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

[jaqie]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I don't care if people want to be vegan, that's a lifestyle choice that you have every right to make. What annoys people is when you assert that your lifestyle is better than everyone else's. If you wanted to have an intelligent discussion about veganism, you could have started a thread asking something along the lines of "what is ATOT's opinion on the treatment of animals in the meat industry?" Rather, you post a thread basically attacking those who eat meat and demanding them to justify their actions.

Exactly my point. and as the issue is being brought into light by more then me he happens to decide to leave. Kind of makes you think.

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick
You going to be a pussy and eat "veggie" meat products like soy burgers and stuff that "tastes" like meat but isn't?

Do you use fuel? Isn't fuel the remains of organic matter from millions of years ago? How about road kill, its already dead. Will you eat it?

No, he is going to be a pussy and eat "veggie" meat products and then tell us how he is morally superior because of it.......:disgust:

 

[XxPrOdiGyxX]

Originally posted by: thirtythree
Well, science seems to tell us that plants aren't sentient beings. I have to make certain assumptions based on what I know since I'm not omnipotent. Appeal to nature isn't an argument, as I've pointed out before. What's natural for animals is NOT a guide to what's right for humans. What do you mean you don't care for philosophy? It's just ethical reasoning -- the fact that you don't "care for it" doesn't mean you shouldn't think about it. You can't just accept the status quo without questioning it.

Philosophy are just musings about how the world works or why it is the way it is. I don't need someone else to tell me why I feel a certain way or why I do this or why I should think that. I know why and do not need to base my opinions on the philosophies of others. I've taken philosophy courses and find that most of it is useless banter that talk about nothing. They may go on into a long discourse about some human condition but offer no solutions. I am more of a walking type than a talking type. Again, this is my opinion about philosophy. Maybe it has opened your mind to new ideas...they have yet to do the same for me so I do not care to read about someone else's opinions on life.

In my opinion, you may be challenging the status quo of the majority, but you are conforming to the status quo trying to be developed by these philosphers. Because, obviously, you put much credit into what they say. It's like the goths or any other groups in school that tried so hard to go against the norms to prove they are individuals...but they end up conforming to the norms of their groups and are no more individualistic or unique than anyone else.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: So
I will not consume any animal that can recognize the immorality of eating me. Therefore, everything is fair game except maybe dolphins and chimpanzees, and I don't trust chimps...

I say chimps are fair game, they are known to be canabalistic.


http://www.saskatoonrestaurant.com/shop.asp#email

Here's the place that sells the t-shirts: There's plenty of room for all of gods creatures, right next to the mashed potatoes.

 

[nerp]

I was born with canine and meat-tearing teeth. There are chemicals in my saliva and digestive fluids that are geared towards breaking down tissues for protien. Animals in nature consume each other for survival. Although factory farming and modern meat production facilities have all sorts of troubling issues surrounding them, meat is an important part of human health, diet, culture and history (culinary, social, enviornmental).

"going vegan" is only possible if you live in a culture of wealth and excess. Be grateful that you have the luxury of making such a choice. The core ethos behind the misguided idea of veganism, if played out to the very end, would be a world in which everyone hunted, gathered and ate the bounty of a perfectly balanced nature surrounding each human, their protien needs from animals part of the equation. Unless there's a mass die-off of people, this fantasy will remain fantastical and unrealistic.

The real issue is overpopulation and the modern food supply/eating habits, distribution of wealth, land, people and arable land, environmental as well as political forces. Vegans are taking a selfish road in their aims to better the world. A more practical approach would be eating organic meat and volunteering or donating $100 bucks to a good cause, recycling, riding a bike instead of driving, growing your own food, buying into a CSA or financing microloans in developing countries. No, that requires a little sacrifice.

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
I say chimps are fair game, they are known to be canabalistic.


http://www.saskatoonrestaurant.com/shop.asp#email

Here's the place that sells the t-shirts: There's plenty of room for all of gods creatures, right next to the mashed potatoes.

