Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
Veganism: the ethical way forward
23 Answers
Veganism acknowledges the intrinsic legitimacy of all life. It rejects any hierarchy of acceptable suffering among sentient creatures. It is no more acceptable to torment or kill creatures with "primitive nervous systems" than those with "highly developed nervous systems." The value of life to its possessor is the same, whether it be the life of a clam, a crayfish, a carp, a cow, a chicken, or a child.
A way moral code I aspire to, achieve at times but at other times slip into vegetarianism.
Aspiration or loonyism?
A way moral code I aspire to, achieve at times but at other times slip into vegetarianism.
Aspiration or loonyism?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ruby27. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Whickerman.
Do vegetables and pulses have primitive nervous systems?
I know that some people have managed to become fruitarians. I would have thought with all the technology available, if humans wanted to it would be possible to develop real alternatives.
Personally I don't want to eat anything that suffers for my need to survive and certainly not for some gratuitous pleasure
Do vegetables and pulses have primitive nervous systems?
I know that some people have managed to become fruitarians. I would have thought with all the technology available, if humans wanted to it would be possible to develop real alternatives.
Personally I don't want to eat anything that suffers for my need to survive and certainly not for some gratuitous pleasure
We have evolved to eat meat. When our pre-neanderthal cousins only ate berries and nuts, they lacked in proteins which hindered their development. After hunting evolved (possibly through evolution of our own development), human beings evolved ten fold in terms of intelligence and health.
We now have digestive juices whose sole purpose is the break down of meat protein.
I really do not get the logic. You will not eat a bird. But the bird will happily feast upon worms??? It is by this logic that does seperate us from animals. We have a conscience. A fox will let a chicken die a horrible death, a whale will merely maim a seal. They have no concept of "other" sufferring.
It is for this reason I am against rights FOR animals. They have no concept of rights therefore do not deserve them. However, I am strongly for rights OF animals. A subtle difference. But a difference that gives us the right to eat them.
I abhor animal cruelty in all guises, and would 99 percent of the time opt for free range animals to eat.
Also, and you will probably argue the contrary, vegetarians (and especially vegans) tend to always look ill and under-nourished.
We now have digestive juices whose sole purpose is the break down of meat protein.
I really do not get the logic. You will not eat a bird. But the bird will happily feast upon worms??? It is by this logic that does seperate us from animals. We have a conscience. A fox will let a chicken die a horrible death, a whale will merely maim a seal. They have no concept of "other" sufferring.
It is for this reason I am against rights FOR animals. They have no concept of rights therefore do not deserve them. However, I am strongly for rights OF animals. A subtle difference. But a difference that gives us the right to eat them.
I abhor animal cruelty in all guises, and would 99 percent of the time opt for free range animals to eat.
Also, and you will probably argue the contrary, vegetarians (and especially vegans) tend to always look ill and under-nourished.
life is life whether plant or animal. just because a plant may not have a nervous system, does this give it less of a right to life than an animal.
bacteria are classed as animal, do vegetarians have a way of supressing their imunity so as not to harm to them or do they choose just not to take antibiotics.
is yeast plant or animal? is eating marmite mass slaughter?
vegetarians often like to make this comfortable discrimination and use it to take a moral high ground.
what other area's of their life do they make "comfortable discrimination" in. are black people less than white or visa vera?
adolf hitler was a vegetarian. he liked to neatly catagorise his world around him.
bacteria are classed as animal, do vegetarians have a way of supressing their imunity so as not to harm to them or do they choose just not to take antibiotics.
is yeast plant or animal? is eating marmite mass slaughter?
vegetarians often like to make this comfortable discrimination and use it to take a moral high ground.
what other area's of their life do they make "comfortable discrimination" in. are black people less than white or visa vera?
adolf hitler was a vegetarian. he liked to neatly catagorise his world around him.
Ruby, it is doubtful that plants feel in the same manner as humans. It is true that they do not have a nervous system. However, they do respond to experienced stimuli. These responses are call tropisms.
However, you seem to be asking a philosophical question. And I'll try to answer it in that vein.
The force of nature that makes a plant grow is possibly the same force of nature that makes us do the same. Call it God, Mother Nature, The Force, whatever. Therefore if you feel it's bad to eat a living creature, then you might need to acknowledge that plants are alive - no doubt about that.
Now, you narrow your argument and define what's good and bad to eat, out of the list of living organisms. You make a case for using the nervous system as your cut-off point. That's somewhat avoiding the debate in one way, but is it any less moral for me to set my theoretical 'line in the sand' at a higher level, and say, ok, I acknowledge I eat once-living entities to survive, but my cut off point is that I will only eat those organisms that my body and culture decide are acceptable? If I dislike the idea of eating horse, i will choose not to, but i will not starve rather than try it. Similarly, eating cabbage isn't on my to-do list anytime soon, but i won't discount the idea.
However, you seem to be asking a philosophical question. And I'll try to answer it in that vein.
The force of nature that makes a plant grow is possibly the same force of nature that makes us do the same. Call it God, Mother Nature, The Force, whatever. Therefore if you feel it's bad to eat a living creature, then you might need to acknowledge that plants are alive - no doubt about that.
