Veganism

[I'm With Stupid]

I don't have any issue at all with someone wanting to be vegetarian or vegan, but if they hold it over me or try to make it an issue of moral and ethics then I'll call them out for it.

This is the problem though. Too many people consider the very existence of vegans as a comment on their morals. If you ask a vegan why they refuse to eat animals, they will almost always say that it's because they believe it's wrong to kill animals for food when there are alternatives available. By definition, they are therefore saying that you, by eating meat, are doing something wrong in their opinion. You have basically given them impossible conditions for their choice. What you're essentially saying is that it's fine to be a vegan as long as you're either doing so for no reason, or at least lie about the reasons if asked and never bring it up in conversation.

I've known a lot of vegetarians and vegans in my life, and I've only ever known one who was an arsehole about it and actually made a point of making the moral argument whenever they saw someone eating meat (ironically a vegetarian, not a vegan). I've met far more people who see the very existence of vegetarians or vegans to be a personal affront to their morals and feel the need to challenge them on their choice of diet when it comes up. They're like the sort of people who upon learning that someone's a Christian say, "Oh, so you think we're all going to hell then, do you?"

 

[I'm With Stupid]

Is Dawkins therefore a proponent of veganism?

He says that he accepts the moral argument and is basically a hypocrite. It's somewhere in here, but I can't be arsed looking through it.



Here's a shorter answer:

 

[MellowJoe]

Is Dawkins therefore a proponent of veganism?

Not that I know of. Reading it back it does look like that was what I was implying. He has said though that a vegan life-style is morally superior, and he has no defence in eating meat.

 

[talkativesprout]

This is the problem though. Too many people consider the very existence of vegans as a comment on their morals. If you ask a vegan why they refuse to eat animals, they will almost always say that it's because they believe it's wrong to kill animals for food when there are alternatives available. By definition, they are therefore saying that you, by eating meat, are doing something wrong in their opinion. You have basically given them impossible conditions for their choice. What you're essentially saying is that it's fine to be a vegan as long as you're either doing so for no reason, or at least lie about the reasons if asked and never bring it up in conversation.

I've known a lot of vegetarians and vegans in my life, and I've only ever known one who was an arsehole about it and actually made a point of making the moral argument whenever they saw someone eating meat (ironically a vegetarian, not a vegan). I've met far more people who see the very existence of vegetarians or vegans to be a personal affront to their morals and feel the need to challenge them on their choice of diet when it comes up. They're like the sort of people who upon learning that someone's a Christian say, "Oh, so you think we're all going to hell then, do you?"

No one has ever asked me if i am a vegan (and i havn't always been a fat ****). All the vegans and all but one of the veggies i have ever known have pontificated about it like some badge of honour. Like faith it should be done for you and you alone, it may well be noble, i don't want to know about it.

I drive past Dalehead foods and often see 20 terrorvegans protesting during the day.....during the fuckin day they are asking for one of the largest employers in a very deprived area to fuck off and shut up shop.

 

[che_don_john]

The 'it's fine because it's natural' is a major rationalization on your part. Some people do have problem with with animals eating other animals, the nature of predator/prey life. It can been seen as a tragedy.

Well, it's better than an 'irrationalisation' ;) But I take your point and would go further by saying that there are many instances in which we go against nature because we consider it moral and ethical to do so - everything from heart transplants to gay sex would fall in the 'unnatural, but morally right and ethically sound' bracket. In fact, it may be that the survival of our species (in terms of biology, in terms of civilization, and perhaps also simply in terms of happiness and well-being) may one day depend on our ability and willingness to rise beyond 'the natural'

What you're essentially saying is that it's fine to be a vegan as long as you're either doing so for no reason, or at least lie about the reasons if asked and never bring it up in conversation.

Sorry, that's not quite what I said. Just to be clear: I don't see the existence of vegans as a comment on a meat eater morals. I never made any assertions or criticism of vegans pursuing their cause as a matter of personal choice. What I meant was that: a) the issue of meat eating is not the same as the issue of animal welfare, and so in terms of logical debate it is wrong to merge the two; and b), I object to a vegan labelling a meat eater as immoral or unethical simply because that person has made a different personal choice on the matter.

I agree with your point that there is a logical entailment from a vegan's choice; that by choosing not to eat meat because they think it is morally and ethically wrong to do so, they are effectively by default suggesting that meat eaters are immoral and unethical. But the argument I bought attention to is that there has never been a conclusive argument in philosophy that meat eating should be subject to ethical debate and consideration in the first place (unlike animal welfare/rights); the likes of Peter Singer, Tom Regan and Immanuel Kant - probably the sharpest minds to ever tackle the topic - barely reached conclusions because it's so hard to demonstrate the necessary premise that animals are moral/ethical agents in the first place (Kant got round this by saying that good treatment of animals should be for our own sake, rather than for the animals') . It's what makes it probably the hardest topic in contemporary moral rights theory, perhaps even more so than abortion.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

a) the issue of meat eating is not the same as the issue of animal welfare, and so in terms of logical debate it is wrong to merge the two; and

b), I object to a vegan labelling a meat eater as immoral or unethical simply because that person has made a different personal choice on the matter.

