http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/essa ... gh-ground/
I'll admit: lately I've become more vegetarian, and it is because of animal rights. I will also admit: one point I read in the article above definitely made me think, and think deeply about what I'm doing; it discusses how drawing the line at killing animals for food is completely arbitrary - in several ways. This would mean that it doesn't matter if we kill animals for food. For instance, why stop at not killing chickens, cows and pigs, and not extend this to pests, the bugs we step on walking around outdoors, or even the bacteria in our environment around us? It seems that we have to draw the line somewhere, so why not allow animals to be killed for human consumption? Now, here's the catch: if where we draw the line is arbitrary, that doesn't only imply that it's okay to kill animals, *because*, like the article implies, *the line could be drawn anywhere.* Therefore, it implies that it is okay not to kill them as well! This means we could allow animals to be killed or not to be, or even allow humans to be consumed for food. Why? The answer is that if we can draw the line at any point in terms of killing for food, the best conclusion is not that the line can be drawn only at allowing animal consumption, but anywhere, even including the absurdity of killing humans, because there is no exact point at which we can say it is acceptable *here* to stop! Therefore, this article envelops all human ethics in a big grey area, making it not clear what is allowable and what isn't! All I can think of in response is that maybe there is a most logical point to draw the line (or maybe even a logical "spectrum" over which we can draw it). In that case, could a more logical point to stop be at not allowing animals to be killed? I leave it up to you to decide...
(I should also add that some may think that I'm committing the "Dividing line" fallacy. The person raising that point would have to be able to answer why, if there is no point anywhere at which we can draw the line, it matters where you draw it... (Or, alternatively, if there are a number of acceptable points at which we can draw it, why any one of those points should be given any preference.) In other words, the case here is about how you can draw the line regarding killing a species in a number of places, and so there is no one spot where we have to stop - that is exactly what I argued in the other direction, that if you justify it by having to stop just anywhere, why not stop somewhere else? And that leads to the untenable conclusion about killing humans or allowing animals to live. Or, in the very least, if it is a fallacy, why should that be definitive, if there are people in there are people in the logical community who don't accept them? (Especially considering the reasons listed directly above.))
Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
Re: Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
So, there is no philosophical reason to have any rules of behaviour at all, since the lines we draw - as societies, as families, and as individuals - between acceptable and unacceptable action are arbitrary.
That's the problematic word, right there.
Our decisions may not be based on a single, hard moral or logical rule, but that doesn't make them arbitrary. We each have some precepts and principles that we take seriously and think about. We are unable to create our ideal world according to those precepts, but we can try to approximate it within the constraints of the environment we can't change. We each draw lines, all the time, in all areas of life and interaction, and those lines are movable.
Societies want peace and order, but accept the reality of aggression and competition, so they make laws. Every legislation, every arrest, every court proceeding and sentence is a compromise between the ideal and the attainable. Families want perfect understanding and cooperation, but accept the reality of discordant desires, so parents make house rules. Every argument, grounding and slammed door is a compromise. Individuals, too, have to decide, every minute, between the perfect and the possible. Some people don't think much about it, just go with the prevailing mores of their time and culture; some try to improve their society (influence it to conform more closely to their own ideal); some oppose and resist what they consider wrong in their society; some drop out; some reflect and adjust their own lifestyles and actions while still functioning within their social milieu. All of those are lines, being drawn, shifted and redrawn over time.
For me, an ideal world would have no predation or parasitism, no suffering or violence. So I try to participate as little as possible - within the reality of 21st century North American life - in those processes. I could do more to change the world; I could become a hermit, an activist or martyr, but I didn't choose those paths; I didn't choose self-sacrifice.
I draw my lines according to the basic principle: least harm in the circumstances.
In the matter of diet, I chose ovo-lacto-vegetarian as a reasonable (non-sacrificing) compromise and get my eggs from a free-range farm. It's less than I ought to do, but more than nothing.
If everyone came this far, we'd have a lot less methane in the air by next year.
That's the problematic word, right there.
Our decisions may not be based on a single, hard moral or logical rule, but that doesn't make them arbitrary. We each have some precepts and principles that we take seriously and think about. We are unable to create our ideal world according to those precepts, but we can try to approximate it within the constraints of the environment we can't change. We each draw lines, all the time, in all areas of life and interaction, and those lines are movable.
