Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Meat Eater, Vegetarian or Vegan?

1242527293038

Replies

  • sunnybeaches105sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,846Member Member Posts: 2,846Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    Where does she say she is holding humanity to a different standard? I saw comments about one's individual sense of ethics and morals, not humanity as a whole.

    I don't require people to share my ethics and don't think that because some differ that it discounts them either.

    I do hold humanity to a different standard due to our ability to exercise moral reasoning and make decisions. I don't expect by that standard that everyone will reach the same conclusion -- we haven't done that in other areas of ethics, so expecting it around how we treat those of other species would be ridiculous.

    But my recognition of the fact that humans have moral reasoning and can make decisions (unlike animals, at least based on what we know of animal cognition today) isn't a vegan thing. Most of us understand that humans are capable of decisions that animals likely aren't -- that's why we punish humans who do certain things and we don't punish animals who do the same things.

    why is it ridiculous? I don't follow. Of what other areas of ethics are you speaking?

    See above on animal cognition. Do we not punish animals?
  • jgnatcajgnatca Posts: 14,495Member Member Posts: 14,495Member Member
    Non-human reasoning. Capuchin monkeys reject unequal pay (fairness).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL45pVdsRvE
  • BecomingBaneBecomingBane Posts: 3,662Member Member Posts: 3,662Member Member
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    Measurable cognition and reasoning skills as well as the ability to make decisions and rationalize.

    So measureable cogniition and reasoning skills and the ability to make decisions and rationalize = holding a creature to an ethical standard?

    Does a chimpanzee have measurable cognition and reasoning skills and the ability to make decisions? I'm going to guess that it's difficult to determine whether the chimp can rationalize, but assuming it can make that leap, why would we treat humanity different from a chimp? Dolphins? Pigs? Whales? Dogs?

    My point, and the point that you seem to be overlooking is that the characteristics I mentioned above, combined with self awareness lead to a sense of responsibility for our actions. This sense of responsibility (or social contract) is the basis of all laws and behaviors that are deemed appropriate by a group of individuals.
    Don't you think if any of those creatures could be proven to have the same measure of cognition and responsibility, that they wouldn't be treated on equal punishment under law for infractions? (Equal rights would be a different matter)
  • sunnybeaches105sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,846Member Member Posts: 2,846Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    Where does she say she is holding humanity to a different standard? I saw comments about one's individual sense of ethics and morals, not humanity as a whole.

    I don't require people to share my ethics and don't think that because some differ that it discounts them either.

    So predatory species should be held to the same standard as humanity?

    I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

    But no. I personally hold humans to a higher standard since I find murder unacceptable. We also have laws to hold human beings accountable. I do not believe predatory species have such things, unless I am grossly mistaken.

    I'm asking why you hold humanity to a higher standard. By "personally hold humans to a higher standard" are you saying that you "believe" humans "should" be held to a higher standard?

    What do you mean by "such things" that predatory species do not have? Ethics?

    How do you define "murder"?

  • sunnybeaches105sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,846Member Member Posts: 2,846Member Member
    jgnatca wrote: »
    Non-human reasoning. Capuchin monkeys reject unequal pay (fairness).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL45pVdsRvE


    So if Capuchin monkeys recongize fairness and therefor demonstrate what may be called moral reasoning skills should they be held to our laws? Why or why not?
  • sunnybeaches105sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,846Member Member Posts: 2,846Member Member
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    Measurable cognition and reasoning skills as well as the ability to make decisions and rationalize.

    So measureable cogniition and reasoning skills and the ability to make decisions and rationalize = holding a creature to an ethical standard?

    Does a chimpanzee have measurable cognition and reasoning skills and the ability to make decisions? I'm going to guess that it's difficult to determine whether the chimp can rationalize, but assuming it can make that leap, why would we treat humanity different from a chimp? Dolphins? Pigs? Whales? Dogs?

