Are vegans and carnivores that don't kill for themselves not both trying to avoid/running away from the same fear - that we are natural predators (in part ofc - omnivores) — Benj96

We are the only animal that knows what we are doing while we are doing it. Existence is prior to essence. Saying we have an essence that is natural predators in that case is putting cart before horse. We can be what we want to be.

if instead of a butcher you had to go to a slaughterhouse and kill what you need for your family, would you respect animals more? Would you eat meat less frequently? Would you be grateful for it? — Benj96

Pre-modern cultures learn to treat animals as more like objects to detach. I’m sure slaughterhouses do the same. Is this process a sociopathic trait that we cultivate at a cultural level? Militaries must do this to soldiers. It’s depersonalizing. I see it as a kind of cultural learning and not an instinct per se.

You can argue that animals aren't like "persons" so the same things don't apply to them. They aren't capable of being self-aware. There is nothing about them that makes them particularly distinct as an individual that has goals other than to follow instincts to survive. However, it is still putting cart before horse. The onus is still on us, because we know them as at least sentient beings who most likely feel pain, fear, and do we want to be in the business of othering something of the point of extreme aggression towards them? We can't use the excuse it's either them or us, because it is not in self-defense, unlike say a predatory animal attacking us. We obviously can live without eating meat.

It's a naturalistic fallacy to use things like canine teeth and tastiness of meats to affirm that this is the right course of action.

We are the only animal that knows what we are doing while we are doing it. Existence is prior to essence. Saying we have an essence that is natural predators in that case is putting cart before horse. We can be what we want to be. — schopenhauer1

Interesting arguments. I am not really sure if every human knows what is he doing when he is doing it because there are exceptional cases. For example: a schizophrenic doesn't distinguish between reality and his "world". Then, when a mental sick person commits a crime, probably he was not really aware about what he was doing.
I even think that there animals who are more aware of their actions than some humans.

Then, when a mental sick person commits a crime, probably he was not really aware about what he was doing. — javi2541997

So if a mentally ill person comes at me with a knife and I harm him in self-defense, seems an obvious case of self-defense. Same with an animal who comes at me or even unintentionally is very harmful to me (like the schizophrenic attacking me).

I even think that there animals who are more aware of their actions than some humans. — javi2541997

Possibly. Seems to be making the case for vegetarianism stronger if that were the case. At least if you respect that aspect.

So if a mentally ill person comes at me with a knife and I harm him in self-defense, seems an obvious case of self-defense. Same with an animal who comes at me or even unintentionally is very harmful to me (like the schizophrenic attacking me). — schopenhauer1

Yes, completely. But the schizophrenic person is mentally ill, so I think he derserves a more "neutral" trial if you put a lawsuit on him. He needs being supervised by psychologists or professionals. I mean he is not a normal person with ordinary capacities and then, he should not be convicted as a killer or criminal but as a sick man.

Yes, completely. But the schizophrenic person is mentally ill, so I think he derserves a more "neutral" trial if you put a lawsuit on him. He needs being supervised by psychologists or professionals. I mean he is not a normal person with ordinary capacities and then, he should not be convicted as a killer or criminal but as a sick man. — javi2541997

Yes, I was just trying to show the analogy of an attacking animal to those who might say.. well wouldn't you kill X animal who might kill you? There are some people who have an odd, "If you don't eat them, they will eat you" kind of thing. Clearly not the case with most animals we eat, and part of the reason we do kill certain animals that harm us unintentionally (rats, spiders, etc.).

It would seem there is a difference in defense against disease and defending your home/city from invasion from a small rodent compared to killing for consumption of a larger grazing animal that is not invading your city, and one can avoid harming them, especially if they are quite sentient beings (at the level of domestic pets we'll say). And I don't think the other extreme of not categorizing animals in terms of sentient capacity is good either. Extreme vegans that killing a spider and a cow are on the same level, have no nuance in context and perhaps reality.

well wouldn't you kill X animal who might kill you? — schopenhauer1

I would defend myself because my natural instinct of survival says me to kill X animal to keep alive. It is like a reflex action and I am not sure if I would be "aware" of my own actions of killing an animal just for surviving.

