How do you justify (ethically) consuming animals and animal products when you don't need to?

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: nkgreen
I don't see how you can have a moral argument for killing animals for a sound purpose if you accept that humans > other animals.

That's an interested argument. I suppose if you think of it that way, it comes down to what one considers a sound purpose. To me, saving myself the trouble of going vegan doesn't seem like a sound purpose for using and killing animals. In my mind, convenience has very little to do with ethics. I disagree that sentience doesn't call for some level of reverence for animals--you wouldn't say it's fine to torture animals for fun, for example, would you? Using them for our needs is another matter, but using them is no longer a need.

I don't advocate torturing animals, but the fact is that it is not nearly as terrible as torturing humans. Eating in my mind is a very sound purpose. We are genetically omnivores, and our place in the food chain prevents overpopulation of other species (sometimes too much, i.e. buffalo). Animals are a need for humans, and I suspect they always will be. Even if it was inconvienent to eat them, people would still do it, just as they did for thousands of years.

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: EGGO
Unless you grow your own food, you'll still be eating animals from your food like cereal because they get caught in the machinery while farming. No, it's not a lie. Yes, the FDA knows it and approves of it if it stays below a certain ratio.

Yes, I know. Again, it's about minimizing harm; I know I can't eliminate it or really be completely vegan. Over half of the grain we grow is consumed by animals, so cutting down on animal use will cut down on animals killed. The millions killed due to machinery doesn't compare to the billions killed for consumption. Not to mention, they're at least free to live their lives prior to being killed.

Now don't forget to wear your hemp clothes (or that crappy American Apparel label) because the ones you're wearing now are probably made by the working childs in China, Taiwan, or wherever else where they're exploited for cheap labor, and that's just unethical too, isn't it? Don't stop there, better start learning about the soaps, shampoos, toothpaste and everything else. But how far will it go? Will you ever own a pet because that's just like captivity? Will you ever go to or enjoy a zoo because it's the same? Would you feed your pet (if you already have one) meat if it's a dog or cat?

I already responded to some comments about human labor. Again, boycotting isn't necessarily the answer and the fact that you can't eliminate harm doesn't mean you shouldn't try to minimize it. What are you referring to when you say to learn about soaps, shampoos, etc.? If you mean animal products and animal testing, I am working on avoiding such products. If I owned a pet I would adopt from an animal shelter. I don't think that I have any reason to go to zoos. I'd have to find reliable information about whether pets need meat in their diets before feeding them no meat.

 

[ed21x]

Originally posted by: thirtythree
I don't think those things have much to do with ethics. e.g., "Why did you kill and eat that child?" "It made me happy, plus the child was tasty."

putting humans and animals on the same level is retarded. And people don't taste good unless the government can process them into some tasty green foodstuff.

btw, a retarded child is still human, and drawing a line to set the boundaries on humanity is definitely not arbitrary.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: ed21x

Originally posted by: thirtythree
I don't think those things have much to do with ethics. e.g., "Why did you kill and eat that child?" "It made me happy, plus the child was tasty."

putting humans and animals on the same level is retarded. And people don't taste good unless the government can process them into some tasty green foodstuff.

Lol, I watched Soylent Green tonight.

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: nkgreen
I don't see how you can have a moral argument for killing animals for a sound purpose if you accept that humans > other animals.

That's an interested argument. I suppose if you think of it that way, it comes down to what one considers a sound purpose. To me, saving myself the trouble of going vegan doesn't seem like a sound purpose for using and killing animals. In my mind, convenience has very little to do with ethics. I disagree that sentience doesn't call for some level of reverence for animals--you wouldn't say it's fine to torture animals for fun, for example, would you? Using them for our needs is another matter, but using them is no longer a need.

I don't advocate torturing animals, but the fact is that it is not nearly as terrible as torturing humans. Eating in my mind is a very sound purpose. We are genetically omnivores, and our place in the food chain prevents overpopulation of other species (sometimes too much, i.e. buffalo). Animals are a need for humans, and I suspect they always will be. Even if it was inconvienent to eat them, people would still do it, just as they did for thousands of years.