    My point, and the point that you seem to be overlooking is that the characteristics I mentioned above, combined with self awareness lead to a sense of responsibility for our actions. This sense of responsibility (or social contract) is the basis of all laws and behaviors that are deemed appropriate by a group of individuals.
    Don't you think if any of those creatures could be proven to have the same measure of cognition and responsibility, that they wouldn't be treated on equal punishment under law for infractions? (Equal rights would be a different matter)

    I'm making no point. I'm simply asking questions. So self awareness by necessity results in ethics? Why? From where does morality come? Who signs this social contract? I never have signed one. And, if many people disagree on some of the most fundamental principals of ethics (as demonstrated in this thread), how would we draft such a contract?

    On your last point, so the basis for being bound by law and subject to equal punishment is cognitive ability? How smart does one need to be? What IQ level?
  • sunnybeaches105sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,846Member Member Posts: 2,846Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    Where does she say she is holding humanity to a different standard? I saw comments about one's individual sense of ethics and morals, not humanity as a whole.

    I don't require people to share my ethics and don't think that because some differ that it discounts them either.

    So predatory species should be held to the same standard as humanity?

    I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

    But no. I personally hold humans to a higher standard since I find murder unacceptable. We also have laws to hold human beings accountable. I do not believe predatory species have such things, unless I am grossly mistaken.

    I'm asking why you hold humanity to a higher standard. By "personally hold humans to a higher standard" are you saying that you "believe" humans "should" be held to a higher standard?

    What do you mean by "such things" that predatory species do not have? Ethics?

    How do you define "murder"?

    What does this have to do with the OP's question of what diet is healthier?

    If you want to attack the personal ethical beliefs of vegans or vegetarians when it comes to food choices, I would encourage you to start your own thread. I don't think a debate on defining the definition of murder is appropriate at a diet and fitness site.

    Is it an attack to ask someone why they believe what they have said they believe? I will assert here that didn't raise the issue of morality and veganism. Nor have I asserted that your beliefs are wrong.
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    Where does she say she is holding humanity to a different standard? I saw comments about one's individual sense of ethics and morals, not humanity as a whole.

    I don't require people to share my ethics and don't think that because some differ that it discounts them either.

    So predatory species should be held to the same standard as humanity?

    I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

    But no. I personally hold humans to a higher standard since I find murder unacceptable. We also have laws to hold human beings accountable. I do not believe predatory species have such things, unless I am grossly mistaken.

    I'm asking why you hold humanity to a higher standard. By "personally hold humans to a higher standard" are you saying that you "believe" humans "should" be held to a higher standard?

    I think most people would hold human beings to a higher/different standard than other animals, yes.
    How do you define "murder"?

    Unlawful or wrongful killing. (I'm not a vegetarian, so I don't believe meat is murder, but I do think a human who murders someone is morally responsible in a way that a bear is not.)
    edited March 2016
  • sunnybeaches105sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,846Member Member Posts: 2,846Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    Where does she say she is holding humanity to a different standard? I saw comments about one's individual sense of ethics and morals, not humanity as a whole.

    I don't require people to share my ethics and don't think that because some differ that it discounts them either.

    So predatory species should be held to the same standard as humanity?

    I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

    But no. I personally hold humans to a higher standard since I find murder unacceptable. We also have laws to hold human beings accountable. I do not believe predatory species have such things, unless I am grossly mistaken.

    I'm asking why you hold humanity to a higher standard. By "personally hold humans to a higher standard" are you saying that you "believe" humans "should" be held to a higher standard?

    What do you mean by "such things" that predatory species do not have? Ethics?

    How do you define "murder"?

    What does this have to do with the OP's question of what diet is healthier?

    If you want to attack the personal ethical beliefs of vegans or vegetarians when it comes to food choices, I would encourage you to start your own thread. I don't think a debate on defining the definition of murder is appropriate at a diet and fitness site.

    Is it an attack to ask someone why they believe what they have said they believe? I will assert here that didn't raise the issue of morality and veganism. Nor have I asserted that your beliefs are wrong.

    Take care.

    And to bring it back to the topic at hand...and I firmly believe this is a thread with a lot of value. I think that any diet that is varied and enjoyable by the person eating it...is the healthiest one. I think we spend a lot of time arguing and trying to defend what is "THE best healthiest diet" and that is a shame.

