...vegan (and possibly vegetarian ethics) hinges on the claim that we don't need to eat meat. — Andrew4Handel

Is that true? I am not a student of veganism. On the other hand, as an omnivore, I can understand a moral argument against eating or subjugating animals. Animals, especially the larger ones such as those we raise and eat, clearly have feelings, emotions that are similar to those we have. We, as beings with empathy, can imagine what it would be like to be treated like animals are treated by humans. Some of us decide that is a good reason to stop eating meat.

Makes sense to me, even if that's not the choice I've made.

It seems problematic to me that vegan (and possibly vegetarian ethics) hinges on the claim that we don't need to eat meat. — Andrew4Handel

Who said that? There are lots of positive arguments given in favor of veganism.

That said, my own view is that eating meat is not intrinsically wrong, but indeed unnecessary in today's world. In centuries past and in some parts of the world today, it is necessary for survival, and so can be justified for that reason. But in the industrialized world at present, people eat meat merely out of habit or because it tastes good, which of course are very poor and shallow reasons to justify what even educated omnivores acknowledge is a pretty abusive and corrupt system of animal husbandry.

Why do you remain an omnivore, if I may ask?

Why do you remain an omnivore, if I may ask? — Thorongil

I can understand a moral argument against abortion, but I continue to support a woman's right to choose. I understand a moral argument for the death penalty, but I continue to oppose it.

I've killed animals. We hunted dove and water fowl when I was a boy. I'd shoot them and, sometimes, if they were still alive, killed them by hand. Then I'd clean them. I stopped hunting when I my family no longer needed me as a pack animal and was happy to do so.

I've killed quite a few groundhogs in my yard because they damaged my wife's garden. I would catch them in a non-lethal trap then drown them in my children's kiddie pool. I'd always stand and watch for the minute it took for them to drown. It seemed fair I should at least watch. After a while, I stopped killing them. It was hard to watch. It wasn't a moral qualm, it was a personal, emotional one.

It's possible I'll decide someday to no longer eat meat. I'm sure if I had to watch the animals die it would happen sooner rather than later.

I can understand a moral argument against abortion, but I continue to support a woman's right to choose. I understand a moral argument for the death penalty, but I continue to oppose it. — T Clark

Yeah, fair enough, but do you have any positive reasons for why you continue eating meat, or it is, as I said in my other comment, simply force of habit?

Yeah, fair enough, but do you have any positive reasons for why you continue eating meat, or it is, as I said in my other comment, simply force of habit? — Thorongil

I could tell you that I have high blood sugar and need to eat a low carb diet, which is true, but that would be disingenuous. I like to eat meat. I like the way it tastes, smells, and feels. I don't have moral qualms about using, killing, animals for human purposes.

I too am an omnivore, and I too recognize that my diet is problematic from some angles. I have bits of pig, chicken, cow, and fish on hand, and I look forward to eating them. I like meat. Meat has the advantage of being nutritionally dense, easy to prepare (no mixing required, just put it in the oven or in the pan) and sensorially satisfying.

It could be that the lamb, pig, chicken, cow, and maybe the cod fish too were all despondent as they contemplated their fate in the last moments of their lives. I don't approve of the way animals are raised (crowded cages, small pens, over-populated feedlots, etc.) and there is no excuse for slaughter methods that are not instant and pretty free of bungling. These methods of raising animals are not only unpleasant for the animals, but they are highly un-ecological and unsanitary.

I don't have a problem with the practice of raising animals humanely and then eating them. So, you chickens, just keep eating and clucking away. You're just about ready for a beheading. Yes, I have chopped the heads off chickens and butchered them. I've seen cows and pigs killed and butchered. It didn't dull my appetite very much.

There is a very, very large problem with raising animals for food that could be, for me, a compelling reason to switch to vegetarianism (not veganism -- the practice of people who basically hate food):

Raising animals for food is environmentally unsustainable. Never mind cattle belching up methane, which is one problem. The bigger problem now, and in the future, is producing enough food of any kind from the available arable soils. As oil becomes more expensive and more difficult to get, and as natural gas is used up for fuel and plastics, there will be much less energy available to manufacture and ship fertilizers, tillage, planting, harvesting, processing, storage and distribution.