Societies want peace and order, but accept the reality of aggression and competition, so they make laws. Every legislation, every arrest, every court proceeding and sentence is a compromise between the ideal and the attainable. Families want perfect understanding and cooperation, but accept the reality of discordant desires, so parents make house rules. Every argument, grounding and slammed door is a compromise. Individuals, too, have to decide, every minute, between the perfect and the possible. Some people don't think much about it, just go with the prevailing mores of their time and culture; some try to improve their society (influence it to conform more closely to their own ideal); some oppose and resist what they consider wrong in their society; some drop out; some reflect and adjust their own lifestyles and actions while still functioning within their social milieu. All of those are lines, being drawn, shifted and redrawn over time.
For me, an ideal world would have no predation or parasitism, no suffering or violence. So I try to participate as little as possible - within the reality of 21st century North American life - in those processes. I could do more to change the world; I could become a hermit, an activist or martyr, but I didn't choose those paths; I didn't choose self-sacrifice.
I draw my lines according to the basic principle: least harm in the circumstances.
In the matter of diet, I chose ovo-lacto-vegetarian as a reasonable (non-sacrificing) compromise and get my eggs from a free-range farm. It's less than I ought to do, but more than nothing.
If everyone came this far, we'd have a lot less methane in the air by next year.
Re: Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
not just a question of which kind of animal it is OK to eat
even a strict vegan indirectly kills animals by partaking all sorts of activities of civilized society
growing plants often kills animals - either directly with wheat harvesters or indirectly by messing up their habitat
a strict environmentalist vegan might have no car but if she takes the bus - some oil is needed for that
but all that aside
we all - well most of us - can agree that less animal suffering would be a good thing
we can do less factory farming
we can buy more fuel efficient cars
in many cases free range meats impose a very low load on the environment - lower than raising tofu
so we can do some of these thing without ever worrying about where to draw the line
and if more people do more of these things nothing but good can come out of that
even a strict vegan indirectly kills animals by partaking all sorts of activities of civilized society
growing plants often kills animals - either directly with wheat harvesters or indirectly by messing up their habitat
a strict environmentalist vegan might have no car but if she takes the bus - some oil is needed for that
but all that aside
we all - well most of us - can agree that less animal suffering would be a good thing
we can do less factory farming
we can buy more fuel efficient cars
in many cases free range meats impose a very low load on the environment - lower than raising tofu
so we can do some of these thing without ever worrying about where to draw the line
and if more people do more of these things nothing but good can come out of that
Re: Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
Yes, and we need to stop picking on one another for not doing enough, or not doing it right. We need to worry less about slippery slopes and more about the backlash. There seems to be a growing fashion for macho-shithead posturing among young idjits who want to look tough. They can't wait to put down, jeer at and find fault with any and all of us who try to make the world a little better, or even care about the harm we're doing. It would be better to support one another than encourage them by being at odds among ourselves.
Re: Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
Are you kidding. It is OK to be concerned with animal rights and their suffering, but it is far more important to reduce the suffering of humans from modern day diseases and obesity. This is achieved by staying away from consuming animal products, dairy, and eggs as much as possible and adopting a vegetarian to vegan lifestyle. The health benefits are enormous as described in the references below. Animals also will clearly benefit greatly from this approach. You can literally reverse or arrest modern day diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's, cardiovascular and heart disease, osteoporosis even cancer, etc. by following strategies as outlined in the video or book "Forks over Knifes". It has been estimated that a nations health care cost could drop by 80% within one year if such a strategy was adopted universally. But instead we are paying heavily in taxes for everyone's indiscretions. Be aware that this is not a fad but the lifesaving real deal. Be also aware that there are powerful interests (meat, dairy, farming, etc.) who, unfortunately often with help from your government, will oppose such trends. I think though that the increase in healthy whole food products and non-dairy milk and cream products in my supermarket over the last few years indicates that the trend towards healthier diets is accelerating.
For my family things started to happen like clockwork for every member. Within 3 to 6 months all the statistics our physician was concerned with were where they should be (extreme obesity will take longer of course). This includes blood sugar, cholesterol, weight, blood pressure (hypertension). After 6 months you should be able to get off your statin meds (with physician approval). Note that many nutritionists and physicians are not necessarily fully aware of the material in the references below. Bring it to their attention.
Watch video "Forks over Knifes" on Netflix, or get the DVD or book. This should be your starting point. This will be life changing for you.
trailer - http://www.forksoverknives.com/about/
subscribe to videos from Dr. Michael Greger
http://nutritionfacts.org/about/
subscribe to the web newsletters and videos (free) from PCRM (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine)
http://pcrm.org/
Read the book "The China Study" by Colin Campbell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study
Review the massive Oxford vegetarian study conducted in Great Britain.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/525s.full
For my family things started to happen like clockwork for every member. Within 3 to 6 months all the statistics our physician was concerned with were where they should be (extreme obesity will take longer of course). This includes blood sugar, cholesterol, weight, blood pressure (hypertension). After 6 months you should be able to get off your statin meds (with physician approval). Note that many nutritionists and physicians are not necessarily fully aware of the material in the references below. Bring it to their attention.
