Some arguments for vegetarianism

[Madhuri]

Well, I have woman boobs. And my sperm count wasn't altered because I started off without any.

LOL! And all this time I thought you were a guy.
Hey, don't feel too bad about not having man boobs. Woman boobs are ok too

 

[whereismynotecard]

It is true that living creatures are constantly suffering and being killed. I understand that it is part of the nature of this planet. That doesn't mean I like it. After all, it is perfectly natural for people to kill each other as well. The reason it doesn't happen more often is due to laws and a sense of morality that is culturally dictated. That doesn't make it nice or good or preferable.

The point of all this is -suffering-. Do we care about the suffering that goes on in the world? I think that most people care to some extent. After all, we dislike abuse directed at other human beings. A vegetarian is simply extending that consideration to other animal species because we feel that they are not so different from humans in their perception of pain. Plants are important as well, to an extent. But I really doubt that they suffer as much as animals.
So really, the effort is to minimise pain and suffering. Because eating meat it not essential to the human diet, we know that we can help minimise suffering in that regard. But we do need plant life to be healthy/alive and fortunately so we cannot do much for their sake.

I would be for cannabalism as long as it wasn't someone I knew. I don't think I'd want to eat human though, because it would probabaly be gross, like pork. I only eat chickens, turkeys and very rarely cows. At one point, I thought that all meat was gross. It was while I was working at the drive through at KFC. Everyone was ordering hamburgers (because it was also A&W, which serves hamburgers) and I just thought how gross it was that they were all eating dead animal carcasses... So I was a vegetarian for about 4 months, and then one day at work, I really wanted chicken strips... so I just started eating them again. My short stint of vegetarianism did help me to never want to eat peperoni again though. I never ate that much meat to begin with, but I eat a lot less now than I used to. I can easily go days without any meat and am not bothered by it. But I do like turkey sammiches and chicken strips. And an occasion hamburger, but only from a few select places.

 

[whereismynotecard]

LOL! And all this time I thought you were a guy.
Hey, don't feel too bad about not having man boobs. Woman boobs are ok too

In your defense, I do change the gender on my profile all the time. I think it's funny. And my avatar is a guy too... Plus, what's the difference between men and women anyway? Just because I have two X chromosomes doesn't mean I have to act like a girl.

 

[Madhuri]

Actually apparently humans taste great.
Just something I've heard, though I can't remember from who and exactly how they knew...

I've hd a lot of people tell me that they are for cannibalism if it were legal. That would be kind of scary if society changed to accept cannibalism as a norm. Then again, we would get to experience life as other animals do (to some extent).

 

[whereismynotecard]

Actually apparently humans taste great.
Just something I've heard, though I can't remember from who and exactly how they knew...

I've hd a lot of people tell me that they are for cannibalism if it were legal. That would be kind of scary if society changed to accept cannibalism as a norm. Then again, we would get to experience life as other animals do (to some extent).

In some societies cannibalism is accepted. The biggest problem is that humans can communicate with eachother very clearly, so you have a sort of connection. You wouldn't want to eat a chicken or an apple for that matter if it smiled at you and said "Hello, please don't eat me." And it would be the same for a human. Unfortunately for chickens and apples, they don't speak human languages, so that part of the guilt isn't present.

But I wouldn't ever eat an animal who I knew personally. I've had pet chickens, and I wouldn't have eaten them, not even the mean ones. I think if I had to slaughter my own chickens, I would just be a vegetarian. Having other people do it makes me feel much less guilty.

 

[Zephyr]

I would be for cannabalism as long as it wasn't someone I knew. I don't think I'd want to eat human though, because it would probabaly be gross, like pork.

On a side note, human flesh does taste very similar to pork.

Or so I've heard...

 

[Father Heathen]

I love animals too much.

What about animals that eat other animals, or are they held to a different moral standard? Remember that humans are animals, too.

 

[whereismynotecard]

What about animals that eat other animals, or are they held to a different moral standard? Remember that humans are animals, too.

Baggins and I are animal buddies. I like to think that he's my dog, and I'm his human.

 

[Father Heathen]

Actually apparently humans taste great.
Just something I've heard, though I can't remember from who and exactly how they knew...

I've hd a lot of people tell me that they are for cannibalism if it were legal. That would be kind of scary if society changed to accept cannibalism as a norm. Then again, we would get to experience life as other animals do (to some extent).

