Why I became a vegetarian...

[Bill Wiltrack]

.






..................................................






.

[Starfall]

Your decision to become a vegetarian is one that should be applauded. Not because it is right or wrong, but because you have the will to apply your system of ethics to your actions, even when it is not easy and can potentially be harmful. There are many who criticize the negative aspects of the meat industry, but few have the determination to stop eating meat altogether, especially when humans have evolved to be omnivores and hence have a natural need of it. If you value animals as living beings and are against the cruelties they go through today, then you should become a vegetarian without a doubt. The true ethical argument here is about how much we value animals as living beings. Some people value them more, and some people less. As your opinion of them is certainly higher than most, I would like to ask you a question: What is it that makes it alright to eat vegetables and fruits, but not animals; when plants are also living beings that we systematically exploit? Today, more than ever, we are subjecting plants to chemicals that no animal in factories is ever in contact with - chemicals so potent that their traces can harm even the human body. Is it the fact that plants have no nervous system, and hence are unable to think or feel pain?

We certainly have to draw the line somewhere, as if we do not eat anything we will die. Why do you think the line should be drawn where you drew it, and not in another place?

[Melchior]

Your decision to become a vegetarian is one that should be applauded. Not because it is right or wrong, but because you have the will to apply your system of ethics to your actions, even when it is not easy and can potentially be harmful. There are many who criticize the negative aspects of the meat industry, but few have the determination to stop eating meat altogether, especially when humans have evolved to be omnivores and hence have a natural need of it. If you value animals as living beings and are against the cruelties they go through today, then you should become a vegetarian without a doubt. The true ethical argument here is about how much we value animals as living beings. Some people value them more, and some people less. As your opinion of them is certainly higher than most, I would like to ask you a question: What is it that makes it alright to eat vegetables and fruits, but not animals; when plants are also living beings that we systematically exploit? Today, more than ever, we are subjecting plants to chemicals that no animal in factories is ever in contact with - chemicals so potent that their traces can harm even the human body. Is it the fact that plants have no nervous system, and hence are unable to think or feel pain?

We certainly have to draw the line somewhere, as if we do not eat anything we will die. Why do you think the line should be drawn where you drew it, and not in another place?

Total fucking bullshit, every word.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Your decision to become a vegetarian is one that should be applauded. Not because it is right or wrong, but because you have the will to apply your system of ethics to your actions, ?

As there is no coherent moral reason for it, this statement is ridiculous.

[Starfall]

Total fucking bullshit, every word.

From your posts, you seem to be quite the carnivore. That is also fine - eating meat makes more practical sense, as humans naturally have a need to eat meat, as I specified in my post. Your argument would be relatively simple, and impossible to refute when your own values are taken into account: Animals are below us in the food chain, and their meat holds many nutrients that our bodies need to survive. If they themselves eat other animals and plants without concern, why is it that I shouldn't?

I am not trying to reach an ultimate answer - there is no such thing. If there was, it wouldn't be a subject of ethical debate. As there is no ultimate answer, every person is entitled to their own opinion. For instance, you can hold the opinion that my post is completely senseless. If you do think that way, I would like to learn of your own views in more detail, so I can understand the reasoning behind your argument. Was my guess about your argument correct? If so, were there any points that I missed? You are, of course, in no obligation to provide me with such a detailed explanation; but you would make me happy if you did so.

[Starfall]

Your decision to become a vegetarian is one that should be applauded. Not because it is right or wrong, but because you have the will to apply your system of ethics to your actions, ?

As there is no coherent moral reason for it, this statement is ridiculous.

An interesting view. As long as an ethical opinion is internally consistent, I would say it has enough coherency to back it up. The argument in the OP is internally consistent as far as I can see, so which part of it do you think lacks coherency?

It could also be that you think the view "Acting based on your own ethical system and your own opinions deserves applause." lacks coherency. Sadly, I do not have any solid reason to back that statement up - ultimately in ethics, just as in mathematics, you have to have a set of axioms that you can build the rest of your view on. I hold free will in very high regard, and as such I value individual opinions and the will to act upon them. Right and wrong are notions that vary from person to person, but to will to act upon one's views is one that remains the same. This is, of course, my opinion - as per my view, I respect any opinion, even if it opposes my own.

[Ned]

I would like to ask you a question: What is it that makes it alright to eat vegetables and fruits, but not animals; ..... Is it the fact that plants have no nervous system, and hence are unable to think or feel pain?

You got it -- it is the pain, the fear and the suffering we inflict on living things.

Empathy is a human reaction (in more 'evolved' humans) and I am cursed with a lot of it.