    Two belief statements with no support either in logic or science, and an assertion that debate is a a shame. Do you think that science and logic are without merit?
  • sunnybeaches105sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,846Member Member Posts: 2,846Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    Where does she say she is holding humanity to a different standard? I saw comments about one's individual sense of ethics and morals, not humanity as a whole.

    I don't require people to share my ethics and don't think that because some differ that it discounts them either.

    So predatory species should be held to the same standard as humanity?

    I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

    But no. I personally hold humans to a higher standard since I find murder unacceptable. We also have laws to hold human beings accountable. I do not believe predatory species have such things, unless I am grossly mistaken.

    I'm asking why you hold humanity to a higher standard. By "personally hold humans to a higher standard" are you saying that you "believe" humans "should" be held to a higher standard?

    I think most people would hold human beings to a higher/different standard than other animals, yes.
    How do you define "murder"?

    Unlawful or wrongful killing. (I'm not a vegetarian, so I don't believe meat is murder, but I do think a human who murders someone is morally responsible in a way that a bear is not.)

    I didn't ask what most humans believe. At various times in history "most humans" believed that the sun was a god, that various races were inferior, that the world was flat, etc. I asked why one would hold humanity to a higher or different standard.

    Okay, so "murder" is "unlawful or wrongful killing?" What makes killing wrongful? And, if we legalized the killing of persons who wore blue shirts would killing a person wearing a blue shirt be "murder" and "wrong" in your mind?
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    Okay, so "murder" is "unlawful or wrongful killing?" What makes killing wrongful? And, if we legalized the killing of persons who wore blue shirts would killing a person wearing a blue shirt be "murder" and "wrong" in your mind?

    It's an ethical question. As I find it hard to believe that you don't agree with me that killing is in some (many) cases wrongful, and the fact that we don't hold bears morally responsible doesn't change that (although we might destroy them in some circumstances), I don't see the purpose of derailing the thread with a discussion of when/why killing is wrong.

    And no, something being legal is not sufficient for me to say it's not wrongful.
  • sunnybeaches105sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,846Member Member Posts: 2,846Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Okay, so "murder" is "unlawful or wrongful killing?" What makes killing wrongful? And, if we legalized the killing of persons who wore blue shirts would killing a person wearing a blue shirt be "murder" and "wrong" in your mind?

    It's an ethical question. As I find it hard to believe that you don't agree with me that killing is in some (many) cases wrongful, and the fact that we don't hold bears morally responsible doesn't change that (although we might destroy them in some circumstances), I don't see the purpose of derailing the thread with a discussion of when/why killing is wrong.

    And no, something being legal is not sufficient for me to say it's not wrongful.

    Why do you conclude that I don't believe that killing in some cases is wrongful? I'm merely attempting to determine the basis for this belief. What makes killing in some (many) cases wrongful? Are there cases where killing is not wrongful? Why would we not hold bears morally responsible if we also grant them certain moral rights? I'm assuming, of course, that you think bears should be given some rights? Correct me if that assumption is wrong.

    Why is asking someone to clarify their assetions derailing the thread?
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Okay, so "murder" is "unlawful or wrongful killing?" What makes killing wrongful? And, if we legalized the killing of persons who wore blue shirts would killing a person wearing a blue shirt be "murder" and "wrong" in your mind?

    It's an ethical question. As I find it hard to believe that you don't agree with me that killing is in some (many) cases wrongful, and the fact that we don't hold bears morally responsible doesn't change that (although we might destroy them in some circumstances), I don't see the purpose of derailing the thread with a discussion of when/why killing is wrong.

    And no, something being legal is not sufficient for me to say it's not wrongful.

    Why do you conclude that I don't believe that killing in some cases is wrongful? I'm merely attempting to determine the basis for this belief. What makes killing in some (many) cases wrongful? Are there cases where killing is not wrongful? Why would we not hold bears morally responsible if we also grant them certain moral rights? I'm assuming, of course, that you think bears should be given some rights? Correct me if that assumption is wrong.

