6 ms·

To play devil's advocate: I see from another comment that you are Vegan, so how did you make the distinction of what living things are acceptable to eat, and w

To play devil's advocate: I see from another comment that you are Vegan, so how did you make the distinction of what living things are acceptable to eat, and which are not? Plants are just as alive as mammals, fish or insects; so if it isn't 'life' that you are preserving, what exactly is it? some idea of consciousness? intelligence? How does something like Honey fit into your view of this issue? Further, how do you justify your greater reliance than meat eaters on migrant underpaid labor? Is human suffering for your nutrition preferable to animal suffering? Isnt this just a game of semantic false moral superiority until there is a nutrition source that is completely death and suffering free?

JoeAltmaier 11y ago
...and harvesting those plants kills millions of rodents per section. A plant diet is quite arguably more devastating to animal life than a meat one.
- DanBC 11y ago
  > A plant diet is quite arguably more devastating to animal life than a meat one. No, a person could not credibly make that argument. Don't forget that the meat-providing animals have to eat plant material. So you have the same problems of the vegan diet, plus the inefficiency of the plant-to-meat conversion, plus killing of the meat animals.
  - unprepare 11y ago
    or you still have the exact same singular problem: You kill things in order to survive. Full stop. Meat eaters, vegans, pescatarians, vegetarians, whatever - they all survive by killing other living things and consuming them. I was wondering the opinion of someone who was making good passionate arguments against the consumption of meat on the basis that it is immoral to kill and eat living things. I guess wondering how that user feels about this philosophical quandary is downvote worthy though
    - noondip 11y ago
      The definition of veganism is, a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. It's not about pursuing some ideal in which no one gets hurt. It's also ludicrous to argue that "killing" plants is in any way comparable to killing actual animals. Check out this site, it very accurately and in a straightforward manner discredits all of the arguments you've made against veganism in this thread so far - http://adaptt.org/veganism.html# http://adaptt.org/veganism.html#
      - unprepare 11y ago
        I'm responding directly to an argument based on it being morally wrong to kill living things, specifically to kill some living things but not others (cows but not golden retrievers). I am not making arguments against veganism, i am asking a philosophical question in response to a moral position. Please understand i am not attacking you or your lifestyle My argument was, again, how do you use a moral justification of 'killing things is wrong' to change from one lifestyle of killing things, to another lifestyle of killing different things? Why is cow vs golden retriever so important, but golden retriever vs potato completely laughable? You are still ending life to nourish your body no matter what. Both a cow and a potato cause and have external costs as well (i would say methane from cows is less or equally concerning as pesticides)
        noondip 11y ago
        > Why is cow vs golden retriever so important, but golden retriever vs potato completely laughable? You are still ending life to nourish your body no matter what. This is what Jainists believe and they actually avoid root vegetables for this reason. I'd like to see you make the same argument for fruit, for example. Do you think "killing" a fruit is the same as killing a cow? Do you really think a fruit's life is "ended" when I bite into it? If so, you're just appealing to ridicule and I'm not sure this conversation is worth having. > i would say methane from cows is less or equally concerning as pesticides The methane emitted from cattle farming is literally one of the largest contributors to climate change. To say it's less concerning than the use of pesticides shows a deep ignorance of the contradicting evidence, or confusion.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    A cow grazing a pasture is not killing the mice in that pasture. Its true that winter fodder (hay) requires cutting the field (three times over the summer). But that isn't the same as plowing, planting, cultivating and for some crops, digging to harvest. So grass-fed beef is absolutely several orders of magnitude less devastating to animal life. One cow is killed to feed several people. Instead of millions of rodents killed to provide potatoes.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Beef cows need very much more food than pasture grazing.
