Nobody Should Be Allowed to Tell You Whether or Not to 'Go Veg'
What you choose to eat (or not to eat) is up to you. Adults should be free to decide how they live their lives, what they eat and drink, and how they enjoy themselves.
Statistics show, however, that the vast majority of Americans do wish to eat meat.
According to the most recent Vegetarian Resource Group poll (2006), only 2.3 percent of adults surveyed said they never eat meat, poultry, or seafood.
Being a vegetarian is a fine choice. So is being a Libertarian or a Unitarian. The rest of us don’t interfere with their choices. Why should this small minority interfere with ours?
History’s most revered intellectual minds, from the Ancient Greeks to the Founding Fathers, held individual liberty to be of utmost importance in a democratic society. Allowing people to be free to make their own lifestyle choices is an essential part of preserving that ideal.
No matter what you prefer to call it—individual freedom, consumers’ rights, or just plain common decency—this is a simple concept. We respect your personal choices, and we expect the same in return.
The only freedom
which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.
— John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859
1776
July 4. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
— U.S. Declaration of Independence
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
No one should have control over what you eat and don't eat. if I wanted to eat a ball of wax, I would not expect anyone to contradict me. Quite frankly, I don't care either way if it's healthy or not. Alot of things without meat aren't either. It's my right to decide what gets put into my stomach! I have been a fan of the Center for Consumer Freedom for a long time, and was excited to see that they had a profile on here. It's good that someone out there is watching out for the consumer, the little guy, who just wants the right to have his cake and eat it too (literally) whithout any radical organization, or movement within the left-wing bowels of the government trying to stop you.
It's not "free choice" until vegan options are readily available EVERYWHERE. Until someone can choose veganism as easily as they can "choose" meat, "choosing" meat isn't a truly free choice.
If the Center for Consumer Freedom truly represented the consumer, they'd make sure we all had a truly free choice. They'd promote vegan options at all restaurants so that everyone could make a truly free choice and CHOOSE VEGAN if they wanted.
But that's not what the CCF is about. They don't want everyone to have a free choice to choose to eat animals or to choose to go vegan. They only want people to make one choice: the one that lines their pockets, the "choice" to eat meat.
Very few people who eat meat have made a choice to eat meat. Most have never not eaten meat. Most have never had a wide range of vegan options at restaurants or grocery stores. Most have never been truly exposed to the vegan lifestyle.
Eating meat isn't a free choice when...
...it's the only option available in most restaurants, schools, hospitals, etc.
...it's the status-quo
...people don't have full knowledge about all their choices
When vegan food is as readily available as nonvegan food THEN it will be a free choice. Until then, meat-eaters are merely "sheeple" just doing what they're told, doing what's expected. They haven't made a free choice at all.
If you are a meat-eater and want to say you've made a free choice to eat animals, go vegan for at least 30 days. TRULY explore your other options to make sure you're really making a free choice.
The CF claim that “Nobody Should Be Allowed to Tell You Whether or Not to 'Go Veg'” is more a statement against free speech than an argument against vegetarianism.
Taken literally, the statement means I shouldn't have the right to voice my opinion on this website.
Make no doubt about it, the Center for Consumer Freedom does not advocate actual freedom. Rather, they seek to silence any and all criticism of the businesses they represent: the restaurant, alcohol and tobacco industries.
They have the most at stake.
Furtherjmore, the real question is not "Who can tell me what to eat?" The question is "Is it right to kill for pleasure, or out of habit?" The answer is no.
All the other arguments against legislated vegetarianism seem minimal in comparison to this one.
It seems likely that the only way to achieve a vegetarian society would be through the use of coercion and violence. Since I support human rights (such as the right to put whatever into, on, or through one's own body), I could never condone such totalitarian laws, and think they ought be repugnant to anyone who has an interest in living free. In my estimation, anyone who would support laws telling me what I can eat, smoke, drink, or otherwise put into my body...seems like a person against the very idea of liberty and freedom.
While legislating diet may sound appealing to some, it would be the type of social policy worthy of Stalin or Mao.
You wrote: "It seems likely that the only way to achieve a vegetarian society would be through the use of coercion and violence."
a) That's not the issue. The question isn't "How best to create a vegan society?" nor is the question "Should meat be banned?" The question is "Should we eat meat?"
For animals, for our health, for the environment, for other humans the answer is clear: NO, we should not eat meat.
b) You're just plain wrong that coercion and violence are the only ways to make a vegan society. There are many routes to the same goal. You've identified one route and focus on it as though it's the only route. You ignore the range of other possibilities, such as vegan education.
