Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Meat Eater, Vegetarian or Vegan?

1262729313238

Replies

  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 21,173Member Member Posts: 21,173Member Member
    so I have a question - for vegans with dogs/cats or other carnivorous pets, do you feed them conventional food? just curious, sorry if this is off topic.

    Above someone mentioned it being unethical in the food industry to remove an animal from it's parent. If that is true wouldn't the same be true for pets? How could a human have a pet unless an animal was separated from it's parent?

    Vegans tend to have rescued companion animals -- animals who were homeless or coming from unsuitable living situations. In these cases, life has generally already separated them from their parents.

  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    so I have a question - for vegans with dogs/cats or other carnivorous pets, do you feed them conventional food? just curious, sorry if this is off topic.

    Above someone mentioned it being unethical in the food industry to remove an animal from it's parent. If that is true wouldn't the same be true for pets? How could a human have a pet unless an animal was separated from it's parent?

    Vegans tend to have rescued companion animals -- animals who were homeless or coming from unsuitable living situations. In these cases, life has generally already separated them from their parents.

    It was only separated though because someone wanted a pet. If humans did not own pets, there would never have been a reason to separate them. Wouldn't owning even a recue pet perpetuate that?

    Would this be more or less ethical than rescuing a hen that was no longer wanted and eating it's eggs?
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 21,173Member Member Posts: 21,173Member Member
    so I have a question - for vegans with dogs/cats or other carnivorous pets, do you feed them conventional food? just curious, sorry if this is off topic.

    Above someone mentioned it being unethical in the food industry to remove an animal from it's parent. If that is true wouldn't the same be true for pets? How could a human have a pet unless an animal was separated from it's parent?

    Vegans tend to have rescued companion animals -- animals who were homeless or coming from unsuitable living situations. In these cases, life has generally already separated them from their parents.

    It was only separated though because someone wanted a pet. If humans did not own pets, there would never have been a reason to separate them. Wouldn't owning even a recue pet perpetuate that?

    Would this be more or less ethical than rescuing a hen that was no longer wanted and eating it's eggs?

    What would you suggest as an alternative?

    Rescuing a pet is a response to a specific individual's situation. It doesn't perpetuate pet breeding. In fact, millions of animals are killed each year because there is no home for them and society doesn't allocate the resources to take care of them. If animals were being bred for rescue, I would see your point.

    What would you suggest an ethical vegan do instead?

    Some vegans do chicken rescue. Most of the chickens who are rescued are coming from backyard egg situations -- either from people who underestimated the commitment involved in caring for chickens or chickens who were discarded because people only valued them as a source of eggs. There is nothing unethical about sharing your home with a chicken who would otherwise be killed. As far as eating eggs, vegans wouldn't. Some vegans feel a distaste for eggs after they stop eating them, others feel it perpetuates a message that they don't want to be a part of.
  • jgnatcajgnatca Posts: 14,495Member Member Posts: 14,495Member Member
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    so I have a question - for vegans with dogs/cats or other carnivorous pets, do you feed them conventional food? just curious, sorry if this is off topic.

    Not me, but a good friend of mine is a vegan, and she feeds her dog meat. She believes that humans have a choice to have a healthy diet without meat, but that a healthy canine diet requires it.
  • BecomingBaneBecomingBane Posts: 3,667Member Member Posts: 3,667Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    so I have a question - for vegans with dogs/cats or other carnivorous pets, do you feed them conventional food? just curious, sorry if this is off topic.

    Not me, but a good friend of mine is a vegan, and she feeds her dog meat. She believes that humans have a choice to have a healthy diet without meat, but that a healthy canine diet requires it.

    Based on all evidence I have seen, I would agree as I do the same thing for my cat for the same reason.

    *Edited for clarity
    edited March 2016
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    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.

    You seriously don't understand why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights or moral responsibilities?

    I mentioned above that I am not a vegan or vegetarian, so probably I wouldn't think animals have human or Constitutional rights, yeah. The argument that humans are held to different moral or ethical standards by vegans than the animals themselves still seems to me a silly argument. Even if you think it's wrong to kill any animals (outside of defensive reasons), there's still an obvious difference in mental capacity and we don't even hold children to the same legal standards, or incapacitated people, due to such things as mens rea and age of accountability.

    I asked you whether you thought killing bears for any reason whatsoever is okay.