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Not around here. In Iowa, they're grass fed for most of their lives.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - noondip 11y ago
      The worldwide premeditated killings of 60 billion land animals in slaughterhouses and 90 billion marine animals in the waterways are diametrically opposed to the accidental tractor-killings in a field. Slaughterhouses intentionally kill animals for meat, dairy and egg-eaters. How many farmers do you know intentionally crushing gophers, mice and snakes with their John Deeres?
      - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
        Every single mouse, snake and gopher in the field is killed by plowing, spraying, cultivating and harvesting. By the millions per section. The ground under the shade of a field of corn is essentially sterile. Enough denial; its absolutely disastrous to animal life to farm vegetables and grains.
        11y ago
noondip 11y ago
> Plants are just as alive as mammals, fish or insects Two things: plants aren't sentient and animals also eat plants - many, many times more plants than vegans do. So if you truly regard plant and animal life to be the same, it would behoove you to immediately stop eating animals! It's very obvious how this argument falls flat on its face when brought to the light of critical thinking. > how do you justify your greater reliance than meat eaters on migrant underpaid labor? This is just conjecture, but I'll try and answer anyway. You can be vegan and care about how workers are treated. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Personally, I grow most of my food myself, but obviously this isn't practical for most people. Why not turn this question around and ask, how are slaughterhouse workers treated and what their experience must be like? > Isnt this just a game of semantic false moral superiority until there is a nutrition source that is completely death and suffering free? Pretty ironic to hear this from someone who beliefs him or herself to be superior to animals, and justifies their destruction. It's not a game of semantics - in fact, it's not a game at all. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of climate change. You can be coy all you want, but you are actively contributing to the problem by consuming animal products.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Two things: plants aren't sentient I don't think there is any coherent and useful definition of sentience for which no plants are sentient but all animals are sentient.
  - noondip 11y ago
    There is a very clear and obvious distinction between the plant and animal kingdoms. Any attempts to qualify both as the same when it comes to their destruction is just a coy way to rationalize unethical behavior. Like I said, even if it were true that plants feel pain the same as animals, one would still be compelled to go vegan, since animals "kill" more plants than people do by eating them directly.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > There is a very clear and obvious distinction between the plant and animal kingdoms. Sure, but whether the things which make up that distinction have particular ethical significance is a different question. And I have yet to see any definition of sentience for which both of the following are true: (1) It does, in fact, apply to all animals and no plants, and (2) Most people would agree that it has ethical significance. In fact, I haven't seen any definition of sentience for which even (1) alone is true. > Like I said, even if it were true that plants feel pain the same as animals, one would still be compelled to go vegan, since animals "kill" more plants than people do by eating them directly. That seems to a apply a utilitarian standard of ethics, not the categorical one which is usually in arguing that veganism is an ethical compulsion (under the categorical ethics usually applied to argue for veganism, recognizing plants as sentient would make eating either inexcusable, even if it were a survival necessity.) Once you accept that its a utilitarian matter, determining that something is ethically demanded requires agreeing to a particular ethical calculus -- a method of aggregating utilities and disutilities experienced by different participants. And there's an infinite number of possible functions that can be used, and they can support any possible conclusion.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