This probably sounds far fetched to people who think oil will last forever (it won't--we've already passed peak oil), but in the future we will need to allocate a substantial part of our land to food for horses to raise vegetarian food for ourselves. Prior to the internal combustion engine, about 20% of land was needed to raise oats and hay for horses used for traction. Unlike cattle, horses can't make do on any-old fodder. They aren't cud chewers, and they have 1 stomach which doesn't ferment crude fiber the way cattle do with their 4-chambered stomach. Horses need quality hay and oats to be able to work.

Just compare a cow plop with a pile of horse shit -- there is a big difference. (YOUR TASK: find some fresh bull shit and horse shit; compare and contrast.)

If someone else who was a good cook was preparing my food, and they could do a good job making vegetable food (including milk and egg products) I'd make the switch quite willingly. I know how to make some vegetarian items, which are good, nutritious, and satisfying -- but my repertoire is limited and at this point... can't eat that many bean products.

It seems problematic to me that vegan (and possibly vegetarian ethics) hinges on the claim that we don't need to eat meat. — Andrew4Handel

I don't understand. Why is that problematic? If we couldn't manage without meat, then it could not be a issue, one can only make a moral issue of what is possible. Personally, I have a rule not to eat anyone I haven't been introduced to; it's a matter of politeness.

It seems problematic to me that vegan (and possibly vegetarian ethics) hinges on the claim that we don't need to eat meat. — Andrew4Handel

Because "ought implies can" (Kant). You cannot be morally obligated to do something that you cannot do. If abstaining from flesh would result in your own death, it is plausible to argue that you cannot do so. Or at the very least, that this would be a sacrifice that would be too great to reasonably ask of anyone.

Vegans bring up that argument, however, in response to the persistent and widespread mythology in the general public that eating flesh is a necessity for life, or at least for optimal health.

veganism -- the practice of people who basically hate food — Bitter Crank

The consensus among long-term vegans is that they have eaten a greater variety of foods and flavors since becoming vegans than ever before. From the vegan perspective, the omni diet is rather bland and single-mindedly focused on animal-derived proteins and fats.

Yes, I have chopped the heads off chickens and butchered them. I've seen cows and pigs killed and butchered. It didn't dull my appetite very much. — Bitter Crank

The argument "I've done x, therefore I do not think x is a bad thing to do" is not very sound. Equally unsound "I haven't morally objected to x so far, therefore x is not a bad thing". Clearly you could have been mistaken, and could still be mistaken.

I could tell you that I have high blood sugar and need to eat a low carb diet, which is true, but that would be disingenuous. I like to eat meat. I like the way it tastes, smells, and feels. I don't have moral qualms about using, killing, animals for human purposes. — T Clark

Just to be a rascal...

"I could tell you that I have high pedophilic urges and need to practice a low abstinence lifestyle, which is true, but that would be disingenuous. I like to eat children. I like the way they taste, smell, and feel. I don't have moral qualms about raping, killing, children for my sexual urges."

But, I do have moral qualms about doing the things you describe, you rascal.

Then you must also have more reasons for eating meat.

Then you must also have more reasons for eating meat. — Buxtebuddha

Sorry. You lost me.

From the vegan perspective, the omni diet is rather bland and single-mindedly focused on animal-derived proteins and fats — NKBJ

I guess it would depend on what one was actually eating, and whether one used strong flavored vegetables and spice. Indian vegetarian items are at least flavorful -- sometimes too much. Stir fries and chutneys, garlic, fish sauce etc. solve the blandness problem The vegan food I've been exposed to was not very good. Not unwholesome, just not attractive to the senses. As for proteins and fats...

I get the largest share of my calories from vegetarian sources (vegetables, grains, potatoes, yams, fruits, dried legumes, nuts) . A substantial chunk of calories are from dairy--milk, yogurt, butter, cheese in that order). I generally eat slightly less than 1 3 oz. serving of meat per day (some days none). I eat very little highly processed food. So most of the sugar I eat, I add myself.

I think the logical thing for meat eaters to do is eat less meat -- one 3 oz. serving per day supplies the nutrition that meat eaters expect to get from meat. 8 or 10 ounces of meat per day supplies more nutrition than usually needed, but also more fat than most people need.

