You can avoid eating plants or animals but still survive if you wanted to — yatagarasu
I never claimed that. I said humans can survive on fruit. — yatagarasu
No, because eating the deer is intentional making it wrong. — yatagarasu
If you eat fruit you eat plant. You may not be killing the plant for it (though you are 'killing' the plants offspring in the fruit). Even if it were possible for humans to survive on eating fruit alone. — Tomseltje
Why is eating the deer wrong if it doesn't cause any additional suffering for the deer? I should let the flies eat it instead because that's the moral thing to do? why is letting the flies eat it more moral than eating it myself?
If i eat fruit the eating of it is intentional as well, following that logic, eating fruit is just as immoral. — Tomseltje
But the question still stands as to whether a painless animal kill is equivalent to a plant or insect kill. Which removes the variable of an animal's capacity to feel pain. Do we now determine what to consume based on intellectual capacity? — NasloxiehRorsxez
calling the straw-man version of my question nonsense — VagabondSpectre
"that's not really the question" is quite unsatisfying. — VagabondSpectre
If I've decided killing animals to eat their meat is wrong, what must I do with my hypothetical chickens? — VagabondSpectre
The resources we dispense in the raising of the animals must be recuperated, else we cannot affords to raise the animals. — VagabondSpectre
Well I AM the anecdote, so it's not quite fallacious. — VagabondSpectre
Do you call everything you simply can't counter a strawperson? Because I very directly was addressing your argument that it is better to live and suffer than never to have lived. Which is nonsense. — NKBJ
You let them live the rest of their natural lives in peace--is being kind really so unfathomable to you? — NKBJ
Easy solution: don't cause them to exist. Non-existent entities also do not care about existing--you can't harm anyone by choosing not to cause their existence. That would be nonsensical (as explained previously). — NKBJ
Are farm animal lives worth living? This is the question; it's not nonsense. You have no excuse to keep saying this is nonsense. — VagabondSpectre
So release my chickens into the wild where they will be swiftly set upon by starvation and predation? Nonsense. — VagabondSpectre
it's not morally praiseworthy to not cause something to exist either. — VagabondSpectre
I think in many cases they are. The pleasures and joy of life can outweigh the pain. — VagabondSpectre
Yes, it still is fallacious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
Sorry, but just as it wouldn't matter in a philosophical argument about gods or ghosts or unicorns that you personally testified to seeing any of these things with your own eyes, it doesn't matter here that you claim to suffer when abstaining from meat. Even if I believe that you did everything nutritionally correct, the placebo effect is real as well as strong, not to mention coincidental other factors of illnesses or stressors or hormonal fluctuations could all account for your experience. Without controlled experiments or strong statistical evidence, all your personal experience tells me is that it is possible that we might want to do some studies in the case that perhaps there are a couple of exceptions to the general rule. — NKBJ
I didn't say that question was nonsense. I said comparing existence to non-existence is nonsense. I said the question of whether life is worth living is besides the point, because you're trying to find a way to justify harming and killing them. — NKBJ
For an already existing being, yes, life is worth living and thus you have the obligation to let them live and thus you ought not to kill them. — NKBJ
For a creature who is living in pure agony because we have fattened her up so much her legs break beneath her, and she never sees sunlight, and she can hardly breathe because there are so many of her kind stuffed in a barn, and she will never get the chance to raise her babies, or enjoy a fresh breeze.... that's not a life you should condemn any creature to, but it is what we do to billions of farm animals every year. — NKBJ
I didn't say that. I said let them live--I mentioned animal sanctuaries-- if you want to put them in this world, you have the obligation to make sure they are safe, and healthy, and as happy as possibly until the end of their natural lifespan. — NKBJ
I didn't say it's morally praiseworthy. Abstaining from meat eating is not about doing a positive thing as much as it is about avoiding doing or participating in a negative one. Similarly, I do not join or support the KKK--that doesn't mean I'm doing anything praiseworthy, it just means I avoid doing something condemnable. — NKBJ
Just like you do not get to go up to someone, stab them to death, steal their wallet, and tell them "you've lived a good enough life to outweigh this little thing", so too you ought not kill animals for your own gain no matter how well you've treated them. — NKBJ
If I treated animals like I treated humans then your point would stand, but I cannot yet afford to — VagabondSpectre
when every child is vaccinated and has a well planned, supplement included plant-based diet, then we can afford to let our farm animals die of natural causes out of charity — VagabondSpectre
