At least answer why does lack of sapience give you the right to eat a creature?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Meat Eaters = Selfish (Steve & Bill)
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
At least answer why does lack of sapience give you the right to eat a creature?
It's not about sapience. It's not about freedom. It's about self-interest and sentience.
People have self-interest and sentience. Those animals with self-interest and sentience can be considered people.
Just because an animal isn't human isn't relevant. I'll bet LGM from a flying saucer would be considered people -- because they have the constellation of attributes we actually use in deciding personhood.
These attributes are not unique to Hominins.
People have self-interest and sentience. Those animals with self-interest and sentience can be considered people.
Just because an animal isn't human isn't relevant. I'll bet LGM from a flying saucer would be considered people -- because they have the constellation of attributes we actually use in deciding personhood.
These attributes are not unique to Hominins.
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
My biggest issue is that the definition of self-interest doesn't work because I think that instinct provides self interest. It's genetically preferable to live and pass on genes. Some species will die after mating because nothing else matters after that, some will have 'siblings' die for the success of their siblings mating to ensure the success of the family line. But none of that is 'self interest' in the sense of having a self. Where do we draw the line between knowledge of self and instinct if both provide similar results?
Thus, I'm in favor of using a different standard. And mostly, I think we DO define personhood as 'sapience' with the short-hand of 'human DNA' filling in. It seems our ancestors including neanderthals as 'persons' as well - although I doubt it was an intense debate. We use human DNA as a short hand because nothing else really meets that criteria on earth.
What animals would you put in that category of 'personhood' though and what wouldn't you? How complex of a brain?
Me Myself
Back to my username
Can´t we just say they are sentient enough to not eat them for gastronomical pleasure?
Guys, I'm stepping out of this debate now.
Some of my final comments:
- I do not wish to enforce my dietary restrictions on other people. I do not think it is possible in the current state of the world for everyone or even most people to live as vegetarians. It is truly a privilege to have access to the variety of food that make vegetarianism a healthy lifestyle.
- I do think that a truly compassionate person would set aside their lust for flesh and blood for the sake of reducing suffering if they had the material means of making this life change.
- I do think that certain animals are capable of love. It is evident to me that certain animals have attachment and show affection. It is a huge generalisation to claim all animals are on the same evolutionary platform.
- My main goal is to make people understand the reasons why people choose to be vegetarian or vegan. I think that the reasons are very logical, but rather than being based on a nature argument, it is based on the principle of compassion and empathy. Whether a person values what is natural more than what is compassionate or the other way around is very subjective. But I do not think that the nature arguments are very strong.
I think that's it. I can only see this debate going in circles from here. So I'll end here for now, but I'm sure there will be some more threads dedicated to this topic soon enough. It's just one of those hot topics!
Some of my final comments:
- I do not wish to enforce my dietary restrictions on other people. I do not think it is possible in the current state of the world for everyone or even most people to live as vegetarians. It is truly a privilege to have access to the variety of food that make vegetarianism a healthy lifestyle.
- I do think that a truly compassionate person would set aside their lust for flesh and blood for the sake of reducing suffering if they had the material means of making this life change.
- I do think that certain animals are capable of love. It is evident to me that certain animals have attachment and show affection. It is a huge generalisation to claim all animals are on the same evolutionary platform.
- My main goal is to make people understand the reasons why people choose to be vegetarian or vegan. I think that the reasons are very logical, but rather than being based on a nature argument, it is based on the principle of compassion and empathy. Whether a person values what is natural more than what is compassionate or the other way around is very subjective. But I do not think that the nature arguments are very strong.
I think that's it. I can only see this debate going in circles from here. So I'll end here for now, but I'm sure there will be some more threads dedicated to this topic soon enough. It's just one of those hot topics!
Drolefille
PolyPanGeekGirl
You can if you like.
I agree with this fully.
I disagree, but have no problem with people who believe this way while not telling me I'm a sadist or some such.
Attachment isn't the same thing as love to me. Even affection isn't really. I don't think all animals are on the same place, but I think it's similarly disingenuous to claim that they're all equivalent to humans too.
I understand this, but do object to being told I'm not compassionate or empathic because of it. I think one can desire for ethical treatment of animals and still within those ethics be alright with eating animals.
Fair enough, I'm sorry. I did enjoy talking to you in this thread very much
All of this has to be considered in a relative context.
The three variables involved, as I see them, are human health, animal well-being, and environmental impact. From a philosophical/altruistic point of view, it's preferable to find a point that optimizes these three variables.
