killing this planet.
I think the animal/non animal choice is easy to see as a question of ethics, but what about the quality of life of farm workers exposed to pesticides and hazardous working conditions, damage to the environment through irresponsible agriculture, even transportation required in order to provide out of season produce? I think there are a lot of ethical choices we make every time we put our money down -- whether or not we consider the moral ramifications of our financial support is another matter. I certainly don't, not every time.
Maybe a better term than ethics is value judgement -- someone may value their ability to eat meat over the life of an animal, someone else may value inexpensive goods over the working conditions of those producing them, or the convenience of items at big-box stores over questionable labor practices. I don't think ethics is limited to the vegan/non vegan debate.
I agree that food ethics goes beyond just the animal issues, but I am focusing on that since it seems most germane to the subject of this thread: vegetarians vs paleo. Obviously, buying locally grown organic food which is produced at fair-market prices is second only to growing or foraging your own. I try to do that whenever possible. But, it's important to realize that crops are grown to feed livestock, so plant agriculture enters into the equation whether you eat plants or animal products. Same too with transportation.0 -
Of course you disagree with me.... you have a different world view than me and you aren't ashamed to bash people over the head with it. As shown by the massive wall of texts that no one has time nor desire to read.
I tend to liken Vegetarians/Vegans such as the OP as the Veggieburger version of Evangelical Christians... always touting how right they are and wrong everyone else is that they can see absolutely nothing else.
At the end of the day, if my family is starving and it's the dead of winter with little to no other sustanence... I will not hesitate to take down the first piece of flesh that walks by me.... If it means my family can survive a few more days. If the Donner party can do it, well... then so can I.
This is the debating board, so it's a place for people to put forth their position. Would you care to support your statement that diet is not a moral issue? I'm genuinely curious how you see it that way.
Your example of starving in winter is a little extreme -- how about on a day to day basis where you have the choice of eating a plant-based or an animal-based meal? Do you see that as an ethical choice?
Questions of ethics often have more than one "right answer", so people that choose to eat factory-farmed animals are simply showing different values than those that don't, but I would argue that they are still making a moral decision.
You might consider reading The Omnivore's Dilemma -- it is a very good examination of where our food comes from and what is involved in getting it from the ground onto our plate. It is not vegetarian propaganda at all -- the author does not conclude that everyone should avoid animal products. I thought it was a very interesting and balanced book.
To debate with myself, I could argue that whether something is a moral issue is wholly up to the individual. For instance, many see pre-marital sex as a moral issue, while I do not. Thus my choices on that matter have nothing to do with morality, whereas for someone else they do. Similarly, if someone does not realize the consequences of their actions (for instance if I buy something without realizing that it was made with slave labor), they cannot truly be said to be making a moral choice.
Which begs the question, who decides what is a moral issue for other people?0 -
Of course you disagree with me.... you have a different world view than me and you aren't ashamed to bash people over the head with it. As shown by the massive wall of texts that no one has time nor desire to read.
I tend to liken Vegetarians/Vegans such as the OP as the Veggieburger version of Evangelical Christians... always touting how right they are and wrong everyone else is that they can see absolutely nothing else.
At the end of the day, if my family is starving and it's the dead of winter with little to no other sustanence... I will not hesitate to take down the first piece of flesh that walks by me.... If it means my family can survive a few more days. If the Donner party can do it, well... then so can I.
This is the debating board, so it's a place for people to put forth their position. Would you care to support your statement that diet is not a moral issue? I'm genuinely curious how you see it that way.
Your example of starving in winter is a little extreme -- how about on a day to day basis where you have the choice of eating a plant-based or an animal-based meal? Do you see that as an ethical choice?
Questions of ethics often have more than one "right answer", so people that choose to eat factory-farmed animals are simply showing different values than those that don't, but I would argue that they are still making a moral decision.
You might consider reading The Omnivore's Dilemma -- it is a very good examination of where our food comes from and what is involved in getting it from the ground onto our plate. It is not vegetarian propaganda at all -- the author does not conclude that everyone should avoid animal products. I thought it was a very interesting and balanced book.
To debate with myself, I could argue that whether something is a moral issue is wholly up to the individual. For instance, many see pre-marital sex as a moral issue, while I do not. Thus my choices on that matter have nothing to do with morality, whereas for someone else they do. Similarly, if someone does not realize the consequences of their actions (for instance if I buy something without realizing that it was made with slave labor), they cannot truly be said to be making a moral choice.
Which begs the question, who decides what is a moral issue for other people?
Morality and moral issues are not relative, but absolute. And no, I am not religious. I believe that morality can be determined by reason. I use Kant's Categorical Imperative. "Universalize the action, and see if everyone affected by the action agrees the action is necessary." (My formulation of the CI.) So as to pre marital sex, the morality depends upon the parties concerned. If they agree that the sex was necessary, then there is no moral issue. If they don't agree, then there could be. Another formulation of the CI is the Golden Rule. If one of the parties to the sex is under a false assumption then the sex could be immoral.Similarly, eating meat. If the victims of the meat eating, the animals, would accept the necessity of being eaten there is no moral issue. Quite frankly, I doubt they would. Since plants aren't sentient and do not think,there is no moral issue eating plants.Stated another way, do unto the animals as you would have them do unto you if the situation were reversed. Only sentient creatures can of course make such judgments.