Extreme vegans that killing a spider and a cow are on the same level, have no nuance in context and perhaps reality. — schopenhauer1

I am agree. It is true that vegans forget the basic notion that we need to "kill" cows or pigs because it is needed to get feed. We don't do it because of lust.

Whatever you eat, you will need to eat some living organism. Just because one is fluffy and the other is not, does not make it better to eat one over the other. It's a tragedy of life, and veganism or vegetarianism does not seem like a cut and dry solution at all to me.

We are the only animal that knows what we are doing while we are doing it — schopenhauer1

According to who? Oh right, ourselves. Isn't that sort of self referential bias? Haha what has you believe that "instinct" isn't "knowing what you're doing".

When a newborn mammal looks to feed from their mothers milk is that not a priori knowledge ? Ingrained in their dna the knowledge of what to do when born in order to survive.

I think most animals know exactly what they're doing. It may look simple to us with our complex philosophical dicourses but simplicity doesn't mean ignorance or lack of awareness of what one is doing or why. It just means that they rely on instincts they evolved for millions of years while we have the ability to reason about hypothetical situations, many of which may still refer to instinct for example hypothetical moral dilemmas - "what would you do?" or "what woukd be your instinct in such a case"?

I think a species destroying the planet that keeps them alive by tipping the balances and measures all off in skewed ways from equilibrium doesn't sound like one that knows what it's doing.

You are of course free to disagree and explain your point of view more.

Whatever you eat, you will need to eat some living organism. Just because one is fluffy and the other is not, does not make it better to eat one over the other. It's a tragedy of life, and veganism or vegetarianism does not seem like a cut and dry solution at all to — Tzeentch

Quite right Tzeentch. I think veganism has some unfortunate plot holes. I do admire the intent of vegans to speak on behalf of the other animals on earth but let's indulge a situation for a moment where everyone is suddenly vegan.

In the vegan world a few things could happen.
Option 1: Domestic animals normally used for meat will live by instinct and breed excessively and unabated. We would soon be overrun by chickens, and pigs and cattle etc. Because no one is killing them. They would soon run out of resources in competition with one another and would thus starve and succumb to all sorts of nasty illnesses - viruses, bacteria etc which may be transmitted to humans (like coromavirus likely was). Think of India with its cow problem because cows are considered sacred there and its shunned upon to kill them.

Option 2: we neuter all domestic animals so they don't overpopulate and in doing so they go extinct in one generation. We lose biodiversity needlessly, also quite tragic I suspect.

Option 3: we return them to the wild but being domestic animals they will surely be easy picking for wild predators - us having tamed them beyond their innate threat perception skills. Perhaps some would learn quickly and be able to carve out a living but most would likely die.

So it seems that veganism has its own set of issues.

Vegetarianism or limited meat consumption seems like the most balanced way humans could prevent interfering with nature's balance. In a vegetarian world animals would live and die in balance while always producing useful products - dairy eggs etc - good sources of protein. And only killed for essential reasons - things that can only be practically made from leather instead of plastic, for social festivities, and perhaps transplantations in medicine. Not only would we minimise the carbon emissions from the meat industry but we would stave off the illnesses that come with high intensity farming and the lack of hygiene and easy transmissibility of disease that comes with it.

Extreme vegans that killing a spider and a cow are on the same level, have no nuance in context and perhaps reality. — schopenhauer1

Well killing spiders may seem trivial. But we must always consider the purpose of spiders. They produce silk - one of the strongest natural substances known and a possible source of ropes stronger than steel. They also predate pests that eat our crops and also feed on us - mosquitoes etc. Every animal and insect has a niche and a purpose in the balance of nature. The minute we assume they don't we are precariously close to disregarding their importance and causing problems for ourselves in the future.

Sure being told not to kill a spider in your house because it'll cause all sorts of problems seems extreme. But widespread use of insecticides on farmland... Now that is a problem for spider populations.

We must pursue an understanding of mother nature and live by her rules. Empathise with her because we are natural. We are born from her ecosystem. To commit mutiny against it is to commit mutiny against ourselves and opens up a world of pain. Pain that can be avoided.