-Certain omnivore arguments don't factor into an ethical debate. "It's natural" isn't an argument for why a reasoning animal should or should not do something. "I like meat" isn't an ethical argument either. Being appalled by improper treatment of a cat or a dog, but to eat factory farmed pork, doesn't make sense.
-Certain vegetarian or vegan positions I've encountered are hypocritical. In my observation, they often don't factor in transportation costs; shipping large amounts of produce around the world probably mitigates the fact that eating lower on the food chain is more resource efficient. Then there are those that don't eat meat, but they eat from farms that are gathered mechanically (resulting in dead small animals), that use pesticides (kill bugs), and that use fertilizers that drain into water and cause environmental damage (like the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico). Plus there are some really non-nutritious vegan or vegetarian diets being promoted.
Although 90-some percent of food animals in the US and probably other developed countries come from factory farms, when it comes to a discussion on ethics, factory farms are basically the worst among the variables I listed. They're not healthy, the treatment of animals is abhorrent, and they're bad for the environment. That's basically the extreme (but common) end of the ethical spectrum of food. There doesn't seem to be much debate there, but that's what almost everyone eats.
Then, apart from that, there is a lot of context to consider. Ancestry can influence nutrition needs (alignment towards meat, inability to digest dairy, etc). Location can be a major factor; the cultures I know of that had vegetarian or vegan movements within them tended to be in warm climates rather than climates with serious winters.
So what it comes down to is, the nature-conscious person who goes out into the woods and legally shoots a deer, or who keeps some chickens, can be far more consistent and ethical than a vegan that transports much of her produce to herself from thousands of miles away and burns all that fuel. And a vegetarian that sticks to local farms for dairy or eggs and produce can be a lot more consistent and ethical than a consumer who eats factory farmed meats and greedily-farmed mass produce. It's rather unattractive for someone to be self-righteous when their position is not nearly optimal. There's almost always some improvement to be made in a given diet for some or all of the previously mentioned three variables.
Some things to consider are:
-Transportation costs (mainly their impact on the environment and consequently the animals in the environment) should never be factored out of the equation.
-Assumptions regarding animal abilities to suffer should be conservative (meaning assume the worst).
-Humans need a vast amount of different substances to thrive, and biological individuality is important to consider.
-All things being equal, eating lower on the food chain is usually a more efficient use of resources.
-The impact of pesticides and fertilizers factors in. A fifth of the continental US consists of cropland, and most of it gets regularly covered in chemicals.
-The method of harvest factors in as well.
-Just because a given diet works for a number of years, or even decades, is not proof that a diet is sustainable over a lifetime or through multiple generations.
-Certain substances, like DHA or EPA (types of omega 3 fatty acid), are primarily found in animal products. They are mainly found in fish. Fish get them from algae, but it's not as concentrated in algae, so rather large amounts of algae would need to be consumed to get recommended levels (but it can still help). Pastured eggs can have DHA as well. Humans can convert ALA (another type of omega 3 fatty acid) into EPA and DHA (and ALA can be found in a few specific plants such as flax seeds), but the conversion process is inefficient and variable between people.
Overall, I think it means a number of diets need to exist on this planet, depending on context (location, economics, individual biology, etc). Vegetarian diets as well as ethical local diets that include animals. Growth of organic crops, a focus on getting as much as possible locally, getting most food from as low as possible on the food chain, raising of well-kept animals for either milk, eggs, or meat, and sustainable fishing and hunting. Most of the activism energy from people that are conscious about the three variables should be directed against factory farming of animals and conventional mass-production of produce.
The three variables involved, as I see them, are human health, animal well-being, and environmental impact. From a philosophical/altruistic point of view, it's preferable to find a point that optimizes these three variables.
-Certain omnivore arguments don't factor into an ethical debate. "It's natural" isn't an argument for why a reasoning animal should or should not do something. "I like meat" isn't an ethical argument either. Being appalled by improper treatment of a cat or a dog, but to eat factory farmed pork, doesn't make sense.
-Certain vegetarian or vegan positions I've encountered are hypocritical. In my observation, they often don't factor in transportation costs; shipping large amounts of produce around the world probably mitigates the fact that eating lower on the food chain is more resource efficient. Then there are those that don't eat meat, but they eat from farms that are gathered mechanically (resulting in dead small animals), that use pesticides (kill bugs), and that use fertilizers that drain into water and cause environmental damage (like the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico). Plus there are some really non-nutritious vegan or vegetarian diets being promoted.