For every animal you don't eat

I have this shirt from Maddox that I wear to tease some of my vegetarian friends. Notice how he includes chimps as a meal.

 

[Drako]

I love Jello brand gelatin. I'm not giving that up for anything 🙂.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Cogman

Originally posted by: thirtythree
Again, we have no responsibility to unborn individuals (e.g., breeding as many humans or animals as possible). I'd rather not be born though, if I really had the choice. Do you really know that much about where the animal products in your foods, personal care, cleaning, and clothing comes from though? If there are such ethical farms, why don't they make more of an effort to make themselves known? Do you know of any farms that can feed a good number of people with good information about their farming practices and pictures of their farms?

Can I ask you the same question, do you really know much about animal products in your foods, personal care, cleaning, and clothing comes from? Have you ever lived on a farm or near one or are you just regurgitating what you read in you PETA propaganda?

I LIVE on a farm. I am SURROUNDED by farms (live in Idaho). And I know for a fact that animals aren't treated half as bad as you portray them to be. Farmers actually do treat their animals like living beings, despite what you may thing people aren't heartless, they don't like causing discomfort to animals. Hence the reason that the mode of death for many meat products is a very quick one. It isn't like we slit their throats and let them bleed out for petes sake.

Actually slitting their throats and letting them bleed is a very humane way to slaughter animals.
According to this site tests were done to confirm that animals slaughtered in this fashion showed no evidence of feeling any discomfort. In fact thery appeared to be unaware their throats had just been severed.

 

[evident]

if you're gonna go vegan because of those hippy reasons then you are giving up trying foods from MANY DIFFERENT CULTURES, which is ridiculous. have fun being a self centered trendy white american

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: AgaBoogaBoo

Originally posted by: MrChad
Their existence as a species depends on humans raising and consuming them.

In that thought, your assumption must have been that a large portion of the world stops eating meat, and then they cannot continue as a species.

If that happens, because the majority of people happen to agree that eating meat is wrong, then wouldn't it just be that the animal becoming extinct is just the natural path of things?

A while ago, there was some very rare eagle or something, and millions were being fundraised to save it. If it wasn't going extinct because of something humans did, wouldn't it be safe to say that it's extinction is because it couldn't survive the battle of the fittest? Who says an animal should or shouldn't go extinct in nature's course?

Anyone who understands ecosystems is to say that an animal shouldn't go extinct.

What an absolutely ridiculous notion. How did life manage to survive for so long without us around to decide what lives or dies? Australopithecines are extinct. If they weren't, you wouldn't exist. Over 99 percent of all species that have ever lived are extinct, and over 99 percent of those are completely unrelated to human intervention. I draw the line at extinctions that humans actually cause; I'd like to see that practice stopped immediately. But to make the claim that all animals should never go extinct? Preposterous.

Sorry for not directly stating "by human hands". I thought it was obviously implied by the nature of the planet currently and the fact that our ravenous appetite for real estate means that many valuable species can't thrive naturally anymore. Next time I'll spell it out so someone can't make a lame-brained retort.

Oh really? You were directly responding to a question that specifically mentioned extinctions not caused by humans, and I'm supposed to conclude that your response is intended for extinctions caused by humans? Whose reading comprehension failed here?

First off, I didn't accuse you of failed reading comprehension, though now I could since you somehow got that from my post.

Secondly, my statement is fine in that it is qualified with "Anyone who understands ecosystem." Anyone who understands them knows that we are directly involved in them, and that we have a vested interest in preventing them from dying out even if they die out due to "survival of the fittest" instead of active and intentional mass slaughter. The distinction he's making is completely irrelevant, because our species, which is part of the planet, has already affected ecosystems drastically. The only way cows and chickens will go extinct due to "survival of the fittest" without human intervention is if we go back in a TARDIS and prevent any humans from ever existing.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: jaqie
How do you justify (ethically) devaluing others' ideals without devaluing your own?
The title of the thread shows an additude of devaluing and derising others' values while espousing yours, and that is the root of many of the problems between peoples, societies, and cultures in this world.