There are yet hard thermodynamic requirements for the earth's 7.6 billion humans, and it's not our fault that we have not yet freed ourselves from the food-chains of evolution. Animal husbandry is still too significant a part of even first world agricultural food production to do away with it over-night. — VagabondSpectre
Not if you plant the seeds. It is possible to survive on fruit alone, it is just more difficult ( and not advisable for young people ). — yatagarasu
Huh. Thought about this for a while. Consulted vegan friends and they, including myself, couldn't find anything wrong with eating an animal that died of natural causes or was killed unintentionally. I guess it's okay, you would just be hard pressed to find a lot of meat this way, not to mention that eating animals at old age is pretty unappetizing (from what I've heard). — yatagarasu
Why? You then rattle on about the general requirements needed by others (not yourself). Why can you not yet afford to? — chatterbears
Also, do we let our current pets, such as dogs & cats die of natural causes out of charity? To say you will let something live naturally out of charity, is slightly psychopathic. — chatterbears
If it is not our fault, who's fault is it? It doesn't matter if something is a significant part of a society. If it is more detrimental than beneficial, we should change it. We can't even get people to acknowledge that it is detrimental, let alone even glance at the idea that we should change it. — chatterbears
You're just all sorts of confused. I have not advocated for killing animals--you have. I'm advocating for not putting them in this world if all we're gonna do is cause them suffering and murder them anyway. And I'm advocating for letting the existing animals live in peace. — NKBJ
Adopting a global vegan diet would require fewer resources than the meat-intensive ones that are currently wide-spread. — NKBJ
Argue for your anecdote all you want--as you point out, all it can do is have any meaning to you--but it has no meaning to me or anyone with whom you are trying to engage in a philosophical conversation. You simply don't have any solid evidence to back you up, thus I have no reason to believe you. — NKBJ
And how does it make any sense to argue that the value of life outweighs the tragedy of death, therefore murder is acceptable? Again, you can't go up to someone on the street and kill them with that logic...that would just be insane. — NKBJ
We cannot afford that many animal sanctuaries, so euthanize them we must. — VagabondSpectre
Furthermore, you continuously presume without justification that the lives of all farm animals contain nothing but suffering and death. It is easy to demonstrate that farm conditions are not all equal, and in some examples farm animals might actually enjoy their existence. Would you disagree? — VagabondSpectre
going full vegan would cost us too much money — VagabondSpectre
Calling me anecdotal and demanding scientific evidence of my personal dietary observations is a bit much don't you think? — VagabondSpectre
Would you be morally justified in going through with the pregnancy knowing beforehand what the outcome must be? — VagabondSpectre
My main point is you still eat (part of) the plant, so it's not possible to survive without eating plants as you previously stated. It may be possible to live on fruit alone for a while, but not for a full human life. especially not if living in colder climates or doing hard labor requiring over 5000 kcal a day.
Besides, when is the last time you picked off all seeds of a strawberry and planted them? It may be possible, but even for most vegans too unpractical to be practicing all the time. — Tomseltje
Glad we can at least agree on that part. So it's not wether the act of eating meat that is immoral but it's about wether the act of killing an animal in order to eat it is immoral. Seeing you are sensible about this one, perhaps you can come up with an answer on where to draw the line between wich animals are okay kill for food and wich aren't. Assuming you have no problem with killing single celled sessile animals that is. They don't provide meat, but they can still be quite nutricious, and will be killed in the process of digesting. (if you do have a problem with digesting single celled animals, I wonder how you prevent yourself from doing so, since they can't be seen without using a microscope) — Tomseltje
It's not psychotic to realize that chickens and sheep and cows cannot survive indefinitely in the wild. Chickens will die off rather quickly, the sheep might not last a season un-sheared, and the cows will eventually be taken by coyotes, wolves, disease, and the elements. — VagabondSpectre
A vegan diet is probably the single best way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use and water use.
As people's awareness grows, the whole factory farm system will simply be phased out. — NKBJ
Two things:1) factory farms raise 99.9 percent of chickens for meat, 97 percent of laying hens, 99 percent of turkeys, 95 percent of pigs, and 78 percent of cattle currently sold in the United States. So the conditions of factory farming are of utmost importance to this discussion. 2) A cow who enjoys her life still would like not to be murdered--you consistently seem to think that a good life, or an adequate one somehow means it's okay to harm someone. It does not. — NKBJ
Sigh.