It's a tragedy of life, and veganism or vegetarianism does not seem like a cut and dry solution at all to me. — Tzeentch

Agreed but can there be a recognition of a spectrum of sentience and obligations to harm become more pronounced as sentience increases? I think there’s a real difference between harming spiders, rats, cows, and apes. And no doubt, I’m not an animal egalitarian. Humans then become the most important to not unnecessarily harm if faced between human and animal. If not because of sentience then from ties of relations.

I think there’s a real difference between harming spiders, rats, cows, and apes.
5m — schopenhauer1

Because they are in order of what is most different (spider) to what is most similar (ape) - close to self? If self preservation is your motto is it not the same instinct as all of these animals: spiders, rats, cows and apes?

And if so, if they all have the same will to survive and reproduce who are we to determine which do and which don't? Is it balanced to only consider what is in it for us (humans)? Is all of nature (us included) not mutually dependent on one another for the skills, the niches, we offer in service to a greater good - an ecosystem?

I would defend myself because my natural instinct of survival says me to kill X animal to keep alive. It is like a reflex action and I am not sure if I would be "aware" of my own actions of killing an animal just for surviving. — javi2541997

Well interestingly enough there is a case of an animal that has the ability to kill us as we did it - the wolf. But it seems instead something our ancestors saw in this predator was relatable and so we offered sharing of resources, of food, in pursuit of companionship. And thus we got "man's best friend" in return - the humble and loyal dog. The animal we hunted with, part of our united interspecial "pack".

Agreed but can there be a recognition of a spectrum of sentience and obligations to harm become more pronounced as sentience increases? I think there’s a real difference between harming spiders, rats, cows, and apes. — schopenhauer1

Personally, I don't think there is a moral difference.

By the same logic, would it be more acceptable to harm a less sentient human than a more sentient one?

Yes, there are animals that can be trained because is beneficial for all the parts. But the cases are only a few and even there are some dog breeds who are violent by nature like pitbull or American standford. These dogs need a very rigid training to calm them down.
Another example: cows, bulls, lambs, etc… all of them depend on us because we have managed their nature and development for centuries.

. But the cases are only a few and even there are some dog breeds who are violent by nature like pitbull or American standford — javi2541997

Perhaps you're right. In our quest to breed the most loyal and docile breeds (labradors, retrievers etc) we inadvertently and accidentally made the opposite simultaneously - aggressive and hostile breeds that don't really serve our purposes. Such is the case when one takes over control of natural selection and polarises it.

When we take the kindest and softest natured dogs and breed them we get pups that carry those good genetics traits.
But if we dont kill off the lesser preferred dogs they breed with one another by exclusion and instinct and simultaneously create pups that are more unfavourable.

By extension of the process we get the cutest, most affable and tame creatures and simultaneously their opposite: seething and aggressive unsafe canines

What then are we to make of eating meat? How could we compromise and settle everyone's concerns surrounding the ethics of meat? — Benj96

By making it in vats in a factory. We can do that now. That would address the ethical concern, though not necessarily all other concerns.
But there are vested commercial and political interests pitted against the new technology, so it's taking longer to develop on a commercially sustainable scale.

Question 1: if instead of a butcher you had to go to a slaughterhouse and kill what you need for your family, would you respect animals more? Would you eat meat less frequently? Would you be grateful for it? — Benj96

If the confrontation between the meat-eating human and his prey takes place in slaughterhouse, it's very likely to put the human off his meat, for a while anyway. But it's not a setting that engenders respect: by the time it arrives at there, the animal is already degraded, traumatized and reduced to the status of a commodity. The ethical wrong is not in the ending of a life, but in the method of production and destruction that takes an individual entity from its artificial inception through its miserable short life to its ignominious end. I doubt gratitude enters this scenario.

