6 ms·

This is a ride, but let’s take it point by point. Firstly, I think it’s immoral for anyone to do it. I don’t think it’s immoral simply because I decided so. I

This is a ride, but let’s take it point by point. Firstly, I think it’s immoral for anyone to do it. I don’t think it’s immoral simply because I decided so. I think it’s fundamentally immoral, period. You continue by saying something to the effect of “good food is really important and plays a huge role in our life and animals go to great lengths to acquire good food”. To this, I completely agree. I never said otherwise. Nor did I ever trivialize this. I just think that good food doesn’t have to mean animal products. I think good food can include beans, grains, vegetables, fruits, fungi, etc. If you disagree with that, I can recommend some vegan cook books which I think will change your mind. Also to this point, I don’t think it’s relevant how other animals react to food. We are not those animals. We don’t need to hold ourselves to the standards that species without agriculture and advanced supply lines are held. We are more advanced, can make complex decisions, and have more options. Then you talk about vegans who have “broken veg” and started eating animal products again. I don’t understand what this has to do with anything. Yes, there are people who break vegan. There people who subscribe to any creed and then become disillusioned. If you’re trying to make a point that veganism is so hard and terrible that not even passionate vegans can stand to adhere to it, Id love to connect you with people who have been staunch vegans for decades. Would you like me to put you in touch with them? There are a lot. Lastly, you say nobody knows what vegans actually eat, but I can tell you definitely: anything except animal products. That is, after all, the point.

EvilEy3 5y ago
> I think it’s fundamentally immoral, period Nope.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  Nope, I don't think that? But I do?...
cheese_goddess 5y ago
The problem is that it's you who thinks it's "fundamentally immoral" to kill another animal to eat it. It's your morality and noone else is obliged to subscribe to it, just because you do. For instance, if I thought it's immoral not to eat meat because an animal died for you to eat its flesh and it's disgusting that you should let it go to waste, would you accept it if I tried to foist my morality upon you? I'm pretty sure that not. But then, why should anyone else accept your morality? Because you say it's good? > Also to this point, I don’t think it’s relevant how other animals react to food. We are not those animals. We don’t need to hold ourselves to the standards that species without agriculture and advanced supply lines are held. We are more advanced, can make complex decisions, and have more options. That really confuses me when I speak to vegans and other animal rights advocates. You're essentially saying that we're in some sense, better than, superior, to other animals. But, isn't that claimed superiority exactly the argument used to justify killing and even mistreating non-human animals? I mean, I'm sure I've heard it said that non-human animals don't experience pain as humans do, so it's OK to for example drip toxic chemicals in their eyballs (like the article says), because they don't really hurt, their reactions are just autonomic responses etc. I've read papers studying animal pain and they invariably assume that "animals don't feel pain as humans do" and try to disprove that. In my mind, it's obvious that animals feel pain as humans do, and that humans are not, as you say "more advanced", in any way, shape or form. Vegans I've spoken to have tried to convince me to become vegan by telling me how farm animals, like sheep and goats and pigs, are intelligent, sensitive, how they have an internal life, etc. Which makes sense to me, of course they are all that. Yet you say that "we can make complex decisions", as if those other animals can't? It's confusing. I appreciate I'm not talking to the same vegans all the time, but it's still, yes, confusing. Can you tell me, do you really think you're more than those other animals? Never mind me and others who eat meat, obviously you think we're all some kind of sub-life, but do you think yourself to be something "more advanced" than say a sheep or a cow? > Lastly, you say nobody knows what vegans actually eat, but I can tell you definitely: anything except animal products. That is, after all, the point. And the point of Christianity is to love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek, or anyway that is the credo. And yet, throughout history, faithful Christans have killed, maimed, murdered, pillaged, raped and looted all over the world with abandon and with the blessings of their respective churches. It is very easy to preach one thing and practice a whole 'nother one. Everyone does it all the time. Why not vegans? Edit: anyway, how do you know what vegans eat? Are you