The costs of producing meat versus plants have been thoroughly discussed in this thread numerous times. For the details, please go back, read, and inform yourself. Long story short: a vegan diet requires much much much fewer resources than an omnivorous one. — NKBJ
Nobody said anything about surviving indefinitely. Let me give you two scenarios.
1. Live in a confined area 99% of your life. That area is where you urinate, defecate and also eat from. You're handled aggressively from birth, with constant pain and discomfort. You're also tortured from time to time, and then abruptly hauled off to get your throat slit or put into a gas chamber.
2. Live out in the wild with a right to life and liberty. You're free from oppressive restrictions imposed by an external authority. You still must live with the dangers of predators and/or disease, but you may do so freely.
To say you'd rather live "safe", free from predators, in which the 1st situation would be more appealing, is absurdly dishonest. If anybody had a choice between those two scenarios, they would only pick #1 if they were masochistic and did not desire a life of liberty. The 2nd scenario has a probability of death from predators and/or disease, but it is not 100% guaranteed. And while you live out that probability, you are not completely oppressed without the ability to exercise your free-will.
What we do to animals is absolutely disgusting and ridiculous, just to get taste pleasure from a hamburger. Animals constantly get eaten by other predators all the time out in the wild, but I can guarantee they [and you] would prefer a life in the wild, than life as a factory farmed animal. — chatterbears
1. Live a longer life in a protected habitat free from predators, which is large enough to live in comfortably, has food provided, where you are handled by compassionate keepers, live happily, but must one day be humanely slaughtered. — VagabondSpectre
Can you be more inaccurate? The percentage of factory farms that hold to these standards, are probably less than 1%. You know very well I was referring to the overwhelming majority of 99%, in which factory farms operate. Until factory farms operate in this so-called utopia of living comfortably and being handled by compassionate keepers, buying meat is contributing to the torture of these animals. So you want to talk about false dichotomies, you're portrayal of the current reality is way far off compared to mine. — chatterbears
I've stated that factory farming standards are immoral in one my earliest posts in this thread... — VagabondSpectre
But just to clarify, if I ethically raise chickens and goats in my animal utopia where they are handled with compassion, would you object to me consuming them? Unless I consume or sell these animals (which have not been tortured at all or suffered unnecessarily) the whole operation will have to cease. Do you argue that I would be morally obligated to do so? — VagabondSpectre
It is not considered part of the plant. That is why it is called a fruit, as it does no harm to the plant if picked properly. It is not advisable for teenagers and younger children to have strictly adhere to a fruit diet, but it is definitely doable and sustainable for everyone else. Fruits contain enough sugar and fats to survive. Why would I need to plant all of them? All I need to do is ensure the survival of some of the seeds and the plants lineage is unharmed. Not all plants are guaranteed reproduction now and every seed doesn't need to germinate. Just as not every human gamete is protected or guaranteed reproductive success. — yatagarasu
None of them are okay to kill for food. They have a right to live. Accidents are accidents. (see deer example), that is not intentional killing, which is the moral dilemma here. By sessile I assume you mean like sponges and coral? If that is the case then I would say they fit into the same category as other animals. If it lives, you shouldn't kill it to eat it, unless it is unavoidable (see bacterium/fungi). — yatagarasu
In the animal utopia farm, there's no decision any animal could make that would allow them to live longer. They would all die whenever they become useless to the person exploiting them for food. Such as, a hen that can not longer lay eggs. That hen becomes useless, so off she goes to get her throat slit. — chatterbears
Point by point rebuttal of your article. — NKBJ
Do you still eat meat? If so, then saying something is immoral is irrelevant if you are going to continue contributing to the industry that you claim is immoral. Talk is cheap. — chatterbears
Your animal utopia scenario would be vastly better by an inconceivable margin. But the treatment of these animals is only one piece of the puzzle. They would still lose the right to life. It's the concept of being killed for exploitation, which is immoral. I'd assume if you had the choice to live in an animal utopia, where you're guaranteed to die at the hand of another, depending on when your owner feels hungry and ready to kill you, or the choice to live how you do now, which would you choose? In your current life, you can make decisions that will allow you to live longer, or maybe live shorter. In the animal utopia farm, there's no decision any animal could make that would allow them to live longer. They would all die whenever they become useless to the person exploiting them for food. Such as, a hen that can not longer lay eggs. That hen becomes useless, so off she goes to get her throat slit. — chatterbears
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.