Although that said all conduct to survive could compromise morality. So in a sense the amorality or immorality of nature compromises morality anyway. — Andrew4Handel

It doesn't compromise it. It just makes it contextual. I would consider it a moral error for me to steal a loaf of bread in most circumstances. But if it was the only way I could feed a person that was starving, I would not consider it a moral error.

Interestingly, the most noted philosopher that would deny the contextually of ethics, and hence reject that response to the objection, is Kant. At the same time, Kant supplies one of the most telling responses to the objection raised in the OP, which is 'ought implies can' (already quoted above by NKBJ).

The argument "I've done x, therefore I do not think x is a bad thing to do" is not very sound. — NKBJ

I wasn't claiming that my chopping a chicken's head off was a good argument for meat eating. I was simply indicating that I knew, on a first hand basis, what it meant to kill a food animal. It isn't an abstraction if one has beheaded a few chickens.

As W. S. Gilbert said, "a quick chippy choppy on a big black block".

Clearly you could have been mistaken, and could still be mistaken. — NKBJ

That is true: I could have been, and could be in the future mistaken about the morality of meat eating. But it probably won't be based on the rights of animals, or their needs. My first and most sincere recognition of wrongness would be "eating meat is environmentally unsustainable." It is unsustainable now, (that is, it can't continue without further and increasing harm).

I already have strong doubts about the morality of eating fish when other meat sources are available -- fish and the oceans seem to be in worst shape than cows and grazing land.

Sorry. You lost me. — T Clark

Your argument = animal meat tastes good, therefore it is morally permissible to kill and consume animals for their meat.

My argument = human meat tastes good, therefore it is morally permissible to kill and consume humans for their meat.

Now that you're in my trap, you must disprove my claim on its own premise without refuting your own.

you must disprove my claim on its own premise without refuting your own. — Buxtebuddha

Sorry, BB, but no, I don't have to. I'm comfortable letting things stand as they are.

It seems problematic to me that vegan (and possibly vegetarian ethics) hinges on the claim that we don't need to eat meat.

So that if we were carnivores then there could be no moral issue which seems to be quite an arbitrary point at which to invoke ethics.

I can't figure out exactly how to frame my objection though. But it seems to be that behaviour that is essential for survival cannot be subject to the same type of moral claim as non-survival related conduct.

Although that said all conduct to survive could compromise morality. So in a sense the amorality or immorality of nature compromises morality anyway. — Andrew4Handel

When I was 15, I was temporarily living in the countryside and I witnessed a ram being slaughtered; I watched in horror as it screamed and pulled back and away as the farmer pulled it toward where it was to be killed and such an experience changed my attitude to the treatment of animals. I have been a vegetarian ever since and vegan by default only because I am dairy intolerant, though I eat eggs. There are a plethora of available foods that compensate for any nutritional losses that one would encounter on a carnivorous diet but it is just a matter of looking and/or being guided correctly. Physically, we actually do not need to eat meat and vegetarians are considered to have the most healthiest diet.

There are two reasons why I am not against eating meat but rather would like to evoke conscious eating of meat that promotes better farming practices and avoids mass production through food chains such as McDonalds. This is because the latter practices is having huge environmental impact - particularly with cow meat and fishing - where clear-cutting trees, soil erosion as well as the methane production and greenhouse gases to farm them is fast becoming a serious concern together with the killing sharks and whales that is impacting on the balance of our marine life, not to mention the growing list of endangered species; all this is actually ruining the balance of our ecosystem. We need to make a more conscious effort in how we approach meat-eating and sometimes vegetarianism or even veganism is simply a way of communicating the importance of this consciousness. It does not make eating meat morally wrong, but ignorance to how you eat meat as morally wrong because ignorance is no excuse.

Conscious farming practices are growing as people are now eating meats from farmers that treat their animals properly - i.e. free range and well fed - but are also using regenerative agricultural practices. It simplifies the process or bring it back to 'real' as people are becoming aware of how problematic mass production of meat is to both animal rights as well as our environment.

I don't have a problem with the practice of raising animals humanely and then eating them. — Bitter Crank

Why?

Sorry, BB, but no, I don't have to. I'm comfortable letting things stand as they are. — T Clark

If you're comfortable being wrong, then that's fine by me, :snicker:

If you're comfortable being wrong, then that's fine by me, — Buxtebuddha

I'll try something @Sapientia and I have been working on:

Pontoon Boat.