vegan? Even so, have you any way to know what other vegans eat? > If you disagree with that, I can recommend some vegan cook books which I think will change your mind. Thanks, I think I'll pass. I'm from a Mediterrannean country and 80% of the food we eat traditionally is what you would call vegetarian or vegan, not least because we use olive oil as shortening. But that's just the food we eat, not some kind of political ideal. Anyway I'm pretty sure I can cook much better than anyone who discovered in late life that -OMG- vegetables have taste. I knew that since I knew what food is. But, I still eat meat once in a while and make my own cheese. Actual cheese, that is. Because the tastes and flavours of meat and dairy cannot be replaced by vegetables and fruit, no matter how well the latter are cooked. Sometimes I crave a nice aubergine and zucchini casserole, overflowing with olive oil and tomato sauce; sometimes I just want kokorec: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoretsi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoretsi
- claudiawerner 5y ago
  >You're essentially saying that we're in some sense, better than, superior, to other animals. But, isn't that claimed superiority exactly the argument used to justify killing and even mistreating non-human animals? You're confusing a certain kind of superiority (superiority in moral reasoning, for instance) with another one (the value of life). Humans are superior in the first respect (this is pretty uncontroversial), and I can't really think of any serious philosopher who argues that animals carry equal moral weight as a human. I'm sure they exist, though. >Yet you say that "we can make complex decisions", as if those other animals can't? It's confusing. I appreciate I'm not talking to the same vegans all the time, but it's still, yes, confusing. The evidence (and the interpretation of that evidence by biologists, neuroscientists, and philosophers) would point to the fact that humans are capable of moral reasoning to a higher degree than other animals, the conventional thought being that animals have no moral reasoning, though that's controversial. The debate on the morality of killing animals for food where not necessary has very strong support for the moral vegetarian case[0], arguing from harm to animals, harm to humans, and harm to the environment; but I'd be interested to see if you have any counter-arguments, or rather, ones that haven't already been replied to. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vegetarianism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vegetarianism/
  - cheese_goddess 5y ago
    It doesn't sound like you really would, though. "I'd be interested to see if you have any counter-arguments, or rather, ones that haven't already been replied to"? Is that a way to ask for a frank exchange of views that predisposes your interlocutor to expect an honest and unbiased discussion? Because to me it sounds more like a preemptive dismissal of anyhing I'd possibly say. I also don't like to hold internet conversations with commenters who talk of "arguments" like they're goals in football, whereby points are scored. If you want to exchange views because you think my views are useful to you, then please let me know that you want to have a genuine and constructive conversation. If you just want to win some culture war, then go away.
nec4b 5y ago
Do you believe animals eating other animals to be immoral as well?
- claudiawerner 5y ago
  As far as we know, humans are the only animals with moral agency (though there is some debate on this topic). That said, the immoral actions of one person (or animal, or society, etc.) does not absolve others of moral responsibility. Even if animals act immorally, this doesn't provide an excuse for humans to act in the same way.
- sweetheart 5y ago
  Nope. But if those animals ever develop advanced societies with agriculture, the ability to reason about morality, and ways to live long healthy lives _without_ eating other animals, then I'll expect them to. Right now, that's only humans, so I only hold humans to this standard.
  - cheese_goddess 5y ago
    But why is it immoral to eat another animal? Whether or not someone can "reason about morality", the question is what is moral and what is immoral. So why is it immoral to eat another animal? You say you hold humans to a certain standard (of morality). But why does this standard entail an avoidance of eating meat? What is immoral about eating meat and what is moral about avoiding it?
    - sweetheart 5y ago
      Because it involves causing extreme suffering, and we definitively do not need to do it to live long healthy lives. Literally just watch Dominion. Watch it to see the suffering I’m talking about. Why do you think animals deserve this so that you can eat a meal? Is that agony they exist in for their whole life worth a hamburger, or a piece of cheese? Vegans say no. https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko
      - 5y ago