Question 2: Are vegans and carnivores that don't kill for themselves not both trying to avoid/running away from the same fear - that we are natural predators (in part ofc - omnivores) — Benj96

No, I don't think so. Vegans who make that decision on ethical grounds are reacting, not to natural hunting but to modern life and food-production. They're not rejecting a lifestyle where eight men go out with spears and bring home two or three caribou to feed the clan all winter, in favour of relying on the roots and dried berries the women had been able to gather.
They're rejecting the factory farms that raise billions of artificially bred and enhanced sentient individuals and torture them for the single purpose of being slaughtered, so that obese humans can throw away 26% of the meat and hasten their own heart disease with the rest.
And they're not rejecting meat in the stone age, when the balance between humans and other animals might have been sustainable; they're doing it now, when alternatives are readily available and the status quo is fast driving the rest of the world to extinction, with ourselves not far behind.

Then, when a mental sick person commits a crime, probably he was not really aware about what he was doing. — javi2541997

In that case, his legal defense is "Not guilty, due to diminished capacity".
So we might also overlook it if he eats goats, grasshoppers, newspapers or mud.
Only those of us who do understand our actions and are free to choose what we eat are held responsible and subjected to judgment.

Whatever you eat, you will need to eat some living organism. Just because one is fluffy and the other is not, does not make it better to eat one over the other. — Tzeentch

The distinction is not in the covering but in the ability to feel pain.

I think most animals know exactly what they're doing. — Benj96

The more we learn about animal behaviour and intelligence, the more evident this becomes.

I would defend myself because my natural instinct of survival says me to kill X animal to keep alive. It is like a reflex action and I am not sure if I would be "aware" of my own actions of killing an animal just for surviving. — javi2541997

Of course you would be aware. All primitive hunters who kill to survive are aware, as are sport hunters who do it for fun. But, in real life, how often do you really have to choose between killing and starvation? How about a nice bowl of cereal instead? Moussaka? Bean soup?

Agreed but can there be a recognition of a spectrum of sentience and obligations to harm become more pronounced as sentience increases? — schopenhauer1

There is an instinctive range of sympathy from least to most likeness to ourselves. But that's sentiment, not obligation - not reliable, either, as we learn that outward appearance is a poor indicator of sentience.
As far as our moral and legal codes go, the cutoff is Human/Other. In different periods and regions, parts of the human population have been designated Other, so as to withdraw legal protection from that group. But no Other ever gets elevated to the Human category. The closes we come to that is exempting what we designate "companion animals" from the kind of treatment to which "food animals" are subjected.
Vegetarians of different types draw the line at what they consider distinguishable levels of sentience; some eat fish and crustaceans; some eat dairy and eggs. Vegans just rule out the killing and exploitation of all animals.

In our quest to breed the most loyal and docile breeds (labradors, retrievers etc) we inadvertently and accidentally made the opposite simultaneously - aggressive and hostile breeds that don't really serve our purposes. — Benj96

There was nothing inadvertent about it. We bred all domestic animals to serve our purposes. Pit bulls were bred to fight for the entertainment of spectators. Wolfhounds, terrier and beagles were bred for hunting. Some for sniffing, some for racing, some for rescue work and some for guarding. Since most of the vicious animal sports have been outlawed, some of those breeds pose a problem. But we still breed dangerous dogs for guarding our valuables.

I'm sorry that was so long. I should come back sooner.

Of course you would be aware. All primitive hunters who kill to survive are aware, as are sport hunters who do it for fun. But, in real life, how often do you really have to choose between killing and starvation? — Vera Mont

But that’s a different example. It is not the same being a primitive hunters than defending myself of an attack. If I kill an animal because I want to eat it, I am acting with premeditation, so yes I am totally aware about my own actions. Nevertheless, when I must make a choice in seconds related to survive or die I wouldn’t know If I would be aware at all. As I said, it is a reflex action not based on full awareness.

But that’s a different example. — javi2541997

Yes. The OP was about killing to eat. Killing in self-defense is exempted from murder involving a human, as well. The reason you'd get away with it is not that you may have been unaware of a reflex action, but that whether aware or not, the manslaughter was justified.
In the case of modern man killing animals for food, it is done with full awareness. It may be justified if it's a matter of life and death, but not justified when there are other choices. Yet our moral and legal codes do not distinguish different kinds of animal-slaughter by motive, only by species.

The distinction is not in the covering but in the ability to feel pain. — Vera Mont

I don't think the ability to feel pain is in any way relevant. Besides, how do you know insects and plants do not feel pain? They react to being attacked just like a mammal would.