    This is not a clear question. Are you asking whether there is any reason I would think is sufficient to kill a bear? If so, the answer is yes (but it's not particularly relevant to anything in this discussion).

    If you are asking whether I think it's okay (as in ethically acceptable) to kill bears for any reason at all, no matter what it is, no -- there are reasons I would consider ethically insufficient to justify killing a bear, in my own view. Whether I'd impose them on others is a different question
    I have my own theories regarding why people distinguish between humans and other animals in terms of rights and moral responsibilities, but they I often think that these beliefs have less to do with critical reasoning than habit and personal preferences.

    Humans and other animals are different. You can argue about how much it matters, but it's obviously true.
    As to the silly argument position, why would you engage in a silly argument?

    I thought you were trolling a bit and it annoyed me. Specifically, the argument that it's wrong to consider that humans may have moral/ethical responsibilities to refrain from harming animals merely because a cat does not (and we don't consider them criminally liable for eating a mouse). Humans have the ability to reason morally about what they should do in a way that cats do not -- cats act more instinctually (and also are obligate carnivores). Also, I'm weak.
    People once thought giving rights to minorities was silly because it was "obvious" "they" were different. Is that a fair statement? Why or why not?

    In that they are humans, I think comparing this argument with the human/animal one is problematic, for the reasons discussed re the slavery analogy upthread.

    For the record, I didn't say it was silly that we might decide that non human animals have certain limited rights (although I think that's inconsistent with how we normally think about the concept of rights). I said that your assumption that *I* thought bears had rights was silly, in that I had already admitted that I was fine with eating animals (I suppose I could think bears have rights and cows and deer do not, but why would that be the case). That was part of why I didn't think you were trying to engage in a serious discussion (and still do not) -- you were trying to make an argument that it's inconsistent to think non human animals have rights and not hold them morally responsible for their "crimes."

    Okay then. I suppose that's the end of any reasonable discussion.

    Let me simply state that I happen to find ethics to be an incredibly complex and difficult subject, and I concentrated in it prior to graduate school. Some MBA programs have also incorporated it into their programs, and law schools do by necessity (though legal ethics is not really about how we feel unless "we" are the ones writing the rules, though morality aside from legal ethics rules is also often discussed). We also have laws on the treatment of animals. Whether these laws grant animals "rights" depends on the law, but law also isn't static. So, these issues can and do ultimately drive laws and business practices in the real world, and I would hope people spent time thinking through them before claiming the moral high ground.

    I'll add that there is no trolling by me here. If I had a purpose other than curiosity over various stated opinions, it was to suggest that perhaps people should have a degree of humility when it comes to their strong opinions on this subject.

    To be clear, you are drawing arbitrary lines between humans and other animals, and apparently among different animals. What you are doing is common, but the minute someone asks "why" many run away or do as you have done, call it silly and claim trolling. I suppose I'll head back to my bubble. Work to be done and whatnot.

    Nothing arbitrary about the line. If you can pull out a bear that talks and is willing to discuss whether Singer's utilitarianism is speciest or ableist in regards to his existence as an animal, then of course we'll be willing to accept he has an equal responsibility as any rational adult has to not attack other people. So it isn't arbitrary (based on species) it is a sliding scale based on the capacity of the animal. Same as applies to children. Or do you see treating children differently in law and ethics as arbitrary, even when most courts do have procedures for testing if a child has the capacity to be treated as an adult because they do have the understanding?
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    angelofdef wrote: »
    I'm Vegan, and while many see Veganism as a healthy lifestyle, it is more about the ethics of not using animal products (more than just food) at all. As far as Plant-Based Diet, which is what many people think of when they think Vegan, I think it makes it a lot easier to eat healthy when you aren't adding a mountain of cheese on top of everything and plant based food naturally have no cholesterol. My bloodwork number before and after making the switch are staggering. I've also been able to lose 100lbs fairly easily since making the switch.

    Did the cholesterol numbers coincide purely with the switch to veganism, or was it also part of the 100 lbs? By the nature of fat loss, you're almost guaranteed to improve your triglyceride levels by losing weight.
  • BecomingBaneBecomingBane Posts: 3,667Member Member Posts: 3,667Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    angelofdef wrote: »
    I'm Vegan, and while many see Veganism as a healthy lifestyle, it is more about the ethics of not using animal products (more than just food) at all. As far as Plant-Based Diet, which is what many people think of when they think Vegan, I think it makes it a lot easier to eat healthy when you aren't adding a mountain of cheese on top of everything and plant based food naturally have no cholesterol. My bloodwork number before and after making the switch are staggering. I've also been able to lose 100lbs fairly easily since making the switch.