First of all, this is not a "legislating diet" issue, but a moral issue regarding human relationship with other animals. The dietary aspect of it, it's, although very important, just one among others.
I am a Vegan, and I don't support coercion or violence. I strongly believe in education, critical thinking, debating, and helping people see things from another perspective in a non-violent way.
But this doesn't meant that "everything goes". I believe that exploiting other animals is immoral, therefore I work everyday to accomplish a state of affairs (i.e. a majority of the population going Vegan) that will mean their emancipation. I hope to be a part of a movement that will accomplish this without the need of a "violent revolution" or an "imposition" of any kind.
To your argument.
This is NOT a matter of "personal choice" or "liberty". A person who likes to rape women DOES NOT have a right to rape them. He has NOT the right to do whatever he wants to.
Is this a totalitarian law? A violation of liberties?
In my view, it isn't, simply because the rapist's actions are in conflict with the liberties and interests of someone else. That's where liberties have a limit.
You don't seem to recognize other animals as "someone", although everything points into that direction. They are sentient beings, with wants, preferences, likes and dislikes, interests, just as human animals.
They have all that's needed to take them in consideration when we talk about morals.
Violating their interests because you like the taste of their flesh or bodily secretions is NOT a morally relevant justification, because if pleasure is, in fact, enough reason to justify some action, then rape wouldn't be considered immoral at all.
In this light, the argument that "Nobody Should Be Allowed to Tell You Whether or Not to 'Go Veg'" doesn't represent a meaningful argument in favor of enslaving, exploiting and killing other animals.
Regards.
Are lions wrong to kill the antelope? Are chimpanzees violating the "rights" of termites? Are bears violating the rights of humans when they maul them?
If your answer (the only logical one) is "no," then it begs the question, "why is it only wrong when humans do it."
If your response to that amounts to "because we know better," then I would really have to question your view of life. Some things eat energy. Other things eat other things. We are one of those things that eats other things. Period. Setting ourselves apart is the height of hubris.
Attempting to force everyone on the planet to go along with one's own set of values...whether those values are Christian, Muslim, Wiccan, or whatever religious/social culture you want to pick...seems like a good way of creating a totalitarian society
It amounts to "my culture is better than yours, and I know better, so I'm going to force my culture down your throat."
We already have WAY TOO MUCH of that kind of activity happening. They already legislate which drugs are legal and which are not. Taking the next step to tell us which foods are legal and which are not...scares the heck out of me. What would be next? Telling me WHEN I can eat and WHEN I cannot? Telling me I have to drink the flouridated water, and banning any system of filtering it out of my water?
If you support banning meat eating at the government level, you support totalitarianism, simple and plain. You support "my culture is better than yours." You support "my belief system is superior or more accurate than yours." You support, "I know best and have the right to tell you how to live."
Comparing to murder is a very clever red herring, but does not measure up...it's just a red herring...and I'm not biting.
My argument is not in favor of anything. It is specifically AGAINST telling people how to live their own lives, and specifically AGAINST legislating morality.
ebsarver,
Animal rights avocates believe that eating meat is a trival interest for humans. We lived in a world were food is plentiful and we are able to choose what we eat. So, when we choose to eat plants or meat that is choice is trivial. I think you agree with that assessment.
Loins are not omnivores, they are carnivores and really have a non-trivial interest in eating animals . If they don't eat animals, they will die. Therefore it is morally excusable for loins to eat other animals. They have an interest in their continue existence and really have no choice.
Simliarly arguements could be made for omnivores in the wild. They eat what they can find. For them eating is a matter of survival and often are not given a choice of food. We live a very different world from theirs, most of us don't even have to kill or harvest any of our food. We can get what we need from plants to survive, so the question really is why should we eat animals?
"We can get what we need from plants to survive, so the question really is why should we eat animals ?"
This is the only question of yours I think I have not already addressed elsewhere in my comments.
For the answer, you ought to read the book "The Paleo Diet" by Dr. Loren Cordain. The reason to eat meat is that it is healthy, useful, and a natural part of the human diet . Humans are quite literally built to be omnivores, and there is no substitute for meat eating.
Actually if you are saying that its not healthy to be vegetarian /vegan than you are going against much modern research. The American Dietetic Association say that "It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life-cycle including pregnancy , lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence and for athletes."
http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl /media_22003_ENU_HTML.htm
And if you prefer individual authors than I would suggest reading the China Study and Eat to Live. I however prefer the large scietific organizations.