Although 90-some percent of food animals in the US and probably other developed countries come from factory farms, when it comes to a discussion on ethics, factory farms are basically the worst among the variables I listed. They're not healthy, the treatment of animals is abhorrent, and they're bad for the environment. That's basically the extreme (but common) end of the ethical spectrum of food. There doesn't seem to be much debate there, but that's what almost everyone eats.
Then, apart from that, there is a lot of context to consider. Ancestry can influence nutrition needs (alignment towards meat, inability to digest dairy, etc). Location can be a major factor; the cultures I know of that had vegetarian or vegan movements within them tended to be in warm climates rather than climates with serious winters.
So what it comes down to is, the nature-conscious person who goes out into the woods and legally shoots a deer, or who keeps some chickens, can be far more consistent and ethical than a vegan that transports much of her produce to herself from thousands of miles away and burns all that fuel. And a vegetarian that sticks to local farms for dairy or eggs and produce can be a lot more consistent and ethical than a consumer who eats factory farmed meats and greedily-farmed mass produce. It's rather unattractive for someone to be self-righteous when their position is not nearly optimal. There's almost always some improvement to be made in a given diet for some or all of the previously mentioned three variables.
Some things to consider are:
-Transportation costs (mainly their impact on the environment and consequently the animals in the environment) should never be factored out of the equation.
-Assumptions regarding animal abilities to suffer should be conservative (meaning assume the worst).
-Humans need a vast amount of different substances to thrive, and biological individuality is important to consider.
-All things being equal, eating lower on the food chain is usually a more efficient use of resources.
-The impact of pesticides and fertilizers factors in. A fifth of the continental US consists of cropland, and most of it gets regularly covered in chemicals.
-The method of harvest factors in as well.
-Just because a given diet works for a number of years, or even decades, is not proof that a diet is sustainable over a lifetime or through multiple generations.
-Certain substances, like DHA or EPA (types of omega 3 fatty acid), are primarily found in animal products. They are mainly found in fish. Fish get them from algae, but it's not as concentrated in algae, so rather large amounts of algae would need to be consumed to get recommended levels (but it can still help). Pastured eggs can have DHA as well. Humans can convert ALA (another type of omega 3 fatty acid) into EPA and DHA (and ALA can be found in a few specific plants such as flax seeds), but the conversion process is inefficient and variable between people.
Overall, I think it means a number of diets need to exist on this planet, depending on context (location, economics, individual biology, etc). Vegetarian diets as well as ethical local diets that include animals. Growth of organic crops, a focus on getting as much as possible locally, getting most food from as low as possible on the food chain, raising of well-kept animals for either milk, eggs, or meat, and sustainable fishing and hunting. Most of the activism energy from people that are conscious about the three variables should be directed against factory farming of animals and conventional mass-production of produce.
Last edited:
muffin8or
Grand Canoe Wizard
A few points.
Animals kill other animals. Humans are animals. Humans can kill animals. We've found a particularly efficient way of hunting.
Two creatures are drowning - One pig and one 3 year old human. Who do you save? The human. We exist to continue the species by any means, like any other animal. The fact that you see humans as special enough to cast away our evolutionary past betrays your arrogance. We have teeth to tear meat because the best diet for us is meat.
You don't need to wear clothes, use cutlery or crockery, use cars, go on holiday or build roads. So why not cast it all away? I'm sure there is some benefit to getting rid of them so why not? Lets all revert to a point where all the precious animals are happier than us but we can just about survive. The fact that you regard a baby human and a big as equals is disgusting.
Animals kill other animals. Humans are animals. Humans can kill animals. We've found a particularly efficient way of hunting.
Two creatures are drowning - One pig and one 3 year old human. Who do you save? The human. We exist to continue the species by any means, like any other animal. The fact that you see humans as special enough to cast away our evolutionary past betrays your arrogance. We have teeth to tear meat because the best diet for us is meat.
You don't need to wear clothes, use cutlery or crockery, use cars, go on holiday or build roads. So why not cast it all away? I'm sure there is some benefit to getting rid of them so why not? Lets all revert to a point where all the precious animals are happier than us but we can just about survive. The fact that you regard a baby human and a big as equals is disgusting.
Animals also rape other animals, can humans do that?
Animals are also cannibals, can we be cannibals?
I don't really know, whichever one is easier to save. It's no different than asking if a 3yo girl and a 3yo boy are drowning, it doesn't really matter, I don't prefer one over another.
If the 3yo human was part of my family I would save them. If it was a random 3yo human and I knew the pig well I'd probably save the pig. It all depends.