I think it's called trolling. I didn't realize there was so much pent-up angst here...

The op isn't new so he had to know what to expect - I think he's having fun. I assume this (and just about every other) subject has been discussed multiple times here in the last nine years.

 

[jaqie]

Which is why I waited until I had a succinct and forthright post formulated, and did not allow myself to get sucked into the rigamaroo here. 🙂

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: torpid
Secondly, my statement is fine in that it is qualified with "Anyone who understands ecosystem." Anyone who understands them knows that we are directly involved in them, and that we have a vested interest in preventing them from dying out even if they die out due to "survival of the fittest" instead of active and intentional mass slaughter. The distinction is completely irrelevant, because our species, which is part of the planet, has already affected ecosystems drastically. The only way cows and chickens will go extinct due to "survival of the fittest" without human intervention is if we go back in a TARDIS and prevent any humans from ever existing.

I still think your comment sounds too much like you are merely responding to a hypothetical about a species dying off without human involvement, but the clarification helped. I agree that this hypothetical is unlikely since humans do manage to affect most ecosystems on the planet in some way.

One example I can think of where humans played no role in the destruction of an ecosystem is colonies of worms on undersea vents. The vents expell important nutrients and metals, as well as heat, which is necessary for survival. The worms thrive. But the vents will occasionally get bypassed miles below the surface, effectively shutting them off. The flow of nutrients and heat dies off, and the ecosystem vanishes. There is absolutely no human interaction that affects that ecosystem, nor is there any way for us to save it. So, to reiterate the original question, if there were organisms endemic to that ecosystem which went extinct without any human interaction at all, is that an example of survival of the fittest? Who says an animal should or shouldn't go extinct in nature's course (strictly absent any human intervention)?

 

[zinfamous]

pregnant women should absolutely eat some steak every now and then. quite essential for the little bag of cells growing in the uterus.

 

[HeXploiT]

If God hadn't intended for us to eat animals then why'd he make them out of meat?

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: torpid
Secondly, my statement is fine in that it is qualified with "Anyone who understands ecosystem." Anyone who understands them knows that we are directly involved in them, and that we have a vested interest in preventing them from dying out even if they die out due to "survival of the fittest" instead of active and intentional mass slaughter. The distinction is completely irrelevant, because our species, which is part of the planet, has already affected ecosystems drastically. The only way cows and chickens will go extinct due to "survival of the fittest" without human intervention is if we go back in a TARDIS and prevent any humans from ever existing.

I still think your comment sounds too much like you are merely responding to a hypothetical about a species dying off without human involvement, but the clarification helped. I agree that this hypothetical is unlikely since humans do manage to affect most ecosystems on the planet in some way.

One example I can think of where humans played no role in the destruction of an ecosystem is colonies of worms on undersea vents. The vents expell important nutrients and metals, as well as heat, which is necessary for survival. The worms thrive. But the vents will occasionally get bypassed miles below the surface, effectively shutting them off. The flow of nutrients and heat dies off, and the ecosystem vanishes. There is absolutely no human interaction that affects that ecosystem, nor is there any way for us to save it. So, to reiterate the original question, if there were organisms endemic to that ecosystem which went extinct without any human interaction at all, is that an example of survival of the fittest? Who says an animal should or shouldn't go extinct in nature's course (strictly absent any human intervention)?

It is still beneficial for us to prevent it if we can, because there is much to be learned and gained from many species now and in the future. A lot of medical research these days is focused on extracting unusual things out of animals. Gila monster diabetic stuff, for example. Allowing a species to go extinct if we can reasonably prevent it is denying ourselves an avenue of learning about the planet, biology, diseases, etc. Not every species will ultimately be valuable to us, but assuming a species isn't is a bad approach. The current world is shaped by many extinct species of the past (though even if we found an Australopithecus on some remote island, I'd not zap out of existence), but we now can take an active hand in it and try to preserve both the ecology that we thrive in and the potential radical scientific discoveries.