Can something that does not feel pain (in a way us humans recognize it) simply be killed with impunity? I think not.

Yet our moral and legal codes do not distinguish different kinds of animal-slaughter by motive, only by species. — Vera Mont

Because they all have the same motive: feed the humans. It is not about being moral/legal but an action of survival. If you do not feed yourself with meat you would lose proteins and then you will get sick. I see simplistic but that’s how the world works. If someone tells you that is possible to live without cattle raising, he is lying.

Because they are in order of what is most different (spider) to what is most similar (ape) - close to self? If self preservation is your motto is it not the same instinct as all of these animals: spiders, rats, cows and apes?

And if so, if they all have the same will to survive and reproduce who are we to determine which do and which don't? Is it balanced to only consider what is in it for us (humans)? Is all of nature (us included) not mutually dependent on one another for the skills, the niches, we offer in service to a greater good - an ecosystem? — Benj96

A lot to unpack.

So I consider it similar to a Trolley Problem. If you were to either save a close relative/friend or several strangers, what would you do? I think it quite sociopathic to ignore the relations you have with someone, so I wouldn't blame someone for not wanting to choose someone who was close to them. Similarly, I think there is something about not wanting to hurt those which we can identify with more as closer to us and which we can at least estimate by behavior is closer to how we react to pain, fear, harm, etc.. I see it as maybe part of some moral sense, or sense of some kind we seem to react to regarding relations and harm.

As for the ecosystem, etc. That is more abstract, but that is the difference between killing a spider and completely eradicating a species that might be integrated into an ecosystem.

Personally, I don't think there is a moral difference.

By the same logic, would it be more acceptable to harm a less sentient human than a more sentient one? — Tzeentch

I again see this as a relations things. Since we do have self-awareness, we can see that this person is still someone like us and thus we should treat them with dignity as we would want to be treated if we were in their position. If a minimal standard to strive for is not unnecessarily harming anyone/beings why would we unnecessarily put animals with lesser self-awareness/sentience through unnecessary harms when it can be prevented? Surely, there are alternatives, no? Is it only simply, "It feels good, so it is right"? That seems off too. If you simply can't stand not eating beans and vegetables because it's less tasty, I am not sure how that is living up to that standard. If you don't agree that unnecessary harm is something to live by, then it may be questionable standards. However, if it is simply that there is no consideration of unnecessary harms for other animals, we must ask why this is the case.

I am wary of trying to corner the argument into a slippery slope fallacy.. Why stop at "higher" sentient beings, etc. Well, then I would agree with an earlier sentiment you have that it's a tragedy of life that some beings will be grist for the mill in the name of "cycle of life". However, this can be posed the other way, of why NOT prevent the higher sentience from that suffering?

Vegetarianism or limited meat consumption seems like the most balanced way humans could prevent interfering with nature's balance. In a vegetarian world animals would live and die in balance while always producing useful products - dairy eggs etc - good sources of protein. And only killed for essential reasons - things that can only be practically made from leather instead of plastic, for social festivities, and perhaps transplantations in medicine. Not only would we minimise the carbon emissions from the meat industry but we would stave off the illnesses that come with high intensity farming and the lack of hygiene and easy transmissibility of disease that comes with it. — Benj96

For what it's worth, I am more on board with this than any veganism or extreme veganism. As someone was stating earlier, it's mainly about the conditions of the animals, though I think there is something odd about going up to an animal and killing it when there are alternatives. Although I understand that we can't let the farm animals breeding forever, it may simply be a solution like not introducing males and females together or something like that. Stop it at the breeding part so it doesn't have to get to the killing part. They would still have to be domesticated though. Just how they are now and that can't be factored out. We are inextricably tied with these domesticated species for good or bad. The problem though is so systemic and consuming it is more of a feel good way of dealing with it for oneself rather than actually getting much done consequentially.. But as a deontological point, it makes sense.. do no harm unnecessarily if you can help it.

I'm all for not unnecessary harming anyone

My gripe was with the idea that there exists a heirarchy of sentience by which we can decide what is moral to eat (or harm) and what is not.

