Why I became a vegetarian...

[Starfall]

If we could have an universal standard of what is right and what is wrong, then there would be no theory of ethics, no debates, no disputes. The core of ethics is that there is no single right and wrong. It changes from person to person. Every person has a certain set of values that they base their ethical view on. These values, like axioms in mathematics, can't be proven. They can only be justified, and you can't force anyone to accept them. The belief that animals are equal to humans from an ethical standpoint is one such value. In order to understand Ned's view of the subject, you have to accept it and then look at the subject again. Your own set of values might be in complete contradiction with his on this subject, and that is fine. You might think that yours is somehow more rational, but it isn't. It is certainly more practical, though - humans naturally want to eat meat, so a view opposing that is obviously less practical. Practicality can be measured objectively by comparing the amount of effort it takes to implement both views, and the potential benefits one gets from them. However, measuring righteousness is impossible. What is right for him might sound ridiculous to you, and what is right for you might sound unforgivable to him. That is what makes ethics so complicated a topic.

I truly wish there was some way to know what is right and what is wrong objectively, but there isn't. As such, it is always important to learn as much as possible, even from those who say stuff that sound ridiculous; as you can never be sure of the truth of your own views, or the falsity of theirs.

[Ned]

Starfall, I start really liking your mind.

I am looking forward to more from you.

[Melchior]

If we could have an universal standard of what is right and what is wrong, then there would be no theory of ethics, no debates, no disputes. The core of ethics is that there is no single right and wrong. It changes from person to person. Every person has a certain set of values that they base their ethical view on. These values, like axioms in mathematics, can't be proven. They can only be justified, and you can't force anyone to accept them. The belief that animals are equal to humans from an ethical standpoint is one such value. In order to understand Ned's view of the subject, you have to accept it and then look at the subject again. Your own set of values might be in complete contradiction with his on this subject, and that is fine. You might think that yours is somehow more rational, but it isn't. It is certainly more practical, though - humans naturally want to eat meat, so a view opposing that is obviously less practical. Practicality can be measured objectively by comparing the amount of effort it takes to implement both views, and the potential benefits one gets from them. However, measuring righteousness is impossible. What is right for him might sound ridiculous to you, and what is right for you might sound unforgivable to him. That is what makes ethics so complicated a topic.

I truly wish there was some way to know what is right and what is wrong objectively, but there isn't. As such, it is always important to learn as much as possible, even from those who say stuff that sound ridiculous; as you can never be sure of the truth of your own views, or the falsity of theirs.

If it's rational, that's a start. Most cultures have similar morals. Your statement is so heinous that it defies belief. If by nature humans are omnivores, that ends the discussion. One cannot be obliged to do what is impossible. 'Ought implies can'.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/arc ... 11959i.jpg

[Starfall]

It would end the discussion if humans lacked free will. But humans also reproduce by nature, yet there are people who do not do that. We obviously do not get to choose whether we want to breathe or not, if we refuse to do so then we will die pretty quickly. However, if you can live without eating meat (which I think Ned's existence proves), then it means you have a choice whether to eat it or not. That choice is yours and yours alone, made based on your own ethical values. You are correct, one can't be obliged to do what is impossible. However, who is to say that being a vegetarian is impossible? It might not be practical, but it is certainly possible, and as such it is a matter of choice.

[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.

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?
.

Cruelty. Eating meat does not necessarily involve cruelty.
Compared to the living conditions and death meted out by nature, the same that animals are offered by humans is positively luxurious.
Even if cruelty were involved this is a very human parochial interest which has no relevance or meaning to animals themselves.
This sort of attitude is common enough with people born in the "Disney Generation", and has lived remotely from the realities of rural life which their parents, grandparents (..or earlier) have long left behind.
The Cruelty argument is nothing more than a bourgeois pathetic museli, youghurt fantasy luxury.

Additionally. If his reasons are coherent then that would have to imply Veganism not some weak version of vegetarianism. He would have to eschew eggs, milk, cheese, leather, and wool; not just "meat".


There are really good reasons to keep animals for meat. Hoards of bread-eating vegetarians are destroying the landscape with the scrabble for more monoculture for wheat and soy bean, with a growing dependancy on chemical fertilisers, insecticides and herbicides with the inevitable and current destruction of the soil across trillions of hectares of land. At least grazing animals fertilise the soil as they shit!!