Furthermore if you are arguing that because humans evolved the capacity to eat meat than you run into a few other problems. For example by that logic we should all be tribalistic warmongers, have slaves and hold women as second class citizens, all of which is the historical perspective and has changed only in the last few thousand or few hundred years. I would say those activities are immoral in spite of them being "natural". Would you agree?
"Actually if you are saying that its not healthy to be vegetarian /vegan than you are going against much modern research."
I am saying it is not as healthy as being omnivorous. I base that on volumes of research. Of course, there is plenty out there to say just the opposite, such as claims that the American " food pyramid" represents our best choice...clearly a total lie for anyone who does any reading into anthropology and the science of diet . Just the same, there are volumes of "scientific" data to show just about any diet is good. I find there to be gaping holes in most of them.
Regarding omnivorous diets (more specifically Paleolithic diets), here is one excellent starting point with thousands of external references for you to peruse:
http://www.beyondveg.com /
I am NOT saying that to be vegetarian is to be unhealthy, though I do find that this tends to be the case more often than not. My experience is that most vegetarians eat horribly inadequate diets. Sure, a balanced one is possible as a vegetarian, but difficult, and most vegans simply don't know the facts and therefore don't get nearly enough protein. They eat a ton of soy and think that will do it, when it is actually woefully inadequate.
I disagree with the American Dietetic Association's findings, and think the findings from my source are better and more accurate, but of course, that will be at least in part a matter of opinion. A simple set of facts convinces me of this...including personal experience and evidence presented in Loren Cordain's books, as well as on the site I posted the link for above.
"Furthermore if you are arguing that because humans evolved the capacity to eat meat than you run into a few other problems. For example by that logic we should all be tribalistic warmongers, have slaves and hold women as second class citizens, all of which is the historical perspective and has changed only in the last few thousand or few hundred years. I would say those activities are immoral in spite of them being "natural". Would you agree?"
I would agree that this argument makes no logical sense. It is what debaters would call a Red Herring. You've introduced a separate (and historically inaccurate picture of Paleolithic history) topic unrelated to the eating of meat in an attempt to divert attention away from the topic at hand. Thus, I won't address this issue.
I will say, however, that I am not attempting to say that "natural = moral." This would also be a logical fallacy.
On the contrary, I would say that morality is up to the individual, and is a wholly human-created idea...not related to the physical world whatsoever, or to the natural order. I would say that if we strip the question of morality out of it, we would see that eating meat is natural for humans. Thus, I would say that regardless of one person's morality versus another person's morality, we ought never legislate against this. But then, this fits with my sense of morality, not everyone's. My sense of morality and liberty are quite different than the majority, and clearly diametrically opposed to the notions of those who would legislate against meat eating. In essence, most of my arguments boil down to this:
DON'T TREAD ON ME.
I'm a hardcore anti- government , anti-legislation, pro-liberty of the individual type of man. Those are my beliefs, and just like your beliefs, they have consequences. I prefer my consequences to others', and my beliefs to others', and would never attempt to prevent you from exercising your beliefs or your choices in life. I would hope that you would do the same for me...and everyone else.
"I would agree that this argument makes no logical sense. It is what debaters would call a Red Herring. You've introduced a separate (and historically inaccurate picture of Paleolithic history) topic unrelated to the eating of meat in an attempt to divert attention away from the topic at hand. Thus, I won't address this issue."
This is just pointing out the problems with basing morality on what is "natural". If that is your view than you would have to accept the other things as moral because they have also been happening for a long time and are "natural". It is not a red herring. I am just pointing out the logical implications of this view. However since you are "not attempting to say that "natural = moral." then I guess this rebuttal doesn't apply to your view.
"On the contrary, I would say that morality is up to the individual, and is a wholly human-created idea...not related to the physical world whatsoever, or to the natural order."
I am assuming however that we both agree on using logic and having logically consistent morals. As such I would argue that if we assume its generall wrong to kill torture and enslave people than, except for a morally relevant difference between the two groups, it would also be wrong to kill, torture and enslave animals . Assuming you accept that its wrong to treat people that way and that we should use logic in our moral reasoning than I suppose you think there's a morally relevant difference between people and animals. What is it?
Fred,
I refer you back to an earlier post I made in response to another vegetarian , entitled "more red herrings."