Similarly using the CI robbery, murder, theft, slander etc are all immoral. Perhaps surprisingly to some people, this formulation is extremely accurate in picking out what we would normally consider moral turpitude, and in addition, resolves ambiguous matters quite nicely.0 -
Morality and moral issues are not relative, but absolute. And no, I am not religious. I believe that morality can be determined by reason. I use Kant's Categorical Imperative. "Universalize the action, and see if everyone affected by the action agrees the action is necessary." (My formulation of the CI.) So as to pre marital sex, the morality depends upon the parties concerned. If they agree that the sex was necessary, then there is no moral issue. If they don't agree, then there could be. Another formulation of the CI is the Golden Rule. If one of the parties to the sex is under a false assumption then the sex could be immoral.Similarly, eating meat. If the victims of the meat eating, the animals, would accept the necessity of being eaten there is no moral issue. Quite frankly, I doubt they would. Since plants aren't sentient and do not think,there is no moral issue eating plants.Stated another way, do unto the animals as you would have them do unto you if the situation were reversed. Only sentient creatures can of course make such judgments.
Similarly using the CI robbery, murder, theft, slander etc are all immoral. Perhaps surprisingly to some people, this formulation is extremely accurate in picking out what we would normally consider moral turpitude, and in addition, resolves ambiguous matters quite nicely.
Good answer. To continue the debate...
You say that moral issues are not relative but absolute, but you also say that they are context-specific (for instance, premarital sex may or may not be a moral issue depending on the perception of the people involved). Does that not make morality relative?
Also, the CI casts rather a broad net over issues of potential morality. Surely not every case where parties disagree on a course of action is a moral issue. If my workplace's dress code is to wear a white shirt, I wear a red shirt and my boss, co-workers and clients object -- is is immoral for me to wear a red shirt? Is it immoral to defend oneself against violent crime? I'm sure the attacker would not agree to be harmed by his victim.
Is it immoral to eat vegetables when animals are harmed in their harvesting?
Maybe the potential for harm to both parties have to be taken into account in the CI. I would not have a problem eating another animal if necessary for my own survival, but since I don't need to, I feel it is a more defensible choice not to harm others. I'd like to hope I would never hurt someone for no reason, but I would hurt someone to defend myself or my family. At what point on the continuum does it become a moral issue?0 -
Good answer. To continue the debate...
You say that moral issues are not relative but absolute, but you also say that they are context-specific (for instance, premarital sex may or may not be a moral issue depending on the perception of the people involved). Does that not make morality relative?
Not at all, any more than laws against murder are relative because there are situational defenses. For example, if you kill someone in self defense, that is generally considered a defense to murder. In other words, to go into the legal analogy a little more, an element of the crime is missing, i.e., mens rhea, guilty mind. You do not have criminal intent when you act in self defense.
Also, the CI casts rather a broad net over issues of potential morality. Surely not every case where parties disagree on a course of action is a moral issue. If my workplace's dress code is to wear a white shirt, I wear a red shirt and my boss, co-workers and clients object -- is is immoral for me to wear a red shirt? Is it immoral to defend oneself against violent crime? I'm sure the attacker would not agree to be harmed by his victim.
That is exactly why the CI is formulated on NECESSITY. Does everyone at your office believe it is NECESSARY to wear a white shirt? I rather think not. As for self defense I talked about that above, And yes, the attacker would believe that defending oneself against someone like him would be necessary, if the situation were reversed.
Is it immoral to eat vegetables when animals are harmed in their harvesting?
Only if they were intentionally harmed. If harming animals is accidental, the act that causes the harm was not intentional, and is not subject to moral analysis. To explain, if in the process of growing corn to feed myself I accidentally plow up and kill an animal, and my intent was never to hurt the animal in the first place, then there was no intentional act to judge. On the other hand, if I know that in plowing up ten acres, statistically I will kill 15 animals, even though I do not want to, then one has to question whether the killing becomes intentional. Using the CI, I have no intention of harming the animals, and my act was necessary to get food. The animals probably also profit from my planting the crops, so they could agree. This is analogous to walking across the lawn and accidentally stepping on ants. My purpose in walking is not to kill ants but to get from point A to point B. Therefore my intent is not immoral even though some creatures suffer from my walking.
Maybe the potential for harm to both parties have to be taken into account in the CI. I would not have a problem eating another animal if necessary for my own survival, but since I don't need to, I feel it is a more defensible choice not to harm others. I'd like to hope I would never hurt someone for no reason, but I would hurt someone to defend myself or my family. At what point on the continuum does it become a moral issue?