    Did the cholesterol numbers coincide purely with the switch to veganism, or was it also part of the 100 lbs? By the nature of fat loss, you're almost guaranteed to improve your triglyceride levels by losing weight.

    I know that I didn't post the post you are commenting on, but I saw similar drop in cholesterol when I transitioned to veganism... but I lost both hdl and ldl and had to correct my diet as HDL was far under what was considered healthy. This was not from weight loss as I hadn't lost any... although I did quit smoking at the same time (no idea if that has any correlation).
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    so I have a question - for vegans with dogs/cats or other carnivorous pets, do you feed them conventional food? just curious, sorry if this is off topic.

    Above someone mentioned it being unethical in the food industry to remove an animal from it's parent. If that is true wouldn't the same be true for pets? How could a human have a pet unless an animal was separated from it's parent?

    Vegans tend to have rescued companion animals -- animals who were homeless or coming from unsuitable living situations. In these cases, life has generally already separated them from their parents.

    It was only separated though because someone wanted a pet. If humans did not own pets, there would never have been a reason to separate them. Wouldn't owning even a recue pet perpetuate that?

    Would this be more or less ethical than rescuing a hen that was no longer wanted and eating it's eggs?

    What would you suggest as an alternative?

    Rescuing a pet is a response to a specific individual's situation. It doesn't perpetuate pet breeding. In fact, millions of animals are killed each year because there is no home for them and society doesn't allocate the resources to take care of them. If animals were being bred for rescue, I would see your point.

    What would you suggest an ethical vegan do instead?

    Some vegans do chicken rescue. Most of the chickens who are rescued are coming from backyard egg situations -- either from people who underestimated the commitment involved in caring for chickens or chickens who were discarded because people only valued them as a source of eggs. There is nothing unethical about sharing your home with a chicken who would otherwise be killed. As far as eating eggs, vegans wouldn't. Some vegans feel a distaste for eggs after they stop eating them, others feel it perpetuates a message that they don't want to be a part of.

    I wouldn't suggest anything as alternative. I am a staunch supporter of animal rescue, be it pet or farm animals. I was just curious based on earlier responses.
  • robininflrobininfl Posts: 1,144Member Member Posts: 1,144Member Member
    Was vegetarian for 20 years, but started eating some meat in my late 30s and for my body (tending toward lean naturally) I find that a low-but-some meat diet works best for my health. So on average 4-5 days a week are vegetarian and 4-5 meals have meat, usually fish, sometimes turkey or chicken.


    My cholesterol readings got better when I added meat to the diet. The total stayed constant but "good cholesterol" skyrocketed (probably from fish oils? Or some response my body made to the change, anyway) so the overall profile was better. I did not lose or gain weight from the change in diet.


    Ethically, I think that vegan or raising your own animals gently for meat, or hunting it, are the most ethical ways to eat, all are impractical for me. Haven't ever tried to be vegan (though plenty of our meals are, it's too restrictive for me, I like so many animal foods, even when vegetarian loved eggs and cheeses) and no yard or time to raise animals for food, would hate hunting as I do not like camping and can't hit the side of a house shooting so no aptitude or desire for it.
  • ForecasterJasonForecasterJason Posts: 2,582Member Member Posts: 2,582Member Member
    I had mentioned earlier in the thread that I believe we as humans were created to have superiority over animals. For me, I could not imagine treating animals on the same level as other humans. Now, this doesn't mean I have a license to go on a senseless rage and start shooting down animals for fun.

    Why is it okay to kill animals for one type of pleasure (the pleasure of eating them or wearing their skin or fur) but not for another type of pleasure (the pleasure of sport hunting)? Or is the state of mind you're in (I noticed you mentioned senseless rage) important?

    That is, does being created to have superiority over animals mean it's okay to shoot animals for fun in a certain frame of mind, but not in a state of anger?
    I will say this. Hunting is not something that has appealed to me, but at the same time I don't know that I would jump to the conclusion that it's unethical for others to do it. Personally, that may be hovering over the line for what I would consider to be ethical vs unethical. At least that's an actual activity that society has deemed somewhat acceptable.