The Maori ate the flesh of their enemies killed in battle. No use letting good meat go to waste.

 

[Mister Emu]

We can still test for "wrongness" in subjective morality by looking at the arrangement of our morals and noticing inconsistencies.

You say inconsistencies... I say complexities...

if it is dependent on a non-moral, false fact.

I disagree... it merely means it is based on false information...

For example... someone could say "My morals say don't kill people, because science has proven that they can create pixies with their minds"... while the basis is incorrect, there is no reflection upon the moral "Don't kill people"...

Thus if there are two competing philosophies and we cannot choose between them because the situation is too complex, we should choose the philosophy that has the smallest possibility of causing harm. Why? Because we don't want to cause harm.

We can combine the two philosophies together instead of choosing one or the other...

I disagree. Because if you are able to produce an argument that justifies eating meat but that is unable to distinguish between human meat and animal meat then you have adopted cannibalism. But I know you have not adopted cannibalism. Thus at some point you must make a claim that seperates humans from animals.

Ok... if you cannot distinguish at all between meat types then you might end up adopting cannablism as a morally neutral action...

That said however, if someone says "we are animals thus we cannot eat meat" one could argue "animals eat animals it is neither it is a natural, and thus morally neutral, action to eat other animals"...

If you believe in an objective morality that makes it natural for us to kill and eat animals then your belief system is consistent. However, if you feel morally dirty upon being cruel, say, to an animal then there appears to be some tension between your conscience and this objective morality.

No there is not... moral complexity does not equal moral inconsistency... it is absurd to say that your morals can either be "don't harm animals at all if it can be avoided" or "it doesn't matter what happens to animals, everything is good"...

 

[Madhuri]

What about animals that eat other animals, or are they held to a different moral standard? Remember that humans are animals, too.

I like all animals. I may not like the reality of the situation- that they have to kill other animals to survive- but I like them all the same.
Of course their actions hold different meaning to our own. They don't understand the consequences of their actions. They probably don't even realise that the creautre they are killing is suffering. There is a great level of innocence in their actions. This cannot be said for humans, except for if the human believes that animals are not sentient. In that case, the human is similarly innocent because they know not what they do.

Btw, I do not dislike humans even though they kill animals (inc each other). But that doesn't mean I necessarily like what humans do.

 

[whereismynotecard]

I think cats kill things and enjoy watching them suffer. Like when a cat catches a mouse, and then lets it run away a little, but then catches it again, and then almost lets it get away, then pounces again. I think cats are smarter than you may think...

Baggins loves catching bugs. And he tried to catch a snake yesterday.

 

[Madhuri]

I think cats kill things and enjoy watching them suffer. Like when a cat catches a mouse, and then lets it run away a little, but then catches it again, and then almost lets it get away, then pounces again. I think cats are smarter than you may think...

Baggins loves catching bugs. And he tried to catch a snake yesterday.

Yes but do you think that the cat really understands what its prey is experiencing? Or could it just be having fun with a toy?
I really doubt that a cat is able to consider concepts of right and wrong and good and bad.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Yes but do you think that the cat really understands what its prey is experiencing? Or could it just be having fun with a toy?
I really doubt that a cat is able to consider concepts of right and wrong and good and bad.

But there is no right and wrong or good and bad. They are just personal opinions. There's no way to know what the cat is thinking though...

I know that if a dog is attacking you(I mean a little dog, sort of playfully) and you make whimpering puppy sounds, it usually stops and looks at you funny, like it thinks that it shouldn't attack you anymore. I think dogs can percieve when other creatures are in pain sometimes. I was playing with my mom's mini schnauzer and he is pretty rough, but when I made puppy whimpering sounds, he stopped "attacking" me. If smaller animals did the same thing, I wonder if he would keep attacking them or not if he wanted to eat them... It's just impossible to tell what animals are thinking unless you ask them... assuming they don't lie to you.

 

[Madhuri]

But there is no right and wrong or good and bad. They are just personal opinions. There's no way to know what the cat is thinking though...

I know that if a dog is attacking you(I mean a little dog, sort of playfully) and you make whimpering puppy sounds, it usually stops and looks at you funny, like it thinks that it shouldn't attack you anymore. I think dogs can percieve when other creatures are in pain sometimes. I was playing with my mom's mini schnauzer and he is pretty rough, but when I made puppy whimpering sounds, he stopped "attacking" me. If smaller animals did the same thing, I wonder if he would keep attacking them or not if he wanted to eat them... It's just impossible to tell what animals are thinking unless you ask them... assuming they don't lie to you.