I agree with your point that there is a logical entailment from a vegan's choice; that by choosing not to eat meat because they think it is morally and ethically wrong to do so, they are effectively by default suggesting that meat eaters are immoral and unethical. But the argument I bought attention to is that there has never been a conclusive argument in philosophy that meat eating should be subject to ethical debate and consideration in the first place (unlike animal welfare/rights); the likes of Peter Singer, Tom Regan and Immanuel Kant - probably the sharpest minds to ever tackle the topic - barely reached conclusions because it's so hard to demonstrate the necessary premise that animals are moral/ethical agents in the first place (Kant got round this by saying that good treatment of animals should be for our own sake, rather than for the animals') . It's what makes it probably the hardest topic in contemporary moral rights theory, perhaps even more so than abortion.

I don't see why the idea that animals are moral/ethical agents is any more problematic than the idea that humans are moral/ethical agents whose welfare we should be concerned about. Obviously all of it needs to be based on the assumption that suffering of conscious beings is bad and something to be avoided wherever possible, but if we accept the premise, then the argument sure has to be why it's logical to exclude animals (or particular animals) from those considerations rather than why it's logical to include them.

 

[che_don_john]

I don't see why the idea that animals are moral/ethical agents is any more problematic than the idea that humans are moral/ethical agents whose welfare we should be concerned about.

It's basically to do with the concept of the 'self'. It's generally agreed that one must be aware of what the 'self' is, in a conceptual sense, in order to conceive and comprehend moral paradigms; morality and ethics are, in effect, about how you relate to and interact with other selves, and in order to recognise another self one must first be aware that they are themselves a self.

Now of course we can easily do this with fellow humans because we recognise traits and behavious and draw the conclusion that "I'm a human self and have/do these things, that person is a human self and has/does those same things, therefore they must be a self". It's muc h more difficult to do that with other animals because of that lack of sympathy and shared identify. We can test many mammals and see that they demonstrate an awareness of the self (apes, elephants and cetacea being the prime examples), but with lesser animals we can not. Hence why the idea that these lesser animals are moral/ethical agents is problematic and also unlikey, given what we know about their intelligence and brain functions.

That doesn't mean though that lesser animals can't suffer - we know they can - which is why some philosophers have tended to use that as being the defining attribute of a moral/ethical agent.

 

[kaz7]

I cut out meat, Sometimes eat fish and very occasionally dairy products.

I started for the health benefits and honestly have felt really good since switching (More energy and have also had less injuries when doing intensive training). Now this could all be down to just taking more time and thinking about what I am eating rather than the lack of meat but there is more evidence that red meat especially processed is carcinogenic (see world health organisation publication). There appear to be environmental benefits as well (although that is counter argued with the problems with soya farming).

I think the discussions about cruelty to animals is too emotive, it easily gets out of hand when you can see the passion in both sides of the argument, it also gets very difficult not to be a hypocrite as where do you draw a line in avoiding animal products completely ie do you wear a leather belt etc.

anyway

It is a lifestyle choice and I like it!

I haven't brought or owned anything leather since i went total veggie in the mid 80's,i have spent a fortune on shoes as they only last 5mins but i feel thats a small price to pay

 

[MellowJoe]

It's basically to do with the concept of the 'self'. It's generally agreed that one must be aware of what the 'self' is, in a conceptual sense, in order to conceive and comprehend moral paradigms; morality and ethics are, in effect, about how you relate to and interact with other selves, and in order to recognise another self one must first be aware that they are themselves a self.

Now of course we can easily do this with fellow humans because we recognise traits and behavious and draw the conclusion that "I'm a human self and have/do these things, that person is a human self and has/does those same things, therefore they must be a self". It's muc h more difficult to do that with other animals because of that lack of sympathy and shared identify. We can test many mammals and see that they demonstrate an awareness of the self (apes, elephants and cetacea being the prime examples), but with lesser animals we can not. Hence why the idea that these lesser animals are moral/ethical agents is problematic and also unlikey, given what we know about their intelligence and brain functions.

That doesn't mean though that lesser animals can't suffer - we know they can - which is why some philosophers have tended to use that as being the defining attribute of a moral/ethical agent.

Animals (regardless of their brains/sentience/self awareness) are considered Amoral.. simply because they do not understand right and wrong the way we do. They can not understand the value at stake. If you could somehow make a crocodile or lion understand what it is doing when it hunts and eats, it would understand it was an arsehole organism made by a stupid evolution. It would understand the zebra isn't a willing participant.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

Animals (regardless of their brains/sentience/self awareness) are considered Amoral.. simply because they do not understand right and wrong the way we do. They can not understand the value at stake. If you could somehow make a crocodile or lion understand what it is doing when it hunts and eats, it would understand it was an arsehole organism made by a stupid evolution. It would understand the zebra isn't a willing participant.

Sorry, but this is anthropomorphic misty eyed nonsense, it carries an assumption that the act of killing
and consuming must be inherently bad because I've decided it is, and so needs some sort of post evolutionary
justification for it to be acceptable. Carnivores, and Omnivores eat meat because it's the fastest way to gain
complex nutrients, but because of their efficiency in so doing, they sacrifice the luxury of numbers,
and so, with the exception of man, remain minorities.
A pride of lions will make one large kill of a wildebeest, then feed on it and not need to hunt again for some
time, the wildebeest have been fashioned and conditioned to realise this and will amble past lions, knowing they won't
be attacked.
Evolution is not stupid.