    Why is asking someone to clarify their assetions derailing the thread?

    Why would I think bears should have rights?

    Re murder, bears can't form mens rea.
    edited March 2016
  • sunnybeaches105sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,846Member Member Posts: 2,846Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Okay, so "murder" is "unlawful or wrongful killing?" What makes killing wrongful? And, if we legalized the killing of persons who wore blue shirts would killing a person wearing a blue shirt be "murder" and "wrong" in your mind?

    It's an ethical question. As I find it hard to believe that you don't agree with me that killing is in some (many) cases wrongful, and the fact that we don't hold bears morally responsible doesn't change that (although we might destroy them in some circumstances), I don't see the purpose of derailing the thread with a discussion of when/why killing is wrong.

    And no, something being legal is not sufficient for me to say it's not wrongful.

    Why do you conclude that I don't believe that killing in some cases is wrongful? I'm merely attempting to determine the basis for this belief. What makes killing in some (many) cases wrongful? Are there cases where killing is not wrongful? Why would we not hold bears morally responsible if we also grant them certain moral rights? I'm assuming, of course, that you think bears should be given some rights? Correct me if that assumption is wrong.

    Why is asking someone to clarify their assetions derailing the thread?

    Why would I think bears should have rights?

    Re murder, bears can't form mens rea.

    I don't know what your beliefs regarding the rights of bears might be. Do you think it's okay to kill bears for any reason whatsoever? Per earlier statement above, I agree it's an ethical question, and I'm trying to figure out why people in this thread believe that some beings have rights (and moral obligations) and some beings don't.
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 21,096Member Member Posts: 21,096Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    Where does she say she is holding humanity to a different standard? I saw comments about one's individual sense of ethics and morals, not humanity as a whole.

    I don't require people to share my ethics and don't think that because some differ that it discounts them either.

    I do hold humanity to a different standard due to our ability to exercise moral reasoning and make decisions. I don't expect by that standard that everyone will reach the same conclusion -- we haven't done that in other areas of ethics, so expecting it around how we treat those of other species would be ridiculous.

    But my recognition of the fact that humans have moral reasoning and can make decisions (unlike animals, at least based on what we know of animal cognition today) isn't a vegan thing. Most of us understand that humans are capable of decisions that animals likely aren't -- that's why we punish humans who do certain things and we don't punish animals who do the same things.

    why is it ridiculous? I don't follow. Of what other areas of ethics are you speaking?

    See above on animal cognition. Do we not punish animals?

    Given that we haven't yet reached universal consensus on what is ethical when it comes to how we treat our fellow humans, I don't think it is reasonable to expect us to reach on it on we treat animals. This doesn't mean I don't think we should have the conversations or strive to understand each other, just that expecting everyone to agree isn't realistic. That's why I chose the word "ridiculous."

    We don't agree on things like what makes a just war or when capital punishment is appropriate, how much control women should have over their reproductive capability, what types of human relationships are licit and which are harmful to society, how to discipline children, what types of sexual acts are appropriate and between who, whether or not people are entitled to resources created by others, etc etc etc. These ethical conversations (and others) about human relationships go on and on. I imagine we'll continue to debate these things for as long as there are humans.

    When you say we punish animals, what are you thinking of?
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 21,096Member Member Posts: 21,096Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    shell1005 wrote: »
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    Where does she say she is holding humanity to a different standard? I saw comments about one's individual sense of ethics and morals, not humanity as a whole.

    I don't require people to share my ethics and don't think that because some differ that it discounts them either.

    So predatory species should be held to the same standard as humanity?

    I am not sure what point you are trying to make.

    But no. I personally hold humans to a higher standard since I find murder unacceptable. We also have laws to hold human beings accountable. I do not believe predatory species have such things, unless I am grossly mistaken.

    I'm asking why you hold humanity to a higher standard. By "personally hold humans to a higher standard" are you saying that you "believe" humans "should" be held to a higher standard?

    What do you mean by "such things" that predatory species do not have? Ethics?

