Meat eater, vegetarian or vegan?

I'm a vegetarian and have been for 16 years now, although 3 years ago, I went back to eating fish.

A meat free diet is right for me, but I've never been a Veggie who tells everyone else that they also should be.

akamaisondufromage wrote: I eat meat. I eat good quality meat and free range stuff if I can. We pay far too little for our meat and put animals through disgusting lives to do that. If I want to eat meat I should pay for it.

I agree with you although some would argue that causing prices to go up would hurt lower income people....sort of making meat a luxury for the well off....more than it already is. 

Same with veggies....the prices are artificially low because of the very low wages paid to farm workers. 

If we insist on more environmental standard for meat and veggies, have more regulation of labor, min wages, etc, you and I are willing to pay more the good things this brings about.  But do we price poor people out of quality food choices? 

Dean wrote: The Pessimist wrote: I think we're just arguing semantics here, which never really resolves so let's move on... I'll change the option to omnivorous due to the fact that it may upset some people. rest assured though, the term was not meant to segregate anyone in any way. Claiming "arguing semantics" is not an intellectual "get out of jail free" card. If I say I dislike the term "meat eater" it is because it is inaccurate and incorrect, not because the semantic meaning is ambiguous or is a matter of interpretation. Even though we are discussing the meaning of a phrase, it is not an argument of semantics. The Pessimist wrote: Why exactly is the post nutty? Morality does combat natural behaviour. I'm open to arguments that counter that assumption however. Because your list of "crimes" are not equivalent, nor are they natural urges as you say they are - I have no natural urge to indulge in sexism, racism, homophobia, cannibalism, theft, murder or rape. You are creating a strawman argument. The Pessimist wrote: I'm not saying that anyone who eats meat is immoral at all. I do think it's the more moral option, which is why I have made that decision, but that does not mean that not being vegetarian would make a person immoral. Morality is big web of decision making that is so complicated I wouldn't agreeing with labeling any one person entirely immoral, but I would say that supporting the meat industry is an immoral act as it is killing innocent creatures that don't need to be killed. I can understand doing that if you have to eat meat because of a certain condition (I know a sax player like this), but most of us just eat meat because we like it. Is the systematic breeding and slaughter of a chicken really worth a nice taste? I personally don't think so. Some people think it is, and while I would disagree, I didn't make this poll to berate folks that eat meat, more for healthy debate on the issue.   Unfortunately you are being judgemental, (not a criticism, just an observation) because you are claiming a moral superiority (the more moral option). By claiming it is more moral you are saying that eating meat is less moral by default. You are making an emotional argument and claiming it is a moral one. There is nothing wrong with not eating meat for emotional reasons, but that is not morality, practically every decision we make is an emotional one - like and dislike, love and hate - even after we've weighed up the logical and empirical pros and cons the ultimate decision will be a choice based upon emotion - and that's what makes us human, but that is not morality even if it feels like it should be. Yes, intensive "farming" is bad - whether it is immoral is another question - it is not farming it is an industrial process and it should be stopped. We as consumers have the power to change it, and yes, boycotting meat is a way of doing that, so is only buying from ethical sources. The Pessimist wrote: Yes, most food groups we could probably do away with. But only the food groups under meat and fish require the slaughter of a sentient being, which is why I choose to leave them out of my diet. There is a diet that does not involve the killing any living thing, sentient or not, this excludes the eating of any plant matter that is still connected to a living plant at the time of harvest such as fruit, tubers and leaves - this is a philosophical choice so those who practice this are called Fruitarian (as opposed to Frugivore). By extension there is also a diet that extends this to carrion. When making a philosophical choice you have made a philosophical decision on what constitutes sentience since you have chosen between vegetarianism and vegan-ism.  The Pessimist wrote:  I don't really see why this is a problem.   It is not a problem. I never said it was a problem. You are making it into a problem all by yourself. I have not condemned anyone for being a vegetarian nor defended anyone who eats meat, I have proffered no judgemental or emotional opinions, merely stated the biological case. All I have stated is that omnivore is natural, vegetarianism is man-made. I have not claimed that either are unhealthy diets or that either are healthy diets - diets are only healthy when they are balanced and consumed in moderation. You are claiming the moral argument and I simply refute that it is about morality.

Okay fair enough, I guess I don't see anything wrong with the term.