The fact that it's not nearly as terrible as torturing humans doesn't mean it's not worth taking into account. Overpopulation of certain species is an interesting issue, but for the most part our meat consumption is not related to that. We breed animals for the sole purpose of killing them. What do you mean when you say animals are a need for humans?

 

[irishScott]

Ummm... animals have lots of nutrients lacking in vegetables (Mainly protein and fat. Yes you need some fat.). Nevermind the fact that we've eaten animals since the dawn of time...

 

[IEC]

Going Vegan is a bit excessive, and a bit nutty.

I have no issue with vegetarians, but militant Vegans... ugh. I ate vegetarian for two weeks once and I wouldn't mind eating meat only once in a great while. I've eaten way too much of it in college...

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: irishScott
Ummm... animals have lots of nutrients lacking in vegetables (Mainly protein and fat. Yes you need some fat.).

There are a few plant sources that are complete proteins and countless combinations of foods that create complete proteins (they don't need to be combined in a meal or anything like that). The reason animals are good protein sources is they're living beings who need these proteins--but according to Wikipedia, beef and milk aren't even complete proteins. They're deficient in phenylalanine/tyrosine and methionine/cysteine respectively. I've heard from other sources that they are complete proteins though, so who knows. Almost everything has proteins and fats--fruits, veggies, grains, nuts, seeds, beans. There are lots of good plant sources for fat with low saturated fat.

 

[seemingly random]

iirc, vegans don't eat any plants grown underground (potatoes, etc) for religious reasons. Vegatarian would give a broader selection and still be ethical in regards to animals.

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: seemingly random
iirc, vegans don't eat any plants grown underground (potatoes, etc) for religious reasons. Vegatarian would give a broader selection and still be ethical in regards to animals.

Veganism isn't a religion Vegans eat potatoes.

 

[George P Burdell]

I have no problem with vegans and many vegans have no problem with me. It's the ones that have a "holier-than-thou" attitude and won't STFU about it, that really piss me off.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: seemingly random
iirc, vegans don't eat any plants grown underground (potatoes, etc) for religious reasons. Vegatarian would give a broader selection and still be ethical in regards to animals.

Veganism isn't a religion Vegans eat potatoes.

I didn't mean to suggest that veganism was a religion.

Ok - so what's the difference between a garden variety vegetarian and a vegan?

 

[0roo0roo]

can you justify using electricity and emitting carbon by doing something frivolous like neffing on atot?

 

[silverpig]

How do you justify the fact that your diet alone contributes to global warming and climate change, which we all know is the precursor to the extinction of many species of plant and animal life?

Look at the natural life around your city. I bet soy doesn't naturally grow on the side of the road does it? Most of the fruits and vegetables you buy are imported aren't they? What grows there in the winter? Your food was probably grown in a third world country, and because you can afford to pay someone to grow it, export it, ship it, import it, and sell it to you means that someone else over there isn't eating it. Furthermore your food has to be shipped halfway around the world especially for you, because you think it's wrong to get the nutrients you require from a local pork or beef farmer, causing pollution all along the way.

Without the advent of technology, your diet would not exist. It is far thus from natural.

 

[Eeezee]

How do you justify (ethically) consuming plants and plant products when you don't need to?

Technically it is more ethical to eat animals than it is to eat plants. Plants provide life-giving oxygen and reduce CO2 levels (which combats global warming). Animals contribute to global warming and eat plants (which we just established is unethical).

We need to stop eating plants. We need to eat more animals so that more of the plants will survive!

The OP fails at life and has been sucked into a lifestyle for trendy reasons. True vegans authentically never enjoyed the taste of meat, and very few of them actually exist (it's hard to dislike something that you've probably been eating since birth and is naturally so delicious to most people).

Most vegans are just elitist assholes who are failures at life but still need SOMETHING to feel superior about, so they take the easy road and stop eating meat instead of actually accomplishing anything. Getting a PhD in physics or contributing to society in a meaningful way is just too hard for these people, but they want to feel like they're better than other people in some way. Thus, vegetarians and vegans are born.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Mmmmm.... Meat.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: seemingly random
iirc, vegans don't eat any plants grown underground (potatoes, etc) for religious reasons. Vegatarian would give a broader selection and still be ethical in regards to animals.

