3 ms·

I'm curious, how to vegans like you square away the idea that it's horrible for humans to eat animals vs it's okay for other animals (like lions) to eat animals

I'm curious, how to vegans like you square away the idea that it's horrible for humans to eat animals vs it's okay for other animals (like lions) to eat animals? Genuinely curious since I understand you points but it doesn't seem possible to apply that philosophy universally (and I see that as a sign of an incorrect philosophy) To be clear, there are three different arguments in favor of eating less meat: 1. Personal health 2. Environmental benefits 3. Moral requirement I'm only asking about the moral argument since that what you focused on in your post

yesenadam 8y ago
Hi :-) I'm not sure what philosophy "it doesn't seem possible to apply universally".. Maybe "Killing any animal is wrong" (By any animal/person, for any reason, etc)? I don't think that. Also, I don't see this as an "argument in favor of eating less meat", or a "moral requirement".. Is it hard for you to not hunt, kill and eat people? Do you need arguments in favor of having less slaves. No.. Those things seem morally repugnant to most of us now, while they were normal in other times and places. Two points from the many that bear on this: 1. The line between "humans and uh cats and dogs" and everything else seems arbitrary, human-centric etc. "Those in my group have value, those outside are nothing" comes naturally to humans, but there's nothing reasonable about it. For me, I don't like pain. I think inflicting pain/suffering is bad--not to mention painless killing, which seems worse than inflicting suffering. I would prefer someone inflicted pain on me than killed me painlessly! (How strange that I felt the need to explicitly make that point.) There is a range of life-forms on this planet, from simple to complex, some of which, like single-cell bacteria, viruses, probably don't feel pain. (Neither do trees, it seems--they can't run away so it didn't evolve. But I respect them for other reasons. I hate seeing heavily graffitied trees, I wonder who could do that desecration.) There seems no obvious line to draw between animals whose pain/suffering, and lives, are worthy of ethical consideration, and those whose aren't. (And conveniently, we put humans at the top of that range, presumably other animals might see things differently) Doctors/vets kill lower-life forms to save higher ones. Personally, I put it fairly low (Oysters?..).. but to save worrying about the exact place to draw the line, I've found it simpler (and painless, I've never missed 'it') to avoid animal products altogether. 2. The matter of need. If it's a matter of killing animals for food or dying, I would do the same. (or even eating people, see the movie Alive.) If it's a matter of, for you and I, wanting a steak, when there's no need whatsoever, it's an entirely different thing. I stopped dairy products when I learnt about what people do to cows and their babies in that industry. And learn about factory farming of chickens, pigs, cows, go on a tour of an abattoir--the gruesome realities are hidden from us. Also, I'm just talking about ethical considerations for humans, how we treat other life-forms. Because we realize other people than ourselves matter, other species than ourselves. (Not really sure what to say about the lions in your example.)
- ZainRiz 8y ago
  Thanks for the reply. It sounds like your argument is "we should minimize the pain in the world" which could make sense when it comes to humans eating animals. Two counter questions come to mind though: 1. What if you could kill the animals painlessly (e.g. euthanize them) in a way that still left them fit to eat? Would that be okay 2. Would you consider it immoral to feed a dog or cat (and perhaps we should just kill them instead)? The pain that dog will feel from being killed once is probably much less than the combined pain of dying experienced by all the various animals that the dog will eat in it's life. That would minimize pain in the world

yesenadam 8y ago

Hi :-) I'm not sure what philosophy "it doesn't seem possible to apply universally".. Maybe "Killing any animal is wrong" (By any animal/person, for any reason, etc)? I don't think that. Also, I don't see this as an "argument in favor of eating less meat", or a "moral requirement".. Is it hard for you to not hunt, kill and eat people? Do you need arguments in favor of having less slaves. No.. Those things seem morally repugnant to most of us now, while they were normal in other times and places. Two points from the many that bear on this: 1. The line between "humans and uh cats and dogs" and everything else seems arbitrary, human-centric etc. "Those in my group have value, those outside are nothing" comes naturally to humans, but there's nothing reasonable about it. For me, I don't like pain. I think inflicting pain/suffering is bad--not to mention painless killing, which seems worse than inflicting suffering. I would prefer someone inflicted pain on me than killed me painlessly! (How strange that I felt the need to explicitly make that point.) There is a range of life-forms on this planet, from simple to complex, some of which, like single-cell bacteria, viruses, probably don't feel pain. (Neither do trees, it seems--they can't run away so it didn't evolve. But I respect them for other reasons. I hate seeing heavily graffitied trees, I wonder who could do that desecration.) There seems no obvious line to draw between animals whose pain/suffering, and lives, are worthy of ethical consideration, and those whose aren't. (And conveniently, we put humans at the top of that range, presumably other animals might see things differently) Doctors/vets kill lower-life forms to save higher ones. Personally, I put it fairly low (Oysters?..).. but to save worrying about the exact place to draw the line, I've found it simpler (and painless, I've never missed 'it') to avoid animal products altogether. 2. The matter of need. If it's a matter of killing animals for food or dying, I would do the same. (or even eating people, see the movie Alive.) If it's a matter of, for you and I, wanting a steak, when there's no need whatsoever, it's an entirely different thing. I stopped dairy products when I learnt about what people do to cows and their babies in that industry. And learn about factory farming of chickens, pigs, cows, go on a tour of an abattoir--the gruesome realities are hidden from us. Also, I'm just talking about ethical considerations for humans, how we treat other life-forms. Because we realize other people than ourselves matter, other species than ourselves. (Not really sure what to say about the lions in your example.)

ZainRiz 8y ago
Thanks for the reply. It sounds like your argument is "we should minimize the pain in the world" which could make sense when it comes to humans eating animals. Two counter questions come to mind though: 1. What if you could kill the animals painlessly (e.g. euthanize them) in a way that still left them fit to eat? Would that be okay 2. Would you consider it immoral to feed a dog or cat (and perhaps we should just kill them instead)? The pain that dog will feel from being killed once is probably much less than the combined pain of dying experienced by all the various animals that the dog will eat in it's life. That would minimize pain in the world