How exactly is it a strawman argument? You only need to look towards some of the more primitive human civilisations and most animal civilisations to see that rape and murder as natural urges. Just because you, and most people in the West, don't have that urge, does not mean it isn't a natural one. We don't have that urge because we live in first world countries with far developed moral structures and at an educated guess I'd say that you were brought up to understand that rape and murder are heinous. This is no argument against these things being natural urges though because we've conditioned ourselves against our own nature through thought. I can give you a list as long as my arm of points in history and current groups of people that see rape as an okay thing. Why would these exist in such mass numbers if it isn't part of the natural human psyche?

I wasn't aware of a dichotomy between emotion and morality. Morals stem from thought do they not? And aren't emotions just thoughts really? I'm not seeing any real proof in your post that emotion and morality can't be of the same. That's not to say you don't have proof, which I'm sure you do. And I am being judgmental, but not in a way that I intend to be confrontational.

And yes I am making a judgement on what is okay to kill and what is not, but only as a transitional process. If I were to go vegan straight away I would most likely become ill (this happened to a friend of mine). I intend to turn vegan in the future. Regarding Fruitarianism... I'm well aware of it. However the problem I have with killing animals is that you are killing a conscious being. A potato is not conscious.

As I've said before, vegetarianism is manmade, you are not wrong, but most (I would say all but I haven't researched it enough to back that claim) of the human moral fiber is manmade.

The Pessimist wrote: As I've said before, vegetarianism is manmade, you are not wrong, but most (I would say all but I haven't researched it enough to back that claim) of the human moral fiber is manmade.

Dean wrote: The Pessimist wrote: As I've said before, vegetarianism is manmade, you are not wrong, but most (I would say all but I haven't researched it enough to back that claim) of the human moral fiber is manmade. Not wishing to ignore the rest of your post but at the same time not wishing to get into a pointless philosophical argument, I disagree with this conclusion. I believe that moral fibre (as you call it) is an inherent trait of humanity, morality and ethics is the formalisation of those traits into a philosophy - we didn't learn these from books, the books were written to explain our natural behavioural tendencies. I believe we were moral before we invented moral codes, we adopt them because we have a natural inclination towards them. The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance, the concept of the barbarian was an artificial construct of imperialism, conquest and religious doctrine. Of course I could be wrong, I may just have a higher opinion (and expectation) of humanity, but then I am a humanitarian so that is to be expected.

It's cool, my argument isn't that deep and the portion of it that you answered pretty much sums it all up anyway

I'm a firm believer that morality derives from intellect, and human intellect (which works on several levels may I add) is something that has been crafted since the dawn of our species, leading to where we are today. We haven't always been this intelligent, that is a given. We weren't always this moral either. There isn't much evidence of Neolithic society, but I can hazard a guess that their moral system was rather... well, Neolithic. Primitive. Rape, murder and theft were probably only just about seen as heinous, so I can't imagine we were contemplating deeper notions of morality, like equality. Our morality has evolved, and we've recorded it in books. Still, this could quite easily be argued to be fighting the natural order. I certainly think so. Then again, as you've stated, it could not be. But let me elaborate my point further with examples:

I consider religion to be a naturally occurring phenomena, as it is one of the few philosophical constants that envelopes all societies everywhere. Often as part of religion (discounting Westernised modern equivalents), sexism is there. In fact, I can't think of a single religion that doesn't have a patriarchy. I would consider this evidence of sexism being a very natural thing in the human race. The whole Alpha Male thing is still very prominent in our race still as well, although I think I'm probably pushing at an open door with you on that one.

Let's also take the Maori tribe. A dying race of folk now, but they currently and always have engaged in cannibalism. This is not the only example of this. In fact there are thousands of examples. Western countries also have a history of cannibalism. There is cannibalism in the natural world. The reason it is now a consensus that this act is immoral is because of contemplation and philosophical reasoning. Once again, I would argue that this would be fighting nature.

I could continue with tribalism and racism being a natural occurrence, but I figure this one explains itself.

And thus from these examples I can deduce that morality as we know it counters nature. As you've said though, I could be wrong and am welcome to an argument that will sway me. I have faith in humanity too, but I feel there are many things we need to work on still. We've come a long way, but the fight for a good moral structure is well and truly still on.

Regarding this:

"The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance..."

I would say that the very idea of calling a culture uncivilised derives from its level of morality. Call me old fashioned, but morality for me has most to do with living alongside other living creatures. It may be an arrogant view, but once again I'm open to argument.

akamaisondufromage wrote:   Agree with every word of this. I would add that retailers should stop the BOGOF and similar offers on meat or veg that will go off and get wasted. Just put the price down if you want to put stuff on offer. Also eat less meat (you do say smaller portions though) but a meal doesn't have to include meat every time. Variety is the spice... Then we can save money eat better and stop animals being treated like sh*t.