    In evaluating the ethics of it, the way I see it the decision comes down to what is to be gained by it. Meaning, I would say that killing animals for food or other human use is very different than, say, shooting animals to take out frustration. One has practical use for other humans, while in the other case there's nothing to be gained.



  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 21,173Member Member Posts: 21,173Member Member
    I had mentioned earlier in the thread that I believe we as humans were created to have superiority over animals. For me, I could not imagine treating animals on the same level as other humans. Now, this doesn't mean I have a license to go on a senseless rage and start shooting down animals for fun.

    Why is it okay to kill animals for one type of pleasure (the pleasure of eating them or wearing their skin or fur) but not for another type of pleasure (the pleasure of sport hunting)? Or is the state of mind you're in (I noticed you mentioned senseless rage) important?

    That is, does being created to have superiority over animals mean it's okay to shoot animals for fun in a certain frame of mind, but not in a state of anger?
    I will say this. Hunting is not something that has appealed to me, but at the same time I don't know that I would jump to the conclusion that it's unethical for others to do it. Personally, that may be hovering over the line for what I would consider to be ethical vs unethical. At least that's an actual activity that society has deemed somewhat acceptable.

    In evaluating the ethics of it, the way I see it the decision comes down to what is to be gained by it. Meaning, I would say that killing animals for food or other human use is very different than, say, shooting animals to take out frustration. One has practical use for other humans, while in the other case there's nothing to be gained.



    There are lots of frustration-releasing activities that result in little gain. Would you consider hunting for sport (where you don't eat the body of the animal you shoot) less acceptable than the current adult coloring book craze (for example)?

    Do you consider any leisure activity that result in little gain of questionable ethics or just the ones that require the death of another individual? If it's the death that makes the difference (not the gain), I'm curious about how much "gain" a human has to get from an individual's death for you to consider it ethically appropriate. And does the type of "gain" matter? Why would a "gain" of culinary pleasure be more important than the gain of pleasure one might get from ending an animal's life for non-food purpose?
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    I had mentioned earlier in the thread that I believe we as humans were created to have superiority over animals. For me, I could not imagine treating animals on the same level as other humans. Now, this doesn't mean I have a license to go on a senseless rage and start shooting down animals for fun.

    Why is it okay to kill animals for one type of pleasure (the pleasure of eating them or wearing their skin or fur) but not for another type of pleasure (the pleasure of sport hunting)? Or is the state of mind you're in (I noticed you mentioned senseless rage) important?

    That is, does being created to have superiority over animals mean it's okay to shoot animals for fun in a certain frame of mind, but not in a state of anger?
    I will say this. Hunting is not something that has appealed to me, but at the same time I don't know that I would jump to the conclusion that it's unethical for others to do it. Personally, that may be hovering over the line for what I would consider to be ethical vs unethical. At least that's an actual activity that society has deemed somewhat acceptable.

    In evaluating the ethics of it, the way I see it the decision comes down to what is to be gained by it. Meaning, I would say that killing animals for food or other human use is very different than, say, shooting animals to take out frustration. One has practical use for other humans, while in the other case there's nothing to be gained.



    There are lots of frustration-releasing activities that result in little gain. Would you consider hunting for sport (where you don't eat the body of the animal you shoot) less acceptable than the current adult coloring book craze (for example)?

    Do you consider any leisure activity that result in little gain of questionable ethics or just the ones that require the death of another individual? If it's the death that makes the difference (not the gain), I'm curious about how much "gain" a human has to get from an individual's death for you to consider it ethically appropriate. And does the type of "gain" matter? Why would a "gain" of culinary pleasure be more important than the gain of pleasure one might get from ending an animal's life for non-food purpose?

    Eating food is necessary for life so calling it "culinary pleasure" is a bit misrepresentative.
  • ForecasterJasonForecasterJason Posts: 2,582Member Member Posts: 2,582Member Member
    I had mentioned earlier in the thread that I believe we as humans were created to have superiority over animals. For me, I could not imagine treating animals on the same level as other humans. Now, this doesn't mean I have a license to go on a senseless rage and start shooting down animals for fun.