Yes, your previous comment qualifies as a Red Herring. Why? Because it throws attention away from the topic at hand. Secondarily, it sets up another logical fallacy, known as the False Dilemma. You set up the notion that "if one is for X, and X is a subset of Y, then one must be for all things Y." This is plainly false. But I've gotten used to such tactics in this particular discussion. Another poster here replied with one logical fallacy after another until I tired of her and quit the discussion. She kept putting words into my mouth that I never wrote. It gets old.
Anyhow, my reply to her included a number of links to other sources of information.
I will further say that I'm an animist, and hold the belief that all things contain spiritual energy . As such, I must consume spirits to live, no matter what I do. That's just life. All living things must do it. Also as such, I place no higher value on the spirit of a human than of a tree, a cow, or a stone. The consequence of such a belief is that one must choose which spirits to consume in order to live. I choose to live in accordance with nature and consume what my body is designed to consume, rather than to concoct some excuse to place animals higher than plants in the order of nature. I say they aren't.
From my perspective, it is the animal rights folks who are the moral relativists here. After all, it is the animal rights people, not ME who place animals as "superior" to plants, fungi and other living things on the tree of life. I say they are all equal. It is you animal rights folks who choose to make animals "more" or "better" than a whole host of other living beings, not me.
"Yes, your previous comment qualifies as a Red Herring. Why? Because it throws attention away from the topic at hand."
I was pointing out some counterintuitive implications of the "natural=right" view. If, as it appeared to be, you were using that argument than pointing out its weaknesses is not off topic and not a Red Herring.
"Secondarily, it sets up another logical fallacy, known as the False Dilemma. You set up the notion that "if one is for X, and X is a subset of Y, then one must be for all things Y." This is plainly false."
Actually I was saying that if you think its wrong to kill and eat X and Y has every relevant quality of X then if you wish to be consistent in your reasoning than it should also be wrong to kill and eat Y. If there is no relevant difference between Y and X then they should get similar treatment. Wheres the false dilemma?
'From my perspective, it is the animal rights folks who are the moral relativists here. After all, it is the animal rights people, not ME who place animals as "superior" to plants, fungi and other living things on the tree of life. I say they are all equal. It is you animal rights folks who choose to make animals "more" or "better" than a whole host of other living beings, not me."
In a nutshell I'd place animals as higher because they are self aware and can experience pain and other sensations. In short they are conscious while plants are not.
"All living things must do it. Also as such, I place no higher value on the spirit of a human than of a tree, a cow, or a stone."
A few questions about this. First, I don't see how this would support your previously stated view that its wrong to kill people. Could you explain? Also by this standard is it preferable to not kill and damage things? Do they have any inherent value? Last of all it seems to me that this viewpoint would permit literally any action as moral. Is this the case?
Jordon,
sorry...I'd been talking to Fred. That reply was meant for your post, obviously, and I just assumed I was still talking to the same person I'd been chatting with this last two days.
ebsarver:
First, I remind you that you are probably a moral absolutist. Most people are moral absolutists. When someone tries to defend rape or child exploitation as a morally permissible practice, most people believe that rape or child exploitation is always wrong, absolutely, and without exception – they are “absolutists” about it. Vegans carry that same moral conviction to the exploitation and killing of animals. We think that violence against the sentient and innocent is wrong, absolutely, and without exception. We are consistent in our beliefs. We don’t make arbitrary and elitist distinctions like the human-nonhuman distinction.
Second, I remind you that this is NOT about legislating anything. It is not about politics (notice: it is in the “society” section, not the “politics” section). I agree with you that we cannot and should not try to legislate veganism at this time in history. It would be absurd to try. The argument being made is that we are not morally justified in exploiting and killing innocent animals for food (or for any other reason), and it is an argument that you seem desperate to avoid addressing by repeatedly bring up the “legislation” issue that is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t blame you for your evasiveness, because there is no plausible moral argument supporting the violence, exploitation, and killing inflicted on innocent non-human animals.
This is not about prohibiting people from doing something, or banning "meat eating". This is about protecting someone's interests and rights, in this case, other animals.
Rape analogy it's not a red herring. Saying that rape is immoral it's not about prohibiting people doing something, but protecting people from the harm that others may cause them by raping them.