Now, you narrow your argument and define what's good and bad to eat, out of the list of living organisms. You make a case for using the nervous system as your cut-off point. That's somewhat avoiding the debate in one way, but is it any less moral for me to set my theoretical 'line in the sand' at a higher level, and say, ok, I acknowledge I eat once-living entities to survive, but my cut off point is that I will only eat those organisms that my body and culture decide are acceptable? If I dislike the idea of eating horse, i will choose not to, but i will not starve rather than try it. Similarly, eating cabbage isn't on my to-do list anytime soon, but i won't discount the idea.
actually - kleiber has a point. In the pub one night some mates and I were discussing the usual rubbish when one of us decided we'd like to taste panda. And then realised if we did get a market for it, science would find a way to artificially inseminate to farm them. It's a serious thought that has never been explored.
Loonyism. Homo Sapiens has evolved to eat a diet that includes meat. Vegetarianism is a form of malnourishment. Veganism takes it to a very seriously dangerous level.
I know a number of vegans. Some seem to suffer from serious mental stability problems. Others bore intellectually disabled children.
We are part of an ecology. Eating other animals is just the way it is. It always amuses me when the Jehovah Witness magazines show the idealistic pictures of lions with lambs. The fact is a lion would die very quickly without eating meat because that is the way God made them.
Humans can sort of get by without meat but veganism is seriously unhealthy. Parents who enforce veganism on their children should have their children taken from them because it certainly is a form of child abuse.
I know a number of vegans. Some seem to suffer from serious mental stability problems. Others bore intellectually disabled children.
We are part of an ecology. Eating other animals is just the way it is. It always amuses me when the Jehovah Witness magazines show the idealistic pictures of lions with lambs. The fact is a lion would die very quickly without eating meat because that is the way God made them.
Humans can sort of get by without meat but veganism is seriously unhealthy. Parents who enforce veganism on their children should have their children taken from them because it certainly is a form of child abuse.
Thank you for your answers
In response to the points raised.
Sentient creatures. So this means that vegetables and bacteria whilst alive do not (its believed at present) have an ability to feel. Hoping this is the case so I don't need to feel guilty about committing mass murder when sticking my knife into the marmite jar.
Farmed animals wouldn't be kept in such numbers which is true, but given the appalling conditions some experience, battery farming, transportation and then slaughtering it may not be such a bad thing for them. There are animals that are not just for food production, we have deer in parks so why not cattle. There are wild pigs in Germany are there not?
I fully accept that the human is designed to have a capacity to consume meat, although not in the quantity that is often consumed. It is that we are not surviving in conditions where you have to eat whatever is available in order to survive. Therefore meat doesn't have to be eaten, just in case another opportunity for protein doesn't arise.
True animals may not make moral deliberations about whether to eat another animal, but just because a fox doesn't discriminate, doesn't mean we shouldn't.
In response to the points raised.
Sentient creatures. So this means that vegetables and bacteria whilst alive do not (its believed at present) have an ability to feel. Hoping this is the case so I don't need to feel guilty about committing mass murder when sticking my knife into the marmite jar.
Farmed animals wouldn't be kept in such numbers which is true, but given the appalling conditions some experience, battery farming, transportation and then slaughtering it may not be such a bad thing for them. There are animals that are not just for food production, we have deer in parks so why not cattle. There are wild pigs in Germany are there not?
I fully accept that the human is designed to have a capacity to consume meat, although not in the quantity that is often consumed. It is that we are not surviving in conditions where you have to eat whatever is available in order to survive. Therefore meat doesn't have to be eaten, just in case another opportunity for protein doesn't arise.
True animals may not make moral deliberations about whether to eat another animal, but just because a fox doesn't discriminate, doesn't mean we shouldn't.
-- answer removed --
First of all let me say I am a meat-eater. But..
If you really think about it, it's wrong to kill animals.
The fact that we've physically evolved to do so, doesn't make any difference.
We've also evolved something unique called morals, which say we should respect other living creatures, not be cruel etc etc, an meat eating doesn't really square with those very nicely.
So how do we live with this strange situation where we cuddle the bunny rabbit, call it benjy, and then serve it up as a stew? simple - by not thinking about it too hard.
We create a blind spot over a section of our morality when we're hungry and it suits us to do so.
Right - I'm off for a bacon sarnie.
If you really think about it, it's wrong to kill animals.
The fact that we've physically evolved to do so, doesn't make any difference.
We've also evolved something unique called morals, which say we should respect other living creatures, not be cruel etc etc, an meat eating doesn't really square with those very nicely.
So how do we live with this strange situation where we cuddle the bunny rabbit, call it benjy, and then serve it up as a stew? simple - by not thinking about it too hard.
We create a blind spot over a section of our morality when we're hungry and it suits us to do so.
Right - I'm off for a bacon sarnie.
I eat a Vegan diet due to medical problems but I have never been healthier in my life. I have always used it for dietry purposed and there is no way on earth that I could ever be accused of looking under nourished.
I do however, believe that humans are meant to eat meat but not in the enormous quantities some do.
I do however, believe that humans are meant to eat meat but not in the enormous quantities some do.
You can live without eating animal flesh, but meat gives first class protein. We've also been given incisors, which have the sole purpose of ripping into it. Morally, it seems awful that an animal, fish or bird has to die just to feed us, but that's how the food chain works. I say eat what pleases you. i have no qualms about eating pheasant at Christmas!
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles62 mins ago
Body & Soul78 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles80 mins ago
ChatterBank85 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.