I agree with everything you said. It is a question of intent. You cannot be judged immoral for an unintentional consequence of your act. Certain movements and activities are necessary in order to live, and an unintentional consequence of these acts may be the unintentional death of some creatures. I submit that unintentional consequences alone do not make an act immoral.If you believe you know of some exception to that rule, please let me know. But the CI, I believe, is only meant to judge the morality of acts with foreseeable consequences, such as eating meat. It is absolutely impossible to eat meat without killing an animal. Therefore the consequences are foreseen.0 -
I think you have a pretty good theory going there, for the most part. I agree intention is an important part of it. It may be hard to know what animals would consider necessary without ascribing a bit of our own bias to them, but I think most people would agree that animals would prefer not to be mistreated, at least (although there is clearly a vast difference of opinion about what constitutes mistreatment).
I'm still not 100% comfortable with dictating what is and isn't a moral issue to someone who doesn't see it that way, such as the person above who said she does not see eating meat as a moral issue. Say someone were to be completely lacking any sense of morality, due to absence of empathy, for instance -- I think we can only go so far as to say, "this is a moral issue to many people". I guess I'm still hesitant to accept that there is any sort of absolute morality, despite your logical proposition for its basis. To me, absolute would mean coming from outside of us.0 -
While an interesting theory, it will remain unconvincing to most simply because they won't accept that cows, gophers, ants, or snakes have the cognitive ability to apply logic to a situation and decided that 15 dead gophers is worth having 15 acres of food at the disposal of the rest of the family. You, as a human being, can put yourself in the gophers place and follow the logical thought process to a decision about whether you'd agree as the victim In the situation or not. The gopher, however, cannot. Neither can the cow, pig, chicken, fish, or any other non thinking food source.0
-
While an interesting theory, it will remain unconvincing to most simply because they won't accept that cows, gophers, ants, or snakes have the cognitive ability to apply logic to a situation and decided that 15 dead gophers is worth having 15 acres of food at the disposal of the rest of the family. You, as a human being, can put yourself in the gophers place and follow the logical thought process to a decision about whether you'd agree as the victim In the situation or not. The gopher, however, cannot. Neither can the cow, pig, chicken, fish, or any other non thinking food source.
The 15 dead gopher argument is a red herring. All human activity comes with adverse consequences to some living organism. If you take a bath or a shower you kill billions of bacteria living on your body. Bacteria, however are not sentient.
What on earth makes you thinl that a cow, pig, chicken, or a fish is "unthinking?" Do you think all animals are "unthinking," except for humans? That is emphatically not true. Is this what you truly believe? Do you feel they are incapable of love as well? Of feeling pain?0 -
I think you have a pretty good theory going there, for the most part. I agree intention is an important part of it. It may be hard to know what animals would consider necessary without ascribing a bit of our own bias to them, but I think most people would agree that animals would prefer not to be mistreated, at least (although there is clearly a vast difference of opinion about what constitutes mistreatment).
I'm still not 100% comfortable with dictating what is and isn't a moral issue to someone who doesn't see it that way, such as the person above who said she does not see eating meat as a moral issue. Say someone were to be completely lacking any sense of morality, due to absence of empathy, for instance -- I think we can only go so far as to say, "this is a moral issue to many people". I guess I'm still hesitant to accept that there is any sort of absolute morality, despite your logical proposition for its basis. To me, absolute would mean coming from outside of us.
Thank you but first of all, it is not my theory, but Kant's Actually you could probably find this back in Biblical times and before.
I am extremely comfortable telling people that moral relativism is simply and purely WRONG. As rational beings we should all know that, but unfortunately, we are in an era when moral relativism is a popular fad. I think you can logically attribute to animals the will to survive and not be eaten. That will to survive is genetic in every creature I know of that has a will has a desire to survive. (Except Priscilla the Pig from Restaurant at the End of the Universe, which was written by a long time vegetarian.)
http://www.stoa.org.uk/topics/animals/the-pig-that-wants-to-be-eaten.html
Anyway, not only am I comfortable telling people that moral relativism is a sham, but also I am completely comfortable telling people that vegetarianism is the supreme morality, and that vegetarianism is morally superior to meat eating for creatures who have a choice.0 -
While an interesting theory, it will remain unconvincing to most simply because they won't accept that cows, gophers, ants, or snakes have the cognitive ability to apply logic to a situation and decided that 15 dead gophers is worth having 15 acres of food at the disposal of the rest of the family. You, as a human being, can put yourself in the gophers place and follow the logical thought process to a decision about whether you'd agree as the victim In the situation or not. The gopher, however, cannot. Neither can the cow, pig, chicken, fish, or any other non thinking food source.
The 15 dead gopher argument is a red herring. All human activity comes with adverse consequences to some living organism. If you take a bath or a shower you kill billions of bacteria living on your body. Bacteria, however are not sentient.
What on earth makes you thinl that a cow, pig, chicken, or a fish is "unthinking?" Do you think all animals are "unthinking," except for humans? That is emphatically not true. Is this what you truly believe? Do you feel they are incapable of love as well? Of feeling pain?
Bytheway, before you answer this, you might want to read about Koko.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)0