It really is that simple.
http://www.vegansoapbox.com/stupid-things-omnivores-say-they-would-eat-us /
Even if animals don’t use or understand ethics that doesn’t absolve humans from ethical obligations. Our ethical obligations arise from our capacity to reason and to behave ethically, not from another’s lack of capacity. Our responsibility to do the right thing comes from our ability to do the right thing (and our capacity to do the wrong thing), not from someone else’s abilities. For example, adults have a responsibility to refrain from harming children because adults have that ability, not because children have the same abilities.
The more power you have, the more responsibility you have to behave ethically.
We already discussed this in this very debate, so I'll copy/paste something I wrote already.
I think that getting our morals from the behavior of others, especially when they are from other species, it's simply absurd. Human morality comes from critical thinking, not from other animals' behavior.
I don't know whether other animals have morals. I certainly know I do.
I don't know whether other animals (especially carnivores) can survive without killing or otherwise exploiting other animals. I certainly know I can.
This is enough to make our own decisions, and form our ethics, regardless of the actions of other animals. That's why we can say that rape and murder is immoral, even when other animals actually rape and murder other animals.
Yes, other animals kill other animals to eat. Yes, other animals rape females. Yes, other animals kill female's offspring in order to reproduce with them. Yes, other animals fight and even kill each other for territory or to get the females.
Why is it only wrong when humans do it? "Why can't we rape women? Lions do it! Why can't we!!??"
Because taking your morality from the behavior of other animals it's just NOT REASONABLE.
Yes, we must kill to survive. But I bet that humans are not in that equation for you. I bet that you don't think that cannibalism it's ok because, "hey, we have to eat something!"
And I'm pretty sure that your argument "AGAINST telling people how to live their own lives" doesn't include human murderers or rapists. I don't believe you think "we can't tell rapists how to live their lives". Why? As explained in my former response, it is because our liberties have a limit. And that limit is someone else's liberty.
You've already said that you are in favor of "human rights". This is why I find rather odd your statement that you're "specifically AGAINST legislating morality", since human rights are just that. Morality being legislated. Humans have rights that protect them from other humans violating their interests; in other words, we tell people how to live their own lives, indeed, in order to protect HUMAN RIGHTS.
So the question seems obvious, again and again. Since other sentient animals share the same basic interests, why do we only protect humans?
You already wrote that "Setting ourselves apart is the height of hubris."
So, why?
Apart from that... do you think it is ok to impose unnecessary pain, suffering and death on other animals? To do so just because we want to or derive pleasure of it? Do you think that a human torturing a dog because he likes to do it, isn't doing anything reprehensible?
And please, don't keep bringing the "imposition" issue. We're grown up humans, in a DEBATE website, sharing and debating our views and arguments. Nobody's trying to "force [one's] culture down your throat".
That seems to be just a lack of argument.
I have read the counter-arguments, and will simply never believe them, because the "no" side of this argument seems founded almost completely upon moral absolutism. I believe moral absolutism in itself unfounded, and therefore I reject any argument based upon it.
Let's say meat eating got banned. What kind of results could we expect? It seems easy to project them, based on what we see with other forms of prohibition. It seems likely that people would NOT stop eating meat, and that it would be necessary to hire more police to stop the meat eating. A new federal agency, let's call it the Animal Rights Enforcement Agency (AREA), would likely be formed to deal with the massive problem of rounding up millions of lawbreakers. The prisons would fill to the brims, just as they have with marijuana users, or as they did with alcohol users.
The conditions under which black market meat products get created would not be up to par. A ton of people who refused to kowtow to the government would end up poisoned. The animals who used to be raised under regulated conditions are probably now being raised in horrible ones, or at least unregulated ones.
Predictable results of prohibition: massive crime waves, creation of a police state, decimation of human rights on a grand scale, no true lessening of the "undesireable" behavior.
If Animal Rights folks want to wage their little war against eating animals or using animals, I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is the notion of LEGISLATING the issue. If it were ever made law, I would predict a huge cataclysm for democracy. Those who support THAT...will never have my support.
It seems so simple and plain. On one side of the argument is "hey, let's create more prohibition." On the other side of the argument is "hey, let's not." If we examine the results of prohibition, we can see clearly what they are. So...the "No Side" of this argument amounts to an argument in favor of: big government, massive black markets, arresting and jailing our own citizens en masse, removal of constitutional protections in order to hunt down the new "criminal" class, increasing dangers of the black market, poorer animal control and regulation, etc....
This is what you're REALLY voting for on this one, animal rights activists. Is that REALLY what you want? If it is, power to you...go for it...I don't think you'