I don't have a problem with the practice of raising animals humanely and then eating them. — Bitter Crank

Why? — Thorongil

"Why?" he asks.

I like cooked animal, to start with. I grew up eating meat, milk, and eggs.

The animals we raise for slaughter were domesticated for that purpose thousands of years ago. It's a sensible strategy: domesticated animals can eat plants (grass, small leafed forage plants like alfalfa) that we can not digest and turn into meat, milk, and eggs that we can digest.

What doesn't make a lot of sense is for us to feed animals plants that we could eat just as well--which is what happens in beef and hog feedlots. Animals are fed corn, wheat, soybeans, and various other foods, all of which we could eat directly.

Some animals eat plants, some animals eat other animals. There is nothing superior or inferior about either group, and choosing to be a plant eating animal isn't more moral than being a meat eating animal.

Some animals eat plants, some animals eat other animals. There is nothing superior or inferior about either group, and choosing to be a plant eating animal isn't more moral than being a meat eating animal. — Bitter Crank

So says an animal who has survived by eating other animals. What might the prey think, though?

I like cooked animal, to start with — Bitter Crank

It seems to me that you, like T Clark, then fall into BB's trap mentioned earlier.

Let's say I tortured and raped little children and you asked me why I did that. If I replied, "I like torturing and raping children," does that justify my doing so? This is elementary stuff, BC, and I don't know why you and T Clark have adopted such an absurd and easily refutable justification. I guess it goes to show what I said in my first comment, that most people choose to eat meat on crass hedonistic grounds.

The example above is not meant to suggest an equivalency with eating meat, by the way. It's merely meant to expose the rather large hole in your rationale for eating meat.

Is that true? — T Clark

It must be true because if humans were carnivores we would have to eat meat and there would be no plausible veganism.

I don't see good grounds for vegans to judge us differently than a lion eating meat and why we are the only species supposed to eat with some ethical dimension.

The position seems completely divorced from the reality of nature.I think a morality that separates us from nature is implausible unless you think we can transcend nature in some supernatural way.

Human beings exploit each other profoundly so I don't think we treat people with similar humans characteristics more fairly than the rest of nature.

I don't see good grounds for vegans to judge us differently than a lion eating meat and why we are the only species supposed to eat with some ethical dimension. — Andrew4Handel

This dimension is in large measure the very thing that makes us unique as a species, so I don't know why you would wonder that. If you cannot understand that human moral reasoning is completely different not only in magnitude but perhaps in kind from that of lions, then you have somehow failed to see the self-evident. The very fact that you forcefully lament the profound evil human beings incur on one another, and lions don't, is itself evidence of said difference.

Who said that? — Thorongil

Several high profile vegans on YouTube put continuous emphasis on the claim it is unnecessary to eat meat even though acknowledging that it entails taking supplements. I can post links to videos if needs be.

The problem is that killing animals can only start to be deemed being cruel if it is seen as unnecessary. The reality of carnivores, predation and death in nature as an essential part of the life cycle means that humans consuming meat cannot be considered an aberration and I don't know anyone that eats meat just to see animals suffer.

If you wanted to make an animals suffer you could do that without eating them. eating the animal you killed is not really evidence of sadism.

Consuming nutrients is necessary to prevent malnourishment and starvation, however something like rape is never necessary. Killing may be necessary in self defence and theft ,may be necessary to avoid starving but eating and drinking are among the most fundamental things needed for immediate survival.

I am never convinced that vegans have a realistic picture of nature where animals starve en masse, ,drown en masse, get eaten alive and don't retire to Old Persons homes.

This dimension is in large measure the very thing that makes us unique as a species... — Thorongil

But vegans and animal rights activists are eager to stress the similarity between humans and animals as the reason they should have rights and not be eaten.

There is a definite tension between claiming animals are just like us with similar feelings goals and desires and then making is suddenly the only species capable of a profound transcendental moral world view.

The reality seems to be clear that humans and nature are cruel and that there is certainly no inherent tendency in nature for a just world and ethical progress. And even if you think humans make moral progress there is no plausible way of engineering harm out of nature.

Personally I am a moral nihilist, antinatalist and I think all we can have is a bit of hope that life is somehow on an upward trajectory and meaningful. But Nature as we observe it and our human conduct seems to me far removed from an ethical ideal.