Yes, I agree. Dogs do seem to enjoy hunting and ripping other animals to shreds. I had the unhappy experience of seeing two dogs chase and rip apart some small animal not too long ago. I don't know what goes on in thier heads, or how much they understand. But I'm willing to bargain that it is nothing as complex as humans.

I tend to think of animals like babies or very small children. Kids can be cruel and they can know that their victim is hurt but it isn't until they develop a strong sense of empathy that they begin to realise that hurting another person is cruel.

 

[whereismynotecard]

Baggins is always going to be a baby. I was scared for him when he was trying to pounce on that snake... I didn't know if it was poisonous... He's just like my own baby child. I had to go outside and risk being bitten myself in order to save him. My mom didn't like that idea, but I had to save my baby.

I used to torture bugs all the time when I was little. I felt they deserved it though, for eating our trees and garden. Japanese Beetles and cicadas. Invasive little bugs that just destroy plants.

 

[Madhuri]

Baggins is always going to be a baby. I was scared for him when he was trying to pounce on that snake... I didn't know if it was poisonous... He's just like my own baby child. I had to go outside and risk being bitten myself in order to save him. My mom didn't like that idea, but I had to save my baby.

I used to torture bugs all the time when I was little. I felt they deserved it though, for eating our trees and garden. Japanese Beetles and cicadas. Invasive little bugs that just destroy plants.

Oh that would be scary!
My male bird flew off a couple of years ago (actually it was not the first time) and I chased him all through town. I usually don't go out in public without making sure I look presentable but this time I had just come out the of the shower without doing my hair or makeup. I was also wering a long skirt. But my baby flew out and I ran after him. I was so pumped with adrenolin that I didn't think twice about jumping over fences and runnign bare-foot over rocks and spiky weeds/grass. I felt pretty good actually. Anyway, I managed to get the bird after coaxing him out from a tall tree by ringing a small bell that he loves.

You notice though that even in their adult life we still see and treat our pets like babies. And I think that is because their mentality is on a very similar level. Simple, innocent. I think their innocence is what makes them so cute too

 

[whereismynotecard]

^_^ When your baby is in danger, you don't care about anything but saving him.

Yes, Baggins is going to be 3 years old in December. He's still a baby in so many ways. Plus, he weighs about 11 or 12 pounds, so he'll always be a baby in size too.

 

[Rin]

This reeks of Pascal's Wager... and that's not a good thing.

If it turns out that meat eating is necessary for a person's well being and development, then being vegetarians will indeed cause harm.

Well yes I am talking about taking the safest option when in a position of ignorance but I don't see what that has to do with Pascal. His wager is flawed because he is not taking the safest option (what about all the other Gods?), because his safety isn't guaranteed (seems like God might want you to believe in him for certain reasons) and because a wager cannot cause us to change our beliefs. None of that applies here and none of it impacts on the general idea to be safe when you are ignorant. That is just common sense.

And if meat eating turns out to be harmful to humans, we not being vegetarian will cause harm. It is a moral dilemma. But given our inability to tell, and given there are lots of other reasons that do not have counter reasons, there by creating a dilemma, the safest route seems sensible. Besides, most people don't get a sick, wrong feeling when they don't eat meat and yet they do when they are cruel to an animal. Confronted with this difference, it seems more reasonable to simply give up meat than insist that the thing that doesn't feel right, is right.

Though it would be hard to get the necessary amount of vitamin B12 without taking some sort of vitamin supplement.

If you find it difficult then take a supplement. We are talking about morality here, not convenience. You might be right that humans need to eat meat to survive and thus we have a genuine moral requirement to eat meat. But if instead humans can eat meat or take vitamin supplements, the former being morally dubious whilst the latter is fairly guilt free, then it seems obvious that the latter is the choice to take.

What about animals that eat other animals, or are they held to a different moral standard? Remember that humans are animals, too.

I don't think animals are capable of the kind of moral thought of humans. If my cats tried to kill each other, I would still stop them however. I wouldn't throw up my hands and say "Oh well... its just their way".

 

[Panda]

To be fair meat is really really really nice.