[Ned]

However, who is to say that being a vegetarian is impossible? It might not be practical, but it is certainly possible, and as such it is a matter of choice.

A few hundred million Hindus would agree with you on that.

[Hobbes' Choice]

If we could have an universal standard of what is right and what is wrong, then there would be no theory of ethics, no debates, no disputes. The core of ethics is that there is no single right and wrong. It changes from person to person. Every person has a certain set of values that they base their ethical view on. These values, like axioms in mathematics, can't be proven. They can only be justified, and you can't force anyone to accept them. The belief that animals are equal to humans from an ethical standpoint is one such value. In order to understand Ned's view of the subject, you have to accept it and then look at the subject again. Your own set of values might be in complete contradiction with his on this subject, and that is fine. You might think that yours is somehow more rational, but it isn't. It is certainly more practical, though - humans naturally want to eat meat, so a view opposing that is obviously less practical. Practicality can be measured objectively by comparing the amount of effort it takes to implement both views, and the potential benefits one gets from them. However, measuring righteousness is impossible. What is right for him might sound ridiculous to you, and what is right for you might sound unforgivable to him. That is what makes ethics so complicated a topic.

I truly wish there was some way to know what is right and what is wrong objectively, but there isn't. As such, it is always important to learn as much as possible, even from those who say stuff that sound ridiculous; as you can never be sure of the truth of your own views, or the falsity of theirs.

If it's rational, that's a start. Most cultures have similar morals. Your statement is so heinous that it defies belief. If by nature humans are omnivores, that ends the discussion. One cannot be obliged to do what is impossible. 'Ought implies can'.

Is does not imply ought.
David Hume

We don't have to eat meat. Not even dogs (nominally carnivora) need to eat meat to live.

[Starfall]

Cruelty. Eating meat does not necessarily involve cruelty.
Compared to the living conditions and death meted out by nature, the same that animals are offered by humans is positively luxurious.
Even if cruelty were involved this is a very human parochial interest which has no relevance or meaning to animals themselves.
This sort of attitude is common enough with people born in the "Disney Generation", and has lived remotely from the realities of rural life which their parents, grandparents (..or earlier) have long left behind.
The Cruelty argument is nothing more than a bourgeois pathetic museli, youghurt fantasy luxury.

This is a matter of perspective. Millions might be dying from starvation in Africa right now, but does that make it alright to watch one of them die without lifting a finger, simply because that is the status quo? It is indeed correct that nature can be pretty cruel, but if you view animals as equal to humans ethically, then you will strive to save them from that cruelty, just as you would save fellow humans. Besides, even if the animals were slaughtered painlessly, I do not think Ned would change his opinion and start eating meat again.

Additionally. If his reasons are coherent then that would have to imply Veganism not some weak version of vegetarianism. He would have to eschew eggs, milk, cheese, leather, and wool; not just "meat".

This is correct, but it comes down to the problem of "drawing the line" I talked about some posts earlier. It is true that animals are subjected to inhumane conditions not only when producing meat, but also when producing milk, eggs, etc. The usual argument against veganism is that it is much more extreme than vegetarianism, and can potentially be much more harmful to one's health. However, today such risks are less major because we have supplements of almost every nutrient. Vegans can take supplements of the nutrients that are abundant in animal products, such as calcium and omega-3. Since it is not that unhealthy anymore, I also thought that it would make more sense for Ned to opt for that instead, and hence asked him "Why did you draw the line where you did, and not somewhere else?" This doesn't necessarily mean that his view lacks internal consistency, it could be that he has good reasons that we are unaware of right now. However, you are correct - I would like him to elaborate on this point.

There are really good reasons to keep animals for meat. Hoards of bread-eating vegetarians are destroying the landscape with the scrabble for more monoculture for wheat and soy bean, with a growing dependancy on chemical fertilisers, insecticides and herbicides with the inevitable and current destruction of the soil across trillions of hectares of land. At least grazing animals fertilise the soil as they shit!!

Yes, this is a clear evidence of the practicality of eating meat. As such, as long as they do not have some ethical value that is against it, any human would eat meat. From a practical standpoint, eating meat makes more sense: it is more healthy, it is more natural, it tastes better, it is better for the environment (as you pointed out.) The issue here is not of the practicality of eating meat (which is rather obvious) but of the value that people assign to animals. If you can't see any difference between an animal and a human, then would you still decide based on these practical reasons?