Watch video "Forks over Knifes" on Netflix, or get the DVD or book. This should be your starting point. This will be life changing for you.
trailer - http://www.forksoverknives.com/about/
subscribe to videos from Dr. Michael Greger
http://nutritionfacts.org/about/
subscribe to the web newsletters and videos (free) from PCRM (Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine)
http://pcrm.org/
Read the book "The China Study" by Colin Campbell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study
Review the massive Oxford vegetarian study conducted in Great Britain.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/70/3/525s.full
Last edited by QMan on Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:27 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
This is an append meant to again bounce this topic to the top of the most active list (I may continue to do so, it is that important). Please look at the references provided by me in my previous append, especially concerning watching "Forks Over Knifes" on Netflix or DVD. The diet advice given in the references will really save lives, it is that important. The diet advice and health consequences for a poor and good approach to meals is provided by top level scientists and doctors who are hard at work to tell the truth about the negative and positive effects of poor vs. good eating and is profoundly life changing. They are having a hard time combating powerful interests in the food industry and in government interested in perpetuating the status quo with erroneous information for profit motive. It goes far beyond the rather poor and often erroneous material you get in TV commercials or infomercials concerning fad diets. By comparison, everything else in this forum is trivial.
Please, over time, after viewing and evaluating the references, share your own experience and opinion here to keep this topic alive and spread the word. You will literally help create a healthy nation.
In the title "Forks Over Knifes" knifes refers to a scalpel that is used for open heart surgery because of coronary heart disease caused by poor dietary habits and forks refers to the fact that if you eat your whole food veggies, you won't be subject to the scalpel.
Please, over time, after viewing and evaluating the references, share your own experience and opinion here to keep this topic alive and spread the word. You will literally help create a healthy nation.
In the title "Forks Over Knifes" knifes refers to a scalpel that is used for open heart surgery because of coronary heart disease caused by poor dietary habits and forks refers to the fact that if you eat your whole food veggies, you won't be subject to the scalpel.
Last edited by QMan on Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
you have to die from something - and no matter how healthy your diet may be odds are eventually cancer or a stroke or a heart attack will do you inQMan wrote: In the title "Forks Over Knifes" knifes refers to a scalpel that is used for open heart surgery because of coronary heart disease caused by poor dietary habits and forks refers to the fact that if you eat your whole food veggies, you won't be subject to the scalpel.
a healthy diet will help you postpone the day - but it will come and the claim that somehow a vegan diet - or more generally a healthy diet - will do nothing to reduce the 100% death rate - so you are being misleading in your claim that somehow healthy/vegan diet (they are not the same thing even if you conflate them) will somehow change that
i am not aware of any powerful interests opposing the claim that eating way too many fats and carbs and little in the way of vegetables while spending a lot of time sitting on your ass is unhealthy
yes eating less meat is a good idea (although that is not the be all and end all of a healthy diet)
yes less factory farming (none, ideally) is a good idea
but it is a mistake to conflate those things with healthy eating
as I have mentioned in another thread, my neck of the woods is infested with feral pigs
it is always open season on them
i would argue that eating those feral pigs is ecologically friendlier than eating tofu
Re: Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
Yes, of course you have to die from something. The idea is that quality of life can be improved by simply being able to live healthier and more fit for a longer time.
Also, I want to point out that I am not making any claims but I am passing on the information contained in the references. You therefore have to thoroughly review those and then decide about their usefulness. I am posting this also based on personal experience and actual medical data for myself, family and friends who decided to implement this, which confirmed the information shown in the references.
Naturally, for this topic, there is always strong and immediate pushback because we are usually not raised vegetarian/vegan and we have strong preferences concerning our palate. I have friends who, in spite of poor health and condition, cannot break with their preferences, not even slightly. The upshot is that, sadly, they are not deriving the benefits and are plodding along with their diabetes, hypertension, etc..
It is definitely worth a viewing and then coming to conclusions.
Also, I want to point out that I am not making any claims but I am passing on the information contained in the references. You therefore have to thoroughly review those and then decide about their usefulness. I am posting this also based on personal experience and actual medical data for myself, family and friends who decided to implement this, which confirmed the information shown in the references.