...and harvesting those plants kills millions of rodents per section. A plant diet is quite arguably more devastating to animal life than a meat one.

DanBC 11y ago
> A plant diet is quite arguably more devastating to animal life than a meat one. No, a person could not credibly make that argument. Don't forget that the meat-providing animals have to eat plant material. So you have the same problems of the vegan diet, plus the inefficiency of the plant-to-meat conversion, plus killing of the meat animals.
- unprepare 11y ago
  or you still have the exact same singular problem: You kill things in order to survive. Full stop. Meat eaters, vegans, pescatarians, vegetarians, whatever - they all survive by killing other living things and consuming them. I was wondering the opinion of someone who was making good passionate arguments against the consumption of meat on the basis that it is immoral to kill and eat living things. I guess wondering how that user feels about this philosophical quandary is downvote worthy though
  - noondip 11y ago
    The definition of veganism is, a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose. It's not about pursuing some ideal in which no one gets hurt. It's also ludicrous to argue that "killing" plants is in any way comparable to killing actual animals. Check out this site, it very accurately and in a straightforward manner discredits all of the arguments you've made against veganism in this thread so far - http://adaptt.org/veganism.html# http://adaptt.org/veganism.html#
    - unprepare 11y ago
      I'm responding directly to an argument based on it being morally wrong to kill living things, specifically to kill some living things but not others (cows but not golden retrievers). I am not making arguments against veganism, i am asking a philosophical question in response to a moral position. Please understand i am not attacking you or your lifestyle My argument was, again, how do you use a moral justification of 'killing things is wrong' to change from one lifestyle of killing things, to another lifestyle of killing different things? Why is cow vs golden retriever so important, but golden retriever vs potato completely laughable? You are still ending life to nourish your body no matter what. Both a cow and a potato cause and have external costs as well (i would say methane from cows is less or equally concerning as pesticides)
      - noondip 11y ago
        > Why is cow vs golden retriever so important, but golden retriever vs potato completely laughable? You are still ending life to nourish your body no matter what. This is what Jainists believe and they actually avoid root vegetables for this reason. I'd like to see you make the same argument for fruit, for example. Do you think "killing" a fruit is the same as killing a cow? Do you really think a fruit's life is "ended" when I bite into it? If so, you're just appealing to ridicule and I'm not sure this conversation is worth having. > i would say methane from cows is less or equally concerning as pesticides The methane emitted from cattle farming is literally one of the largest contributors to climate change. To say it's less concerning than the use of pesticides shows a deep ignorance of the contradicting evidence, or confusion.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  A cow grazing a pasture is not killing the mice in that pasture. Its true that winter fodder (hay) requires cutting the field (three times over the summer). But that isn't the same as plowing, planting, cultivating and for some crops, digging to harvest. So grass-fed beef is absolutely several orders of magnitude less devastating to animal life. One cow is killed to feed several people. Instead of millions of rodents killed to provide potatoes.
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Beef cows need very much more food than pasture grazing.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Not around here. In Iowa, they're grass fed for most of their lives.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - noondip 11y ago
    The worldwide premeditated killings of 60 billion land animals in slaughterhouses and 90 billion marine animals in the waterways are diametrically opposed to the accidental tractor-killings in a field. Slaughterhouses intentionally kill animals for meat, dairy and egg-eaters. How many farmers do you know intentionally crushing gophers, mice and snakes with their John Deeres?
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Every single mouse, snake and gopher in the field is killed by plowing, spraying, cultivating and harvesting. By the millions per section. The ground under the shade of a field of corn is essentially sterile. Enough denial; its absolutely disastrous to animal life to farm vegetables and grains.
      - 11y ago

noondip 11y ago

> Plants are just as alive as mammals, fish or insects Two things: plants aren't sentient and animals also eat plants - many, many times more plants than vegans do. So if you truly regard plant and animal life to be the same, it would behoove you to immediately stop eating animals! It's very obvious how this argument falls flat on its face when brought to the light of critical thinking. > how do you justify your greater reliance than meat eaters on migrant underpaid labor? This is just conjecture, but I'll try and answer anyway. You can be vegan and care about how workers are treated. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. Personally, I grow most of my food myself, but obviously this isn't practical for most people. Why not turn this question around and ask, how are slaughterhouse workers treated and what their experience must be like? > Isnt this just a game of semantic false moral superiority until there is a nutrition source that is completely death and suffering free? Pretty ironic to hear this from someone who beliefs him or herself to be superior to animals, and justifies their destruction. It's not a game of semantics - in fact, it's not a game at all. Animal agriculture is the leading cause of climate change. You can be coy all you want, but you are actively contributing to the problem by consuming animal products.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Two things: plants aren't sentient I don't think there is any coherent and useful definition of sentience for which no plants are sentient but all animals are sentient.
- noondip 11y ago
  There is a very clear and obvious distinction between the plant and animal kingdoms. Any attempts to qualify both as the same when it comes to their destruction is just a coy way to rationalize unethical behavior. Like I said, even if it were true that plants feel pain the same as animals, one would still be compelled to go vegan, since animals "kill" more plants than people do by eating them directly.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > There is a very clear and obvious distinction between the plant and animal kingdoms. Sure, but whether the things which make up that distinction have particular ethical significance is a different question. And I have yet to see any definition of sentience for which both of the following are true: (1) It does, in fact, apply to all animals and no plants, and (2) Most people would agree that it has ethical significance. In fact, I haven't seen any definition of sentience for which even (1) alone is true. > Like I said, even if it were true that plants feel pain the same as animals, one would still be compelled to go vegan, since animals "kill" more plants than people do by eating them directly. That seems to a apply a utilitarian standard of ethics, not the categorical one which is usually in arguing that veganism is an ethical compulsion (under the categorical ethics usually applied to argue for veganism, recognizing plants as sentient would make eating either inexcusable, even if it were a survival necessity.) Once you accept that its a utilitarian matter, determining that something is ethically demanded requires agreeing to a particular ethical calculus -- a method of aggregating utilities and disutilities experienced by different participants. And there's an infinite number of possible functions that can be used, and they can support any possible conclusion.