[Starfall]

I am not sure if the correct word to use is "cursed" or "blessed" - regardless, we are all who we are. I am curious about one last thing: If the meat industry operated by subjecting animals to no pain (but still killing them, only without any suffering) would you have any qualms with eating meat? In other words, which is the primary reason you became a vegetarian: the suffering the animals go through, or the fact that they are ultimately killed? I believe the answer is the former, but I would like to make sure that I fully understand your opinion.

[Ned]

I am not sure if the correct word to use is "cursed" or "blessed" - regardless, we are all who we are. I am curious about one last thing: If the meat industry operated by subjecting animals to no pain (but still killing them, only without any suffering) would you have any qualms with eating meat? In other words, which is the primary reason you became a vegetarian: the suffering the animals go through, or the fact that they are ultimately killed? I believe the answer is the former, but I would like to make sure that I fully understand your opinion.

If you reread the OP you will see how and why we decided to become vegetarians. It was mostly for consistency's sake at first -- if we can't kill them ourselves, we shouldn't be eating them.

It was later when I fully discovered the inhumanity of how they are treated.

Now, after 40 years of being vegetarians, I have additional motives:

First, we have the technology to synthesize meat in clean efficient factories. We should use this technology, because killing animals by the millions is cavemen-level technology.

Then, aesthetically it is the ickiest thing I can imagine: devouring the flesh of living things.

An animal is a marvelous creature (any living thing is, down to the amoeba) and large-scale industrial, conveyor-belt slaughtering of them is so primitive for the human species, on the peak of scientific and technological achievements.

It is such a horrible waste!

Then, I don't see any real and important difference between humans and animals. Same physiological structure (bi-symmetrical, legs and arms, head, ears, eyes, nose, tongue, teeth -- same internal organs: skeletal structure, skin, heart, lungs, liver, pancreas, kidneys, etc.) and very similar emotions (fear, shame, jealousy, envy, love, hate, cunning, etc., etc.). Various levels of intelligence, so what? They can't produce nuclear weapons, among other things. They eat the same way, they eliminate the same way, they procreate the same way, they are us in a lot more vulnerable position as far as their survival is concerned.

Anyone who has lived with pets for any length of time can't help seeing how they are like human children, on various levels of development.

So, after 40 years of not eating meat, for me, it appears as cannibalism. Pure and simple.

Well, that's what I can do to answer on short notice. Most of these are already contained in my poem: "Vegetarians" that I posted earlier in the thread, with many other arguments I have on the subject.

Did you read through the entire thread and considered all the arguments, pro and con?

Finally, since I am a poet (among other things), here is an illustration:

I had a dream last night

I had a dream last night:
I was a tree in pre-hominid times:
a giant red cedar
hugging the earth and the sky,
watching the birds and clouds float by,
stretching my leafy branches in leisurely comfort,
with not a care in the world,
knowing I would never die.

Then I was a bird,
a soaring condor,
being one with the sky
between the earth far below
and infinity above,
as I would fly over granite peaks
and desert dunes,
looking for food, mate,
landing on dewy meadow.

Then I was a whale,
embraced by the sea, the salty waves,
as I dove, and then rose again,
to emerge from the water,
celebrate the sunshine above
and the translucent green below,
wanting to live, in this splendor,
for ever and ever.

I was on the peak in every dream,
no one to hunt me, kill me,
no one to fear...
...not knowing that the end
of this beautiful existence
was soon, very soon,
here.

[Starfall]

I see your point. I had already read your posts, but as I said, I always want to make sure that I have the right perspective. It is very easy to misinterpret words and get a false understanding of your opinion. As I thought, you hold animals in high regard. My previous question was to see how high, and I can understand now that you consider them to be no different than humans.

You are correct in saying that we have the technology to do better. However, capitalism is a system where results are the only thing that matter, and money is the only incentive. If one can produce a factory which provides cheaper meat for them, and more quickly, then why should they care about the animals that suffer and die in the process? They only care about the ethical side of things if it is required by law that they do so. Capitalism runs on greed, not compassion. Expensive methods are only used if there is enough profit in the horizon to justify it. Even under this system, however, it is possible to change things for the better. If the demand for meat was to drop, there would be no need for its mass production, releasing the animals from much of their stress and suffering. In that sense, too, I believe that your decision to become a vegetarian was justified.

[Ned]

Capitalism runs on greed, not compassion.

You can say that again!

I suggest you look at my thread: "Proposal for a new social contract" in the Politics forum. I would be interested in your opinion. You sound like the person who considers out-of-the-box ideas, just in case there is something new in them.