    How do you define "murder"?

    What does this have to do with the OP's question of what diet is healthier?

    If you want to attack the personal ethical beliefs of vegans or vegetarians when it comes to food choices, I would encourage you to start your own thread. I don't think a debate on defining the definition of murder is appropriate at a diet and fitness site.

    Is it an attack to ask someone why they believe what they have said they believe? I will assert here that didn't raise the issue of morality and veganism. Nor have I asserted that your beliefs are wrong.

    I think we spend a lot of time arguing and trying to defend what is "THE best healthiest diet" and that is a shame.

    Agree 100%. I don't think "THE best healthiest diet" exists.
  • sunnybeaches105sunnybeaches105 Posts: 2,846Member Member Posts: 2,846Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    I eat meat. I understand the ethical side of being vegetarian or vegan, however there are ethical ways to get your meat as well, you just have to be willing to take the time to research the best sources. I eat meat because evolutionarily, our bodies are designed to be able to consume meat, its the reason our teeth are the way they are. We as humans are omnivores.

    If one has concluded that it isn't ethical to harm others unnecessarily, there wouldn't be an ethical way to source meat (unless you're talking about roadkill or animals that have died from other causes). I understand that everyone doesn't share this conclusion, but to flatly state that there are ethical ways to get meat just isn't accurate.

    For some of us, even the most "humane" slaughter wouldn't be considered ethical.

    How is saying there are ethical ways to source meat more or less correct than saying it's unethical to eat meat when the ethics are not shared?

    If one is saying there are ethical ways to source meat (assuming one isn't talking about roadkill or something like that), it's saying there are ethical ways to slaughter animals. I think it's worth pointing out that not everyone agrees it's ethical to slaughter animals for food, even if it is done in a "kinder" way.

    I'm not sure what ethics you are saying are unshared -- perhaps I don't understand your question.

    Why is humanity held to a different standard than other predatory species?

    Where does she say she is holding humanity to a different standard? I saw comments about one's individual sense of ethics and morals, not humanity as a whole.

    I don't require people to share my ethics and don't think that because some differ that it discounts them either.

    I do hold humanity to a different standard due to our ability to exercise moral reasoning and make decisions. I don't expect by that standard that everyone will reach the same conclusion -- we haven't done that in other areas of ethics, so expecting it around how we treat those of other species would be ridiculous.

    But my recognition of the fact that humans have moral reasoning and can make decisions (unlike animals, at least based on what we know of animal cognition today) isn't a vegan thing. Most of us understand that humans are capable of decisions that animals likely aren't -- that's why we punish humans who do certain things and we don't punish animals who do the same things.

    why is it ridiculous? I don't follow. Of what other areas of ethics are you speaking?

    See above on animal cognition. Do we not punish animals?

    Given that we haven't yet reached universal consensus on what is ethical when it comes to how we treat our fellow humans, I don't think it is reasonable to expect us to reach on it on we treat animals. This doesn't mean I don't think we should have the conversations or strive to understand each other, just that expecting everyone to agree isn't realistic. That's why I chose the word "ridiculous."

    We don't agree on things like what makes a just war or when capital punishment is appropriate, how much control women should have over their reproductive capability, what types of human relationships are licit and which are harmful to society, how to discipline children, what types of sexual acts are appropriate and between who, whether or not people are entitled to resources created by others, etc etc etc. These ethical conversations (and others) about human relationships go on and on. I imagine we'll continue to debate these things for as long as there are humans.

    When you say we punish animals, what are you thinking of?

    Help me understand this a bit better. You are saying that since we can't all agree on something that asking people to clarify or defend their positions is "ridiculous?" I never asserted that everyone will agree on ethics. Quite the opposite really. I do see many many assertions in this thread about what is right and wrong and what various people believe. I've been asking why and received very few answers.

    Societies tend to kill animals when animals attack people. One could see that as punishment or mere disposal much like we throw away rusty nails. The former would grant some ethical standard (even rights) to the animals (the killing requires some justification), the latter wouldn't necessarily do that.
Sign In or Register to comment.