    Why is it okay to kill animals for one type of pleasure (the pleasure of eating them or wearing their skin or fur) but not for another type of pleasure (the pleasure of sport hunting)? Or is the state of mind you're in (I noticed you mentioned senseless rage) important?

    That is, does being created to have superiority over animals mean it's okay to shoot animals for fun in a certain frame of mind, but not in a state of anger?
    I will say this. Hunting is not something that has appealed to me, but at the same time I don't know that I would jump to the conclusion that it's unethical for others to do it. Personally, that may be hovering over the line for what I would consider to be ethical vs unethical. At least that's an actual activity that society has deemed somewhat acceptable.

    In evaluating the ethics of it, the way I see it the decision comes down to what is to be gained by it. Meaning, I would say that killing animals for food or other human use is very different than, say, shooting animals to take out frustration. One has practical use for other humans, while in the other case there's nothing to be gained.



    There are lots of frustration-releasing activities that result in little gain. Would you consider hunting for sport (where you don't eat the body of the animal you shoot) less acceptable than the current adult coloring book craze (for example)?

    Do you consider any leisure activity that result in little gain of questionable ethics or just the ones that require the death of another individual? If it's the death that makes the difference (not the gain), I'm curious about how much "gain" a human has to get from an individual's death for you to consider it ethically appropriate. And does the type of "gain" matter? Why would a "gain" of culinary pleasure be more important than the gain of pleasure one might get from ending an animal's life for non-food purpose?
    First question: I would generally say yes.
    For most of the other questions, I would say for me it's hard to answer on a general level (as opposed to case-by-case). There are a lot of factors involved in a lot of ethical decisions, and I wouldn't say there's necessarily a clear-cut line between I would consider totally ethical vs totally unethical.

  • jgnatcajgnatca Posts: 14,495Member Member Posts: 14,495Member Member
    I had mentioned earlier in the thread that I believe we as humans were created to have superiority over animals. For me, I could not imagine treating animals on the same level as other humans. Now, this doesn't mean I have a license to go on a senseless rage and start shooting down animals for fun.

    Why is it okay to kill animals for one type of pleasure (the pleasure of eating them or wearing their skin or fur) but not for another type of pleasure (the pleasure of sport hunting)? Or is the state of mind you're in (I noticed you mentioned senseless rage) important?

    That is, does being created to have superiority over animals mean it's okay to shoot animals for fun in a certain frame of mind, but not in a state of anger?
    I will say this. Hunting is not something that has appealed to me, but at the same time I don't know that I would jump to the conclusion that it's unethical for others to do it. Personally, that may be hovering over the line for what I would consider to be ethical vs unethical. At least that's an actual activity that society has deemed somewhat acceptable.

    In evaluating the ethics of it, the way I see it the decision comes down to what is to be gained by it. Meaning, I would say that killing animals for food or other human use is very different than, say, shooting animals to take out frustration. One has practical use for other humans, while in the other case there's nothing to be gained.



    I live in hunting country and there was universal outrage when a group of individuals went on an illegal poaching spree here.

    http://www.hintonparklander.com/2013/11/22/poachers-kill-dozens-of-wild-animals-around-edson
    http://globalnews.ca/news/1442064/hundreds-of-poaching-charges-laid-after-alberta-animals-left-to-rot/
  • janejellyrolljanejellyroll Posts: 21,173Member Member Posts: 21,173Member Member
    I had mentioned earlier in the thread that I believe we as humans were created to have superiority over animals. For me, I could not imagine treating animals on the same level as other humans. Now, this doesn't mean I have a license to go on a senseless rage and start shooting down animals for fun.

    Why is it okay to kill animals for one type of pleasure (the pleasure of eating them or wearing their skin or fur) but not for another type of pleasure (the pleasure of sport hunting)? Or is the state of mind you're in (I noticed you mentioned senseless rage) important?

    That is, does being created to have superiority over animals mean it's okay to shoot animals for fun in a certain frame of mind, but not in a state of anger?
    I will say this. Hunting is not something that has appealed to me, but at the same time I don't know that I would jump to the conclusion that it's unethical for others to do it. Personally, that may be hovering over the line for what I would consider to be ethical vs unethical. At least that's an actual activity that society has deemed somewhat acceptable.