[Ned]

This is correct, but it comes down to the problem of "drawing the line" I talked about some posts earlier. It is true that animals are subjected to inhumane conditions not only when producing meat, but also when producing milk, eggs, etc. The usual argument against veganism is that it is much more extreme than vegetarianism, and can potentially be much more harmful to one's health. However, today such risks are less major because we have supplements of almost every nutrient. Vegans can take supplements of the nutrients that are abundant in animal products, such as calcium and omega-3. Since it is not that unhealthy anymore, I also thought that it would make more sense for Ned to opt for that instead, and hence asked him "Why did you draw the line where you did, and not somewhere else?" This doesn't necessarily mean that his view lacks internal consistency, it could be that he has good reasons that we are unaware of right now. However, you are correct - I would like him to elaborate on this point.

Indeed, it is about where to draw the line.

As I said earlier (several times) nobody can be 100% pure in this world. Not just about vegetarianism, but about everything else. Unless one is prepared to move out to the wilderness and live off the land. The moment you turn on a light switch, the moment you fill up your car with gas, the moment you take a pill of medicine, you participate in, and contribute to, unspeakable brutality somewhere happening on the globe. So you can aim for minimizing your contribution to the best of your abilities.

The usual argument from foes of vegetarianism (I wonder why they mind) is that if you wear leather shoes or eat eggs, then you are a hypocrite. I am sure that they didn't think it through, but what they are saying is: "if you reduce your contribution to evil things by 95% but, for some reason, you do not manage the last 5%, then you are a hypocrite." Now, how silly is that?

Over the years I reduced our contribution to bad things as much as it was practical for me. I live in the country, I built a greenhouse where we grow most of the vegetables we need, I have a solar power system, so I am independent of the energy industry. Yes, we eat eggs but only from local small farms who have free ranging chickens and yes, I drink milk and we eat milk products as one item of food I couldn't live without and we are too old to keep goats with all the work that it entails. That's just about all the contribution we make to the cruelty in factory farming.

As I said, we are not 100% pure, so what? That is where we drew the line and we are OK with it. For further details about our lifestyle, and the way we managed to reduce our ecological footprint (and contribution to bad things) take a look at the post at the following address (I wrote it about 15 years ago, so some of it has changed but you will see the general approach):
http://rabble.ca/babble/activism/altern ... hers-redux

EDIT: EDIT: The only major change since it was written is that now I don't do computer work any more and we run a small online bookstore for the extra income that we need to augment the Canada pensions we both receive. We have built our 48' x 14' greenhouse and we have a full solar power system that makes us independent of the grid.

[Starfall]

I think Ned's view can be summarized as follows: He values animals and treats them like humans, as he does not see any difference that matters. However, ultimately one's own health is more important. He limits his participation in "bad things" as much as possible without considerably harming his own welfare. He has nothing to lose by doing as such, so why not? When you look at it that way, where the line should be drawn also becomes obvious.

[Ned]

Good summary, Starfall.

EDIT: One comment to remind everyone that I have many other reasons, as I explained to Starafall recently, to be a vegetarian. Protest against, and refusal to contribute to, cruelty to animals is just one of them.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Cruelty. Eating meat does not necessarily involve cruelty.
Compared to the living conditions and death meted out by nature, the same that animals are offered by humans is positively luxurious.
Even if cruelty were involved this is a very human parochial interest which has no relevance or meaning to animals themselves.
This sort of attitude is common enough with people born in the "Disney Generation", and has lived remotely from the realities of rural life which their parents, grandparents (..or earlier) have long left behind.
The Cruelty argument is nothing more than a bourgeois pathetic museli, youghurt fantasy luxury.

This is a matter of perspective. Millions might be dying from starvation in Africa right now, but does that make it alright to watch one of them die without lifting a finger, simply because that is the status quo?
NOT relevant
It is indeed correct that nature can be pretty cruel, but if you view animals as equal to humans ethically, then you will strive to save them from that cruelty, just as you would save fellow humans. Besides, even if the animals were slaughtered painlessly, I do not think Ned would change his opinion and start eating meat again.
But he'd be wrong, either way. Animals are not humans. There are serious medical reasons why eating humans is bad for you.

Additionally. If his reasons are coherent then that would have to imply Veganism not some weak version of vegetarianism. He would have to eschew eggs, milk, cheese, leather, and wool; not just "meat".