The Pessimist wrote: Dean wrote: The Pessimist wrote: As I've said before, vegetarianism is manmade, you are not wrong, but most (I would say all but I haven't researched it enough to back that claim) of the human moral fiber is manmade. Not wishing to ignore the rest of your post but at the same time not wishing to get into a pointless philosophical argument, I disagree with this conclusion. I believe that moral fibre (as you call it) is an inherent trait of humanity, morality and ethics is the formalisation of those traits into a philosophy - we didn't learn these from books, the books were written to explain our natural behavioural tendencies. I believe we were moral before we invented moral codes, we adopt them because we have a natural inclination towards them. The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance, the concept of the barbarian was an artificial construct of imperialism, conquest and religious doctrine. Of course I could be wrong, I may just have a higher opinion (and expectation) of humanity, but then I am a humanitarian so that is to be expected. It's cool, my argument isn't that deep and the portion of it that you answered pretty much sums it all up anyway I'm a firm believer that morality derives from intellect, and human intellect (which works on several levels may I add) is something that has been crafted since the dawn of our species, leading to where we are today. We haven't always been this intelligent, that is a given. We weren't always this moral either. There isn't much evidence of Neolithic society, but I can hazard a guess that their moral system was rather... well, Neolithic. Primitive. Rape, murder and theft were probably only just about seen as heinous, so I can't imagine we were contemplating deeper notions of morality, like equality. Our morality has evolved, and we've recorded it in books. Still, this could quite easily be argued to be fighting the natural order. I certainly think so. Then again, as you've stated, it could not be. But let me elaborate my point further with examples: I consider religion to be a naturally occurring phenomena, as it is one of the few philosophical constants that envelopes all societies everywhere. Often as part of religion (discounting Westernised modern equivalents), sexism is there. In fact, I can't think of a single religion that doesn't have a patriarchy. I would consider this evidence of sexism being a very natural thing in the human race. The whole Alpha Male thing is still very prominent in our race still as well, although I think I'm probably pushing at an open door with you on that one. Let's also take the Maori tribe. A dying race of folk now, but they currently and always have engaged in cannibalism. This is not the only example of this. In fact there are thousands of examples. Western countries also have a history of cannibalism. There is cannibalism in the natural world. The reason it is now a consensus that this act is immoral is because of contemplation and philosophical reasoning. Once again, I would argue that this would be fighting nature. I could continue with tribalism and racism being a natural occurrence, but I figure this one explains itself. And thus from these examples I can deduce that morality as we know it counters nature. As you've said though, I could be wrong and am welcome to an argument that will sway me. I have faith in humanity too, but I feel there are many things we need to work on still. We've come a long way, but the fight for a good moral structure is well and truly still on. Regarding this: "The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance..." I would say that the very idea of calling a culture uncivilised derives from its level of morality. Call me old fashioned, but morality for me has most to do with living alongside other living creatures. It may be an arrogant view, but once again I'm open to argument.

Apologies for going off topic a tad but I can't believe this post: in summation - anything that changes human standards about morality over time (including evolution) is by definition 'unnatural' because what was hitherto deemed morally acceptable has now changed in the interim.
You state "We haven't always been this intelligent" You are kidding right?

Dean I agree with every letter of what you wrote below....my folks were Depression era kids and my grandparents taught them the kind of values you discuss....using everything....modest eating....things I employ as well in my life.   And not just food.  Our old clothes become our rags for garage and cleaning, lawn clippings get mulched, not bagged and driven away somewhere, things around the house are donated if still useful to someone.  Although I still think food producers would use any mandatory regulation of their world as a reason to jack up the prices....whether they really need to or not.  In the same way you admit they exploit those who will buy ethical food choices.  Maybe the spike would be only temporary though until all producers were acting more reasonably across the board, then prices would drop again? 