If the demand for meat was to drop, there would be no need for its mass production, releasing the animals from much of their stress and suffering.

Unfortunately, it is a vicious circle:

The demand drops if synthesized meat becomes cheaper.
It becomes cheaper if they start producing it in volume.
They will start producing it in volume when the demand drops.

[Starfall]

The reason for the drop in demand is important. If it is because meat is too expensive that people opt not to buy it, then the vicious circle you described would come into effect. However, if the reason is that most people simply no longer eat meat anymore, then mass producing meat would be a money sink - not the optimal economic strategy, is it?

I will take a look at that thread, thanks for the invitation

[Melchior]

Your decision to become a vegetarian is one that should be applauded. Not because it is right or wrong, but because you have the will to apply your system of ethics to your actions, ?

As there is no coherent moral reason for it, this statement is ridiculous.

An interesting view. As long as an ethical opinion is internally consistent, I would say it has enough coherency to back it up. The argument in the OP is internally consistent as far as I can see, so which part of it do you think lacks coherency?

It could also be that you think the view "Acting based on your own ethical system and your own opinions deserves applause." lacks coherency. Sadly, I do not have any solid reason to back that statement up - ultimately in ethics, just as in mathematics, you have to have a set of axioms that you can build the rest of your view on. I hold free will in very high regard, and as such I value individual opinions and the will to act upon them. Right and wrong are notions that vary from person to person, but to will to act upon one's views is one that remains the same. This is, of course, my opinion - as per my view, I respect any opinion, even if it opposes my own.

Your post is ludicrous. I'm sure Hitler believed what he was doing was the right thing. Should he be applauded as well? Animals are not bred to torture them. They are bred to be food. There is no malice involved. There is a distinction between men and animals, and we are healthiest when we eat some meat. Some animals are omnivores, and so are we.

[Starfall]

Your post is ludicrous. I'm sure Hitler believed what he was doing was the right thing. Should he be applauded as well? Animals are not bred to torture them. They are bred to be food. There is no malice involved. There is a distinction between men and animals, and we are healthiest when we eat some meat. Some animals are omnivores, and so are we.

My opinion is as I stated it. Hitler also deserves applause for going forward with his beliefs. The fact that Hitler deserves applause for his determination doesn't make his views correct or ethical, not at all. My applause of Ned was similar. I didn't applaud him because his view was absolutely correct, and I do not applaud Hitler because I think what he did was justified. I applaud him because he acted according to his own beliefs, even when it required drastic measures. Besides, you will find that it isn't so easy to call Hitler a madman if you research history in depth. What is the difference between Hitler and Harry Truman? Is it alright to kill people when you are America, but not when you are Germany?

You say there is a distinction between men and animals. Ned says there is not, at least not from an ethical standpoint. You say there is no malice involved, he says all the malice in the world is involved. In fact, if we were to take animals as equal to humans from an ethical perspective, you are no better than Hitler yourself. Do you see how much of a difference the value you assign to animals makes? "Good" and "evil", "right" and "wrong", these are notions that are relative. If you come to realize that, then you will also stop dismissing views as "ridiculous".

[Melchior]

Your post is ludicrous. I'm sure Hitler believed what he was doing was the right thing. Should he be applauded as well? Animals are not bred to torture them. They are bred to be food. There is no malice involved. There is a distinction between men and animals, and we are healthiest when we eat some meat. Some animals are omnivores, and so are we.

My opinion is as I stated it. Hitler also deserves applause for going forward with his beliefs. The fact that Hitler deserves applause for his determination doesn't make his views correct or ethical, not at all. My applause of Ned was similar. I didn't applaud him because his view was absolutely correct, and I do not applaud Hitler because I think what he did was justified. I applaud him because he acted according to his own beliefs, even when it required drastic measures. Besides, you will find that it isn't so easy to call Hitler a madman if you research history in depth. What is the difference between Hitler and Harry Truman? Is it alright to kill people when you are America, but not when you are Germany?

You say there is a distinction between men and animals. Ned says there is not, at least not from an ethical standpoint. You say there is no malice involved, he says all the malice in the world is involved. In fact, if we were to take animals as equal to humans from an ethical perspective, you are no better than Hitler yourself. Do you see how much of a difference the value you assign to animals makes? "Good" and "evil", "right" and "wrong", these are notions that are relative. If you come to realize that, then you will also stop dismissing views as "ridiculous".

We need to have a rational, universal standard of right and wrong, not just your 'personal beliefs'. That's why I brought up Hitler. Going forward with your beliefs is not to be commended when those beliefs are irrational. Duh.