Naturally, for this topic, there is always strong and immediate pushback because we are usually not raised vegetarian/vegan and we have strong preferences concerning our palate. I have friends who, in spite of poor health and condition, cannot break with their preferences, not even slightly. The upshot is that, sadly, they are not deriving the benefits and are plodding along with their diabetes, hypertension, etc..
It is definitely worth a viewing and then coming to conclusions.
Re: Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
It seems to me, we could divide the question into three parts - perhaps four, if you prefer to separate the social and economic spheres.
Philosophical considerations include:
1. One's ethics; whether they apply to all the world or only within one's local human community and whether killing other species is good or bad for one's soul/ karma/ spiritual life, etc.
2. How other species are treated, whether they are killed or merely exploited.
3. How the feeding of the richest nations with meat impacts the poorest nations.
5. How clean and divers or dirty and depleted a world one wishes to leave to posterity.
The health issue is another one.
A third one is the effects of the food industry, international transport, health and diet have on our various societies, both economically and interpersonally.
Philosophical considerations include:
1. One's ethics; whether they apply to all the world or only within one's local human community and whether killing other species is good or bad for one's soul/ karma/ spiritual life, etc.
2. How other species are treated, whether they are killed or merely exploited.
3. How the feeding of the richest nations with meat impacts the poorest nations.
5. How clean and divers or dirty and depleted a world one wishes to leave to posterity.
The health issue is another one.
A third one is the effects of the food industry, international transport, health and diet have on our various societies, both economically and interpersonally.
-
Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8360
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
I would never eat a vegetarian!
I would never eat a vegetarian!
-
Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8360
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
It seems to me that, although animal care could be better, the average farm animal lives a far more healthy and pain free life than its wild cousins enjoy. When a wild animal dies, if it is not torn to pieces by predators and eaten (sometime whilst still alive), it usually suffers a prolonged and painful death.jason_m wrote:http://www.skepticink.com/tippling/essa ... gh-ground/
I'll admit: lately I've become more vegetarian, and it is because of animal rights. I will also admit: one point I read in the article above definitely made me think, and think deeply about what I'm doing; it discusses how drawing the line at killing animals for food is completely arbitrary - in several ways. This would mean that it doesn't matter if we kill animals for food. For instance, why stop at not killing chickens, cows and pigs, and not extend this to pests, the bugs we step on walking around outdoors, or even the bacteria in our environment around us? It seems that we have to draw the line somewhere, so why not allow animals to be killed for human consumption? Now, here's the catch: if where we draw the line is arbitrary, that doesn't only imply that it's okay to kill animals, *because*, like the article implies, *the line could be drawn anywhere.* Therefore, it implies that it is okay not to kill them as well! This means we could allow animals to be killed or not to be, or even allow humans to be consumed for food. Why? The answer is that if we can draw the line at any point in terms of killing for food, the best conclusion is not that the line can be drawn only at allowing animal consumption, but anywhere, even including the absurdity of killing humans, because there is no exact point at which we can say it is acceptable *here* to stop! Therefore, this article envelops all human ethics in a big grey area, making it not clear what is allowable and what isn't! All I can think of in response is that maybe there is a most logical point to draw the line (or maybe even a logical "spectrum" over which we can draw it). In that case, could a more logical point to stop be at not allowing animals to be killed? I leave it up to you to decide...
(I should also add that some may think that I'm committing the "Dividing line" fallacy. The person raising that point would have to be able to answer why, if there is no point anywhere at which we can draw the line, it matters where you draw it... (Or, alternatively, if there are a number of acceptable points at which we can draw it, why any one of those points should be given any preference.) In other words, the case here is about how you can draw the line regarding killing a species in a number of places, and so there is no one spot where we have to stop - that is exactly what I argued in the other direction, that if you justify it by having to stop just anywhere, why not stop somewhere else? And that leads to the untenable conclusion about killing humans or allowing animals to live. Or, in the very least, if it is a fallacy, why should that be definitive, if there are people in there are people in the logical community who don't accept them? (Especially considering the reasons listed directly above.))
Killing animals for food is , by law, quick and painless. I support this luxury being extended to humans also, and hope when its my time, I don't have to suffer the doctors whose hands are tied to ensure I live to the last possible moment suffering.
So, I do not think the issue is really about welfare or pain. I think vegetarianism is a factor based on urbanisation and the Disney factor. Humans are so far removed from the truth of their food's origins.
When a child learns that that lovely burger is from a doe-eyed calf, or that duck breast has been ripped off Donald or Daffy. It comes as a bit of a shock. For most of human history kids saw the blood from an early age and never saw the food shrink wrapped in polystyrene.