This is correct,

Then QED, he has not made a coherent choice.

but it comes down to the problem of "drawing the line" I talked about some posts earlier. It is true that animals are subjected to inhumane conditions not only when producing meat, but also when producing milk, eggs, etc. The usual argument against veganism is that it is much more extreme than vegetarianism, and can potentially be much more harmful to one's health. However, today such risks are less major because we have supplements of almost every nutrient. Vegans can take supplements of the nutrients that are abundant in animal products, such as calcium and omega-3. Since it is not that unhealthy anymore, I also thought that it would make more sense for Ned to opt for that instead, and hence asked him "Why did you draw the line where you did, and not somewhere else?" This doesn't necessarily mean that his view lacks internal consistency, it could be that he has good reasons that we are unaware of right now. However, you are correct - I would like him to elaborate on this point.
It does necessarily mean his view lack consistency. Turning into a "vegetarian" he has made a religion about a few concerns that are best treated in the light of reason.

There are really good reasons to keep animals for meat. Hoards of bread-eating vegetarians are destroying the landscape with the scrabble for more monoculture for wheat and soy bean, with a growing dependancy on chemical fertilisers, insecticides and herbicides with the inevitable and current destruction of the soil across trillions of hectares of land. At least grazing animals fertilise the soil as they shit!!

Yes, this is a clear evidence of the practicality of eating meat. As such, as long as they do not have some ethical value that is against it, any human would eat meat. From a practical standpoint, eating meat makes more sense: it is more healthy, it is more natural, it tastes better, it is better for the environment (as you pointed out.) The issue here is not of the practicality of eating meat (which is rather obvious) but of the value that people assign to animals. If you can't see any difference between an animal and a human, then would you still decide based on these practical reasons?

Everything I do as a human has an impact on the environment. There is one major elephant in the room, that were it discussed seriously would solve all the problems of the environment, energy, fuel, climate change, and nutrition.
More humans is not necessarily better. Less is more as they say. We could all live fulfilled lives in luxury if only there were a smaller number of humans on the planet. And wild animals could return to their natural environments for the health of the planet, and the enjoyment an pleasure of all humans. The big question is how?
Meat or not is irrelevant, per se. A simplification of a major ecological problem.

[duszek]

A huge problem is that there is too much manure coming from the big meat factories.
Far too much.

Sour milk seems to be good for bacteria in your intestines and on your skin. I am experimenting with this just at present. Especially sour whey seems to make rough skin smoth again, like by magic. Yesterday I put some of it between the toes, to see what happens. First oil, then whey.
Good skin on the feet can keep you from fungus, which is a plague as far as I know, and I don´t want to get it.
Perhaps people suffering from psoriasis could try it too ?

If we can cure ourselves with animal products easily that would mean that we needed less pharmaceutical products and this would save the resources too.

[David Handeye]

Well, I've read many times in this thread that one reason to become vegetarian is the cruelty of meat industry, I find this reason very stupid, it is an offense to our intelligence, to humans' proper skill, rationality. We, as humans, allow millions of our similar to dye of starvation, thirst, lack of medical care, negligence, egoism, wars. We should become vegetarians because of animal suffering, but let drain our planet's resources to fill our futile wants, like petrol, gas, light, air conditioning, synthetic clothes or synthetic meat, so that we deprive also animals of primary resources. This is the top of hypocrisy.
So I am against GMO, now according to this stupid reasoning I should stop eating bread, corn flakes, salads, etc. But, let me say, I had never heard in all my life of synthesized meat, this is one of the greatest bullshit a human being could be able of think, tell, or even eat. Synthesized meat, ma cose da pazzi. Roba da non credere, davvero

[Hobbes' Choice]

A huge problem is that there is too much manure coming from the big meat factories.
Far too much.
.

That is utter BULLSHIT (pun intended). Whilst there are mega-hectares of land that have been so over farmed that they no longer have soil, and are utterly dependant on chemical fertilisers; there is no such things as too much shit.
Cattle shit is an important resource.
it simply takes an act of will to get the shit where it is needed.


Here is a typical ploughed field in the South Downs, that 50 years ago was 2 feet deep in Loess Soil.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.83821 ... a=!3m1!1e3
With intensive wheat farming, and year-by year chemical fertilisation the soil has simply blown away.

What you can see is the chalky bedrock. The soil that has been lost, and is now at the bottom of the sea, took thousands of years to be established after the decline of the last ice-age. And in a couple of generations has disappeared. Without chemicals, and the polluting industries that make them, the land would be unable to sustain growth.