Edited by Finnforest - January 12 2014 at 08:25

The Pessimist wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: The Pessimist wrote: Dean wrote: The Pessimist wrote: As I've said before, vegetarianism is manmade, you are not wrong, but most (I would say all but I haven't researched it enough to back that claim) of the human moral fiber is manmade. Not wishing to ignore the rest of your post but at the same time not wishing to get into a pointless philosophical argument, I disagree with this conclusion. I believe that moral fibre (as you call it) is an inherent trait of humanity, morality and ethics is the formalisation of those traits into a philosophy - we didn't learn these from books, the books were written to explain our natural behavioural tendencies. I believe we were moral before we invented moral codes, we adopt them because we have a natural inclination towards them. The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance, the concept of the barbarian was an artificial construct of imperialism, conquest and religious doctrine. Of course I could be wrong, I may just have a higher opinion (and expectation) of humanity, but then I am a humanitarian so that is to be expected. It's cool, my argument isn't that deep and the portion of it that you answered pretty much sums it all up anyway I'm a firm believer that morality derives from intellect, and human intellect (which works on several levels may I add) is something that has been crafted since the dawn of our species, leading to where we are today. We haven't always been this intelligent, that is a given. We weren't always this moral either. There isn't much evidence of Neolithic society, but I can hazard a guess that their moral system was rather... well, Neolithic. Primitive. Rape, murder and theft were probably only just about seen as heinous, so I can't imagine we were contemplating deeper notions of morality, like equality. Our morality has evolved, and we've recorded it in books. Still, this could quite easily be argued to be fighting the natural order. I certainly think so. Then again, as you've stated, it could not be. But let me elaborate my point further with examples: I consider religion to be a naturally occurring phenomena, as it is one of the few philosophical constants that envelopes all societies everywhere. Often as part of religion (discounting Westernised modern equivalents), sexism is there. In fact, I can't think of a single religion that doesn't have a patriarchy. I would consider this evidence of sexism being a very natural thing in the human race. The whole Alpha Male thing is still very prominent in our race still as well, although I think I'm probably pushing at an open door with you on that one. Let's also take the Maori tribe. A dying race of folk now, but they currently and always have engaged in cannibalism. This is not the only example of this. In fact there are thousands of examples. Western countries also have a history of cannibalism. There is cannibalism in the natural world. The reason it is now a consensus that this act is immoral is because of contemplation and philosophical reasoning. Once again, I would argue that this would be fighting nature. I could continue with tribalism and racism being a natural occurrence, but I figure this one explains itself. And thus from these examples I can deduce that morality as we know it counters nature. As you've said though, I could be wrong and am welcome to an argument that will sway me. I have faith in humanity too, but I feel there are many things we need to work on still. We've come a long way, but the fight for a good moral structure is well and truly still on. Regarding this: "The idea that civilised cultures are morally superior to uncivilised cultures is an arrogance..." I would say that the very idea of calling a culture uncivilised derives from its level of morality. Call me old fashioned, but morality for me has most to do with living alongside other living creatures. It may be an arrogant view, but once again I'm open to argument. Apologies for going off topic a tad but I can't believe this post: in summation - anything that changes human standards about morality over time (including evolution) is by definition 'unnatural' because what was hitherto deemed morally acceptable has now changed in the interim. You state "We haven't always been this intelligent" You are kidding right? I didn't say it's unnatural, I'm saying that morality serves as a dialectical to nature. There is a massive difference. Everything we do can essentially be called "natural" because... Well, it's happened, but every moral you can think of was once unquestioned, with a few exceptions. And no, I'm not. There's evidence that's humans were once rather primitive beings, and thus not as intelligent. Intelligence is a constantly evolving thing. As individuals we become more intelligent through learning. You highlight the statement "We weren't always this intelligent" as though it's ridiculous, but could you explain why?

I'm not sure I really should have to explain to such an evolved species as yourself BUT I merely quoted you stating such:

Still, this could quite easily be argued to be fighting the natural order. I certainly think so

I would consider this evidence of sexism being a very natural thing in the human race

There is cannibalism in the natural world. The reason it is now a consensus that this act is immoral is because of contemplation and philosophical reasoning. Once again, I would argue that this would be fighting nature.

I could continue with tribalism and racism being a natural occurrence, but I figure this one explains itself.

Do you want me to stop?

Sorry if I'm skirting off topic a bit here but I can't resist sharing this...Below Dean mentioned proper usage of chickens and spoke about our grandparents generation....well, it brought this photo instantly to mind.

This is a neighbor lady from back in my Grandparents old neighborhood.  She preparing the evening meal and I'm guessing that not an ounce of that bird will be going to waste!   Also, this photo was taken in the middle of a large city.....this is not out on the farm.  year is 1943



Edited by Finnforest - January 12 2014 at 09:22