"Survival of the fittest" is not better simply because it's what would happen without us.

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: DisgruntledVirus

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Aren't Vegans those people with pointed ears and green blood. I never could do that "Live Long and Prosper" sign correctly.

Good luck with that.

I think you mean Vulcan's, but vegan's could enjoy some quality time with a Vulcan cannon and lots of veal in a fenced in area....

Vulcan...as in rubber? Why is the op against birth control?

 

[interchange]

Originally posted by: gamepad
Is it unethical for the lion to kill the antelope for consumption? How is it unethical to kill a cow for consumption?

Lions are meant to hunt and kill animals and must do so regularly to survive. They are part of a balanced ecosystem.

Man is meant to eat a variety of foods depending on what is available to him. Omnivores can help maintain an ecosystem if one species is becoming extra prevalent.

Man, however, has greatly disrupted almost every ecosystem worldwide. The ecological impact of raising cattle and other animals, genetically engineering crops and selectively breeding animals is quite profound.

How we define what is ethical in these constraints is largely arbitrary. If you accept that tinkering with the ecosystem in such a way is wrong, then you have much larger concerns than diet to worry about. That being said, there is nothing wrong with feeling good about yourself for making sacrifices to (even slightly) lessen your ecological burden on this world.

 

[interchange]

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).

This argument holds no water whatsoever. The animals we eat are almost wholly animals that we raise. These animals get their food from plant sources and consume much more energy from plants than we ever get from eating the animals. It's simple thermodynamics.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: interchange

Originally posted by: gamepad
Is it unethical for the lion to kill the antelope for consumption? How is it unethical to kill a cow for consumption?

Lions are meant to hunt and kill animals and must do so regularly to survive. They are part of a balanced ecosystem.

Man is meant to eat a variety of foods depending on what is available to him. Omnivores can help maintain an ecosystem if one species is becoming extra prevalent.

Man, however, has greatly disrupted almost every ecosystem worldwide. The ecological impact of raising cattle and other animals, genetically engineering crops and selectively breeding animals is quite profound.

How we define what is ethical in these constraints is largely arbitrary. If you accept that tinkering with the ecosystem in such a way is wrong, then you have much larger concerns than diet to worry about. That being said, there is nothing wrong with feeling good about yourself for making sacrifices to (even slightly) lessen your ecological burden on this world.

No animal is "meant" to do anything. There is no divine providence, no mandate from God that lions are to behave in a certain way and antelopes in a different way. All species do what is in their best interests to survive. Humans are no different. We are beginning to realize that are actions can have drastic negative implications for our environment, and that can affect us in profoundly negative ways, so we certainly should do everything we can to live in balance with nature. But don't say that it is because we are somehow "meant" to do so.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: jaqie
Which is why I waited until I had a succinct and forthright post formulated, and did not allow myself to get sucked into the rigamaroo here. 🙂

A good guideline for all posts. Bulldozers and missles can appear from any direction in 3d space.

 

[Acanthus]

Because almost without exception, one animal invariably eats another animal. Life feeds on life. Thats how it works.

 

[KeithTalent]

I just know if those cows had the chance they would eat me and everyone I care about. 🙁

KT

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: interchange

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).

This argument holds no water whatsoever. The animals we eat are almost wholly animals that we raise. These animals get their food from plant sources and consume much more energy from plants than we ever get from eating the animals. It's simple thermodynamics.

Wait, where do you think the vegetables we eat come from? Do you think people are just wandering around a rainforest until they stumble across some lettuce?

As for thermodynamics, yes, a large amount of the potential energy of food is squandered as it moves up the food chain, but not all foods contain an identical make up of nutrients, so this argument loses its validity. Animals contain vitamins and proteins that are not commonly found in vegetable matter, without which humans could not survive.

 

[zebano]

Humans are omnivorous it's in their nature to eat meat.... No ethics involved.

Cut yourself.