EvilEy3 5y ago

> I think it’s fundamentally immoral, period Nope.

sweetheart 5y ago
Nope, I don't think that? But I do?...

cheese_goddess 5y ago

The problem is that it's you who thinks it's "fundamentally immoral" to kill another animal to eat it. It's your morality and noone else is obliged to subscribe to it, just because you do. For instance, if I thought it's immoral not to eat meat because an animal died for you to eat its flesh and it's disgusting that you should let it go to waste, would you accept it if I tried to foist my morality upon you? I'm pretty sure that not. But then, why should anyone else accept your morality? Because you say it's good? > Also to this point, I don’t think it’s relevant how other animals react to food. We are not those animals. We don’t need to hold ourselves to the standards that species without agriculture and advanced supply lines are held. We are more advanced, can make complex decisions, and have more options. That really confuses me when I speak to vegans and other animal rights advocates. You're essentially saying that we're in some sense, better than, superior, to other animals. But, isn't that claimed superiority exactly the argument used to justify killing and even mistreating non-human animals? I mean, I'm sure I've heard it said that non-human animals don't experience pain as humans do, so it's OK to for example drip toxic chemicals in their eyballs (like the article says), because they don't really hurt, their reactions are just autonomic responses etc. I've read papers studying animal pain and they invariably assume that "animals don't feel pain as humans do" and try to disprove that. In my mind, it's obvious that animals feel pain as humans do, and that humans are not, as you say "more advanced", in any way, shape or form. Vegans I've spoken to have tried to convince me to become vegan by telling me how farm animals, like sheep and goats and pigs, are intelligent, sensitive, how they have an internal life, etc. Which makes sense to me, of course they are all that. Yet you say that "we can make complex decisions", as if those other animals can't? It's confusing. I appreciate I'm not talking to the same vegans all the time, but it's still, yes, confusing. Can you tell me, do you really think you're more than those other animals? Never mind me and others who eat meat, obviously you think we're all some kind of sub-life, but do you think yourself to be something "more advanced" than say a sheep or a cow? > Lastly, you say nobody knows what vegans actually eat, but I can tell you definitely: anything except animal products. That is, after all, the point. And the point of Christianity is to love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek, or anyway that is the credo. And yet, throughout history, faithful Christans have killed, maimed, murdered, pillaged, raped and looted all over the world with abandon and with the blessings of their respective churches. It is very easy to preach one thing and practice a whole 'nother one. Everyone does it all the time. Why not vegans? Edit: anyway, how do you know what vegans eat? Are you vegan? Even so, have you any way to know what other vegans eat? > If you disagree with that, I can recommend some vegan cook books which I think will change your mind. Thanks, I think I'll pass. I'm from a Mediterrannean country and 80% of the food we eat traditionally is what you would call vegetarian or vegan, not least because we use olive oil as shortening. But that's just the food we eat, not some kind of political ideal. Anyway I'm pretty sure I can cook much better than anyone who discovered in late life that -OMG- vegetables have taste. I knew that since I knew what food is. But, I still eat meat once in a while and make my own cheese. Actual cheese, that is. Because the tastes and flavours of meat and dairy cannot be replaced by vegetables and fruit, no matter how well the latter are cooked. Sometimes I crave a nice aubergine and zucchini casserole, overflowing with olive oil and tomato sauce; sometimes I just want kokorec: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoretsi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoretsi

claudiawerner 5y ago
>You're essentially saying that we're in some sense, better than, superior, to other animals. But, isn't that claimed superiority exactly the argument used to justify killing and even mistreating non-human animals? You're confusing a certain kind of superiority (superiority in moral reasoning, for instance) with another one (the value of life). Humans are superior in the first respect (this is pretty uncontroversial), and I can't really think of any serious philosopher who argues that animals carry equal moral weight as a human. I'm sure they exist, though. >Yet you say that "we can make complex decisions", as if those other animals can't? It's confusing. I appreciate I'm not talking to the same vegans all the time, but it's still, yes, confusing. The evidence (and the interpretation of that evidence by biologists, neuroscientists, and philosophers) would point to the fact that humans are capable of moral reasoning to a higher degree than other animals, the conventional thought being that animals have no moral reasoning, though that's controversial. The debate on the morality of killing animals for food where not necessary has very strong support for the moral vegetarian case[0], arguing from harm to animals, harm to humans, and harm to the environment; but I'd be interested to see if you have any counter-arguments, or rather, ones that haven't already been replied to. [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vegetarianism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/vegetarianism/
- cheese_goddess 5y ago
  It doesn't sound like you really would, though. "I'd be interested to see if you have any counter-arguments, or rather, ones that haven't already been replied to"? Is that a way to ask for a frank exchange of views that predisposes your interlocutor to expect an honest and unbiased discussion? Because to me it sounds more like a preemptive dismissal of anyhing I'd possibly say. I also don't like to hold internet conversations with commenters who talk of "arguments" like they're goals in football, whereby points are scored. If you want to exchange views because you think my views are useful to you, then please let me know that you want to have a genuine and constructive conversation. If you just want to win some culture war, then go away.

nec4b 5y ago

Do you believe animals eating other animals to be immoral as well?

claudiawerner 5y ago
As far as we know, humans are the only animals with moral agency (though there is some debate on this topic). That said, the immoral actions of one person (or animal, or society, etc.) does not absolve others of moral responsibility. Even if animals act immorally, this doesn't provide an excuse for humans to act in the same way.
sweetheart 5y ago
Nope. But if those animals ever develop advanced societies with agriculture, the ability to reason about morality, and ways to live long healthy lives _without_ eating other animals, then I'll expect them to. Right now, that's only humans, so I only hold humans to this standard.
- cheese_goddess 5y ago
  But why is it immoral to eat another animal? Whether or not someone can "reason about morality", the question is what is moral and what is immoral. So why is it immoral to eat another animal? You say you hold humans to a certain standard (of morality). But why does this standard entail an avoidance of eating meat? What is immoral about eating meat and what is moral about avoiding it?
  - sweetheart 5y ago
    Because it involves causing extreme suffering, and we definitively do not need to do it to live long healthy lives. Literally just watch Dominion. Watch it to see the suffering I’m talking about. Why do you think animals deserve this so that you can eat a meal? Is that agony they exist in for their whole life worth a hamburger, or a piece of cheese? Vegans say no. https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko https://youtu.be/LQRAfJyEsko
    - 5y ago