Re: Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
Obesity is not so easy to understand.
My boyfriend was amazed how much I could eat in one go (mostly vegetarian, but highly caloric, rice, oils, honey), and he is heavy and I am slim.
Some people produce greater amounts of osteocalcin, a hormone produced in the bones and stimulating the relaease of insuline. Insuline takes sugar away from the blood and your appetite soars.
Interestingly, the mice who produced too much osteocalcin remained slim even if they ate fat foods.
Now researchers hope that osteocalcin could positively influence processes in people suffering from diabetes.
Because insuline is released and sugar levels go down.
Pektin, largely found in apples, also has this effect in diabetes patients: it removes sugar from blood.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
If eating is the only pleasure you have left in your life, what can you do ?
One can develop habits. I still like very much slices of bread with butter and slices of tomatoes on them. A habit acquired in childhood.
Exactly this combination releases a chain reaction of pleasurable sensations in my body. My body tastes the elements and enzyme production is set in motion.
Something similar could happen in a person used to eating cucumber sandwitches or hot dogs.
It takes time to get used to a new combination of tastes.
If someone eats grudgingly lettuce or some other stuff he is determined to eat because of a new ideology he has adopted his body will punish him.
While small moderations and small improvements may work wonders.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
If someone wishes to become more vegetarian I suggest he just puts down every animal item on a piece of paper and sees at the end of the month how much really it was. But without cheating !
Without trying to eat less animal items, just putting down how much really it is. The effect of reducing animal items will occur on its own.
My animal items today are going to be one egg (already consumed) and one or two slices of butter, which I will put on rolls and cover with tomatoes.
A tasty meal I developed is for example: cook one or two apples cut in pieces, together with some oates. It makes you full, warm and light. My body remembers and so I automatically desire the same meal the next time I need a warm-up.
My boyfriend was amazed how much I could eat in one go (mostly vegetarian, but highly caloric, rice, oils, honey), and he is heavy and I am slim.
Some people produce greater amounts of osteocalcin, a hormone produced in the bones and stimulating the relaease of insuline. Insuline takes sugar away from the blood and your appetite soars.
Interestingly, the mice who produced too much osteocalcin remained slim even if they ate fat foods.
Now researchers hope that osteocalcin could positively influence processes in people suffering from diabetes.
Because insuline is released and sugar levels go down.
Pektin, largely found in apples, also has this effect in diabetes patients: it removes sugar from blood.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
If eating is the only pleasure you have left in your life, what can you do ?
One can develop habits. I still like very much slices of bread with butter and slices of tomatoes on them. A habit acquired in childhood.
Exactly this combination releases a chain reaction of pleasurable sensations in my body. My body tastes the elements and enzyme production is set in motion.
Something similar could happen in a person used to eating cucumber sandwitches or hot dogs.
It takes time to get used to a new combination of tastes.
If someone eats grudgingly lettuce or some other stuff he is determined to eat because of a new ideology he has adopted his body will punish him.
While small moderations and small improvements may work wonders.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
If someone wishes to become more vegetarian I suggest he just puts down every animal item on a piece of paper and sees at the end of the month how much really it was. But without cheating !
Without trying to eat less animal items, just putting down how much really it is. The effect of reducing animal items will occur on its own.
My animal items today are going to be one egg (already consumed) and one or two slices of butter, which I will put on rolls and cover with tomatoes.
A tasty meal I developed is for example: cook one or two apples cut in pieces, together with some oates. It makes you full, warm and light. My body remembers and so I automatically desire the same meal the next time I need a warm-up.
Re: Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
I wish that were true!It seems to me that, although animal care could be better, the average farm animal lives a far more healthy and pain free life than its wild cousins enjoy. ...
Killing animals for food is , by law, quick and painless. ...
Failing that, I wish more people were aware of the realities of factory farming and industrial slaughter.
I like your suggestion, Duszek; it's like the first steps to quitting smoking.
My favourite cold-weather meal: pureed root vegetables (potato, yam, parsnip, carrot, turnip, in any combination) with spicy soy sticks.
Re: Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
Time to bounce this again to top of active list. Please review references in previous append for some serious health and life saving information.
Re: Vegetarianism - Where do you Draw the Line?
When I was growing up we raised rabbits, and it was the job of me and my older brother to butcher the rabbits when they were old enough to harvest for meat. We would kill them by breaking their necks and then skinning and gutting them. A few we would take into town and sell for meat. Also I grew up in farm country where harvesting animals for meat was a way of life. Certainly not the Disney version of life. Animals eat raw vegetables, people eat cooked meat and vegetables, that is what makes us human.