4 ms·

Denouncing the consumption of meat from certain species of animals (like whales or dogs or foir gras) while happily eating burgers and chickens and tuna is utte

Denouncing the consumption of meat from certain species of animals (like whales or dogs or foir gras) while happily eating burgers and chickens and tuna is utter hypocrisy. We need to work with Japan and other whaling countries to set sustainable quotas. But the condescending moral judgements need to end. There's nothing inherently different about eating a whale and a hundred chicken. Personally I try very hard not to be a hypocrite. I'll eat anything, and have tried many things people find objectionable (horse, whale, rabbit, shark, etc.). I know about myself that I'm not willing to go full vegetarian or vegan, and actively choose to eat meat. While I hate vegans that try to force their choice on others, I do appreciate the clarity and lack of hypocrisy of vegans who choose it for themselves. What I really hate is the hypocrisy of those who try to judge others for their choices while being no better themselves (meat eaters who complain about what other meats eaters eat)

issa 8y ago
This is much more complicated than it might initially seem. It can be argued that a whale can suffer at a higher level than a chicken can. Even though this clearly isn't your point, I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence and I believe that we shouldn't kill any animals at all.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gfodor 8y ago
Is it hypocritical to know sugar is bad for you and eat candy sometimes? If so, does it mean you should just not try to avoid candy and eat as much as you please, since otherwise you'd be a hypocrite? I think it's much better to have a reasoned through moral viewpoint, and accept that you will try and often fail to live up to that standard. Don't judge others, but judge yourself. We live in a culture which eats meat, and so if you deem it morally wrong to eat meat, even partially going against the grain of wider society is a difficult but just act even if you fail to do so all the time. This is true for any social norm which you consider unjust. Just throwing your hands up and saying that you may as well just eat any once-living creature on equal terms since it means you won't be a hypocrite seems worse than deducing what ought to be the right way to behave and then try to build a framework to, perhaps only in-part, act towards that end. You may conclude that all creatures are the same, and continue your actions, but it sounds like you just consider the risk of being a hypocrite being an overriding concern. For me, I personally have tried to scale back my meat eating over time, since I believe it to be unclear how much animals suffer in farming conditions and how much they should have moral standing. I assume the degree to which these are true is somewhat proportional to how close these animals are in mental and physical form to humans. So, I no longer eat any mammals and increasingly try to prefer fish over birds. I began by cutting off pork (which I now can no longer stomach) and then beef. The net effect of this lifestyle may mean I am a "hypocrite", since I still eat animals and even occasionally just yield to the temptation to eat a burger, but it likely results in less net suffering, and may in the long term result in transitioning completely off of meat.
- kenneth 8y ago
  I don't think you're a hypocrite. I think your stance is actually great — you have your own values and you try to do what you can to change your lifestyle to match those values. That's commendable. If instead you had come out and said that people who eat dog/whale/horse are immoral, whilst you still eat, say, chicken — then you'd be a hypocrite. If you had said that whilst being vegan — you'd be annoying for trying to force your ideals onto others, but at least not a hypocrite. (But, just to be clear, given you didn't make any judgements about others — I think you're an example of what we should strive for.) -- Also — important distinction. Sustainability is more about the quantity of meat you eat than the animal it comes from. You'd arguably have a much more positive effect by eating meat only once a week, be it dog/whale/dolphin/horse/anything, vs. eating only beef and chicken every other day.
coryfklein 8y ago
I believe the concern with whale hunting is less related to the suffering of the whales and more related to biological diversity. Hunting has already driven many whale species to extinction with several others on that same path. Whales are of particular concern because, once their population is reduced, it is very hard for them to reestablish a large and healthy population. I believe because they have such low offspring rates.

issa 8y ago

This is much more complicated than it might initially seem. It can be argued that a whale can suffer at a higher level than a chicken can. Even though this clearly isn't your point, I agree wholeheartedly with your first sentence and I believe that we shouldn't kill any animals at all.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gfodor 8y ago

Is it hypocritical to know sugar is bad for you and eat candy sometimes? If so, does it mean you should just not try to avoid candy and eat as much as you please, since otherwise you'd be a hypocrite? I think it's much better to have a reasoned through moral viewpoint, and accept that you will try and often fail to live up to that standard. Don't judge others, but judge yourself. We live in a culture which eats meat, and so if you deem it morally wrong to eat meat, even partially going against the grain of wider society is a difficult but just act even if you fail to do so all the time. This is true for any social norm which you consider unjust. Just throwing your hands up and saying that you may as well just eat any once-living creature on equal terms since it means you won't be a hypocrite seems worse than deducing what ought to be the right way to behave and then try to build a framework to, perhaps only in-part, act towards that end. You may conclude that all creatures are the same, and continue your actions, but it sounds like you just consider the risk of being a hypocrite being an overriding concern. For me, I personally have tried to scale back my meat eating over time, since I believe it to be unclear how much animals suffer in farming conditions and how much they should have moral standing. I assume the degree to which these are true is somewhat proportional to how close these animals are in mental and physical form to humans. So, I no longer eat any mammals and increasingly try to prefer fish over birds. I began by cutting off pork (which I now can no longer stomach) and then beef. The net effect of this lifestyle may mean I am a "hypocrite", since I still eat animals and even occasionally just yield to the temptation to eat a burger, but it likely results in less net suffering, and may in the long term result in transitioning completely off of meat.

kenneth 8y ago
I don't think you're a hypocrite. I think your stance is actually great — you have your own values and you try to do what you can to change your lifestyle to match those values. That's commendable. If instead you had come out and said that people who eat dog/whale/horse are immoral, whilst you still eat, say, chicken — then you'd be a hypocrite. If you had said that whilst being vegan — you'd be annoying for trying to force your ideals onto others, but at least not a hypocrite. (But, just to be clear, given you didn't make any judgements about others — I think you're an example of what we should strive for.) -- Also — important distinction. Sustainability is more about the quantity of meat you eat than the animal it comes from. You'd arguably have a much more positive effect by eating meat only once a week, be it dog/whale/dolphin/horse/anything, vs. eating only beef and chicken every other day.

coryfklein 8y ago

I believe the concern with whale hunting is less related to the suffering of the whales and more related to biological diversity. Hunting has already driven many whale species to extinction with several others on that same path. Whales are of particular concern because, once their population is reduced, it is very hard for them to reestablish a large and healthy population. I believe because they have such low offspring rates.