To me, eating plants or insects seems more like shifting the harm to something we have a harder time empathizing with. We sell it off by ascribing value to those traits which we empathize with most naturally - sentience, fluffiness, etc.

To cut down a tree, to butcher a lamb, what is the difference, really?

To cut down a tree, to butcher a lamb, what is the difference, really? — Tzeentch

The screaming.
That's simplistic, but that's the thing in a nutshell: not to kill that which expresses a desire to live; not to hurt that which responds to pain. If trees are shown to have a nervous system, I'd have to rethink whether I should use lumber.
We cannot live without compromises: there is no purity for a high-maintenance, highly perceptive species. Algae can be more innocent than earthworms; spiders more innocent than hyenas. None of them have a choice, and Evolution has passed all of their characteristics and needs down to us.
But we are no longer subject to nature; we developed the ability to subjugate nature. To destroy it, to replicate or alter its processes, to dig up the distant past and burn it, to turn valleys into radioactive waste dumps and jungles into grazing land for disabled species that belong on plains which no longer exist.
Collectively, we could become far more benign, had we the will and leadership. The Earth would last longer and we would survive both longer and with a better quality of life.
Individually, we have only a limited choice in how we live and how much we contribute to the destruction.
Vegans try to do as little harm as possible. They can't do zero harm, because they are human in a world that is now 100% human-owned and operated.
Other groups of people try to minimize the harm in other ways: they build tiny houses, or eat only locally produced food, or build their own greenhouse, or stop using plastic, or put solar panels on their roof or recycle water.
I don't think there is anything to gain by saying: If you can't be perfect, you shouldn't try at all.

I don't think the ability to feel pain is in any way relevant. — Tzeentch

That's an opinion many humans share. Not all, however.

Besides, how do you know insects and plants do not feel pain? They react to being attacked just like a mammal would. — Tzeentch

Insects do; they have a nervous system. When caught in a trap, they try to escape. Broccoli doesn't. I eat broccoli, but not spiders.

If you do not feed yourself with meat you would lose proteins and then you will get sick. — javi2541997

How long does it take, usually? I haven't fed myself with the flesh of mammal, birds or sea-creatures for 30-odd years. So far, feeling fine.
We have the technology to substitute all the nutrients we don't get from our diet - and a whole lot more that we don't need at all - hence the multi-billion dollar supplement industry.

Although I understand that we can't let the farm animals breeding forever, it may simply be a solution like not introducing males and females together or something like that. Stop it at the breeding part so it doesn't have to get to the killing part. — schopenhauer1

Domestic animals don't control their breeding anyway. The farmers do. Much of it - cattle in particular - is done artificially. To stop it, all we have to do is stop. Inducing milk production in a cow that has not given birth is more complex, but already within reach. Should work on goats, too. Free-range egg sellers regularly keep all-hen flocks: a calmer barnyard and no risk of an embryo plopping into a customer's frying pan. Sheep, also goats, rabbits and llamas) could still be kept for the wool - when you don't want an increase in the herd, just sequester the rams. Pigs have no other use, except rototilling vegetable patches and cleaning up the floor of orchards and permaculture gardens and sniffing out the odd $1000 truffle.
Humans have choices about what they eat and how they produce it.
(And - Shhhh, don't spook the elephant! - about how many of us need feeding.)

Veganism is a speciesist half-measure. A far more effective solution is – the one which I'm enthused about – vat-grown / 3-d printed meat (i.e. animal protein) that tastes like natural beef, pork, poultry, eegs, etc.

Whatever you eat, you will need to eat some living organism. Just because one is fluffy and the other is not, does not make it better to eat one over the other. It's a tragedy of life, and veganism or vegetarianism does not seem like a cut and dry solution at all to me. — Tzeentch

:up:

To me, eating plants or insects seems more like shifting the harm to something we have a harder time empathizing with. We sell it off by ascribing value to those traits which we empathize with most naturally - sentience, fluffiness, etc. — Tzeentch

:up: :up:

I don't think there is anything to gain by saying: If you can't be perfect, you shouldn't try at all. — Vera Mont

I think that is a good response.