    In evaluating the ethics of it, the way I see it the decision comes down to what is to be gained by it. Meaning, I would say that killing animals for food or other human use is very different than, say, shooting animals to take out frustration. One has practical use for other humans, while in the other case there's nothing to be gained.



    There are lots of frustration-releasing activities that result in little gain. Would you consider hunting for sport (where you don't eat the body of the animal you shoot) less acceptable than the current adult coloring book craze (for example)?

    Do you consider any leisure activity that result in little gain of questionable ethics or just the ones that require the death of another individual? If it's the death that makes the difference (not the gain), I'm curious about how much "gain" a human has to get from an individual's death for you to consider it ethically appropriate. And does the type of "gain" matter? Why would a "gain" of culinary pleasure be more important than the gain of pleasure one might get from ending an animal's life for non-food purpose?

    Eating food is necessary for life so calling it "culinary pleasure" is a bit misrepresentative.

    Eating food is necessary. Eating animals isn't (for the majority of people).

    Why do people choose meat, eggs, and dairy instead of other foods? Pleasure and convenience (although many people will cite nutritional needs, most people saying this don't limit their consumption of animal products to the amount needed to avoid deficiency, including the person this post was addressed to -- we already discussed this in previous posts).

    But I don't want to use terms that you consider misrepresentative. How would you like me to describe the choice to consume of meat when there are other options available to meet nutritional needs? If it isn't for pleasure, what is it for?

    Do you think there is a meaningful ethical difference between the death required for the pleasure of bacon and the death required for the pleasure of sport hunting?
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    I had mentioned earlier in the thread that I believe we as humans were created to have superiority over animals. For me, I could not imagine treating animals on the same level as other humans. Now, this doesn't mean I have a license to go on a senseless rage and start shooting down animals for fun.

    Why is it okay to kill animals for one type of pleasure (the pleasure of eating them or wearing their skin or fur) but not for another type of pleasure (the pleasure of sport hunting)? Or is the state of mind you're in (I noticed you mentioned senseless rage) important?

    That is, does being created to have superiority over animals mean it's okay to shoot animals for fun in a certain frame of mind, but not in a state of anger?
    I will say this. Hunting is not something that has appealed to me, but at the same time I don't know that I would jump to the conclusion that it's unethical for others to do it. Personally, that may be hovering over the line for what I would consider to be ethical vs unethical. At least that's an actual activity that society has deemed somewhat acceptable.

    In evaluating the ethics of it, the way I see it the decision comes down to what is to be gained by it. Meaning, I would say that killing animals for food or other human use is very different than, say, shooting animals to take out frustration. One has practical use for other humans, while in the other case there's nothing to be gained.



    There are lots of frustration-releasing activities that result in little gain. Would you consider hunting for sport (where you don't eat the body of the animal you shoot) less acceptable than the current adult coloring book craze (for example)?

    Do you consider any leisure activity that result in little gain of questionable ethics or just the ones that require the death of another individual? If it's the death that makes the difference (not the gain), I'm curious about how much "gain" a human has to get from an individual's death for you to consider it ethically appropriate. And does the type of "gain" matter? Why would a "gain" of culinary pleasure be more important than the gain of pleasure one might get from ending an animal's life for non-food purpose?

    Eating food is necessary for life so calling it "culinary pleasure" is a bit misrepresentative.

    Eating food is necessary. Eating animals isn't (for the majority of people).

    Why do people choose meat, eggs, and dairy instead of other foods? Pleasure and convenience (although many people will cite nutritional needs, most people saying this don't limit their consumption of animal products to the amount needed to avoid deficiency, including the person this post was addressed to -- we already discussed this in previous posts).

    But I don't want to use terms that you consider misrepresentative. How would you like me to describe the choice to consume of meat when there are other options available to meet nutritional needs? If it isn't for pleasure, what is it for?

    Do you think there is a meaningful ethical difference between the death required for the pleasure of bacon and the death required for the pleasure of sport hunting?

    Practicality. What food could be eaten without some creature being killed? And if it all involves death, then it's just a matter of which creatures we are choosing to kill and whether we want to leave it up to others to do the killing or we'd rather do it ourselves.

    To me there is an ethical difference between killing for food and killing solely for pleasure. I've never understood the latter, though it does quite a bit of good by supplying homeless shelters with food. Do you think there is an ethical difference in creatures killed in growing vegetables vs. those killed for meat?
Sign In or Register to comment.