Veganism isn't a religion Vegans eat potatoes.

I didn't mean to suggest that veganism was a religion.

Ok - so what's the difference between a garden variety vegetarian and a vegan?

Vegan = no animal products, e.g. meat, milk, cheese.
Vegetarian = no meat, but can have some animal products, things like milk, cheese etc. Just not dead animal.
(AFAIK)

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
Going Vegan is a bit excessive, and a bit nutty.

I have no issue with vegetarians, but militant Vegans... ugh. I ate vegetarian for two weeks once and I wouldn't mind eating meat only once in a great while. I've eaten way too much of it in college...

That's not vegetarian, that's vegetarian lite It's reasonable to want to eat less meat (too much meat can be unhealthy), but cutting out meat from your diet completely is a little ridiculous. There is no good moral reason to do so. HEALTH reasons are fine. TASTE reasons are fine. Moral reasons just don't make sense (there are more moral reasons to stop eating plants than there are to stop eating animals).

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: George P Burdell
I have no problem with vegans and many vegans have no problem with me. It's the ones that have a "holier-than-thou" attitude and won't STFU about it, that really piss me off.

I hardly ever bring it up in real life. I just figured I'd see what people had to say about it.

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: seemingly random
iirc, vegans don't eat any plants grown underground (potatoes, etc) for religious reasons. Vegatarian would give a broader selection and still be ethical in regards to animals.

Veganism isn't a religion Vegans eat potatoes.

I didn't mean to suggest that veganism was a religion.

Ok - so what's the difference between a garden variety vegetarian and a vegan?

A vegetarian avoids meat, a vegan avoids meat, milk, egg, and other animal products.

The environmental argument is a whole different arena. Based on what I've seen, I'm not convinced that global warming is primarily caused by man. However, there are other reasons to conserve such as avoiding pollution, conserving limited resources, etc. I have my doubts about man's ability to live forever and don't feel there's any moral obligation to unborn individuals or to the earth itself, so I don't feel as strongly about environmentalism. However, if environmentalism is your cup of tea, there are apparently some environmental arguments for veganism. I think a good (though brief) source is one of the appendices of Erik Marcus's Meat Market that talks about which claims are often overstated and which are valid. Furthermore, my posting may be justified if I can influence anyone in a positive way, plus it will help me to develop my beliefs on the matter for future purposes.

And since people haven't realized it yet, saying there's more I could do is NOT an argument against what I'm currently doing.

Lassst thing: I don't claim to know much about how much of my produce is imported, but the first source I found says that the U.S. is the largest producer of corn and produces 50% of the world's soybeans. We also make up about 25% of the worlds export market for wheat, and we're the second leading exporter of rice.

Text

 

[PricklyPete]

I was watching animal planet and saw a Lion kill and eat a boar. I eat bacon.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: thirtythree

Originally posted by: nkgreen
I don't see how you can have a moral argument for killing animals for a sound purpose if you accept that humans > other animals.

That's an interested argument. I suppose if you think of it that way, it comes down to what one considers a sound purpose. To me, saving myself the trouble of going vegan doesn't seem like a sound purpose for using and killing animals. In my mind, convenience has very little to do with ethics. I disagree that sentience doesn't call for some level of reverence for animals--you wouldn't say it's fine to torture animals for fun, for example, would you? Using them for our needs is another matter, but using them is no longer a need.

I don't advocate torturing animals, but the fact is that it is not nearly as terrible as torturing humans. Eating in my mind is a very sound purpose. We are genetically omnivores, and our place in the food chain prevents overpopulation of other species (sometimes too much, i.e. buffalo). Animals are a need for humans, and I suspect they always will be. Even if it was inconvienent to eat them, people would still do it, just as they did for thousands of years.

The fact that it's not nearly as terrible as torturing humans doesn't mean it's not worth taking into account. Overpopulation of certain species is an interesting issue, but for the most part our meat consumption is not related to that. We breed animals for the sole purpose of killing them. What do you mean when you say animals are a need for humans?

What about lab-grown meat? It's already been made, we just haven't mass-produced any of the stuff yet. It's not technically an animal; it's an animal's leg, grown in a lab.

Why do you claim that we no longer need to eat animals? It makes no more sense than saying we no longer need to eat plants. You can eat pure meat and still keep a pretty healthy diet, just as you can eat pure vegetables and still keep a pretty healthy diet.

Your argument is flawed at its very core. "Why do we need the number 4? We don't need it anymore. I can just as easily replace all 4s with 2+2 or 3+1. What moral reason do you have for using the number 4?"

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
How do you justify (ethically) consuming plants and plant products when you don't need to?

Technically it is more ethical to eat animals than it is to eat plants. Plants provide life-giving oxygen and reduce CO2 levels (which combats global warming). Animals contribute to global warming and eat plants (which we just established is unethical).

We need to stop eating plants. We need to eat more animals so that more of the plants will survive!

The OP fails at life and has been sucked into a lifestyle for trendy reasons. True vegans authentically never enjoyed the taste of meat, and very few of them actually exist (it's hard to dislike something that you've probably been eating since birth and is naturally so delicious to most people).

Most vegans are just elitist assholes who are failures at life but still need SOMETHING to feel superior about, so they take the easy road and stop eating meat instead of actually accomplishing anything. Getting a PhD in physics or contributing to society in a meaningful way is just too hard for these people, but they want to feel like they're better than other people in some way. Thus, vegetarians and vegans are born.

I already responded to arguments about consuming plant products and just responded to a comment about environmentalism. Plants are renewable resources though, didn't you know? We're producing billions animals and feeding them plants so we can kill them and eat them, which isn't a particularly efficient use of plants. What do you mean when you say "true vegans"? I suspect that there's NO ONE who is vegan simply because they don't like the taste of meat, dairy, and/or eggs. It requires a conscious effort to avoid products that contain animal products--you'd be surprised how many things have animal products in them. Not to mention, why would they avoid leather, wool, honey, etc.?

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: Eeezee
What about lab-grown meat? It's already been made, we just haven't mass-produced any of the stuff yet. It's not technically an animal; it's an animal's leg, grown in a lab.

Why do you claim that we no longer need to eat animals? It makes no more sense than saying we no longer need to eat plants. You can eat pure meat and still keep a pretty healthy diet, just as you can eat pure vegetables and still keep a pretty healthy diet.

Your argument is flawed at its very core. "Why do we need the number 4? We don't need it anymore. I can just as easily replace all 4s with 2+2 or 3+1. What moral reason do you have for using the number 4?"

I don't know much about the process of growing meat, but if no animals are harmed in the process, I don't really see a problem with it. I haven't thought about it much. I think an animal-only diet would much less healthy than a plant-only diet. Even if we didn't NEED to eat either, there are other factors to take into account that might steer one towards a plant-only diet rather than an animal-only diet. I'm not saying we don't need 4 so it's immoral to have 4; I'm saying we don't need 4 (animal products, actually) and there are reasons to avoid consuming animals, so we shouldn't eat them. I only added the "when you don't need to" part because I think eating animals when you need to for survival is fine.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I guess I should also state that when you're on top of the food chain you don't really have to justify anything... I want a steak... I'm smarter than a cow... I win. Yum... More horse radish please.

 

[thirtythree]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
I guess I should also state that when you're on top of the food chain you don't really have to justify anything... I want a steak... I'm smarter than a cow... I win. Yum... More horse radish please.

What is this "top of the food chain" stuff? How do we know we're at the top of the food chain? Just because we have the power to keep stronger animals from attacking us? Having the power to do anything we want doesn't grant us the right to do anything we want. Just like we shouldn't go around taking advantage of those who are less intelligent than us. Back in the day whites could have argued that they're better than blacks and have the power to control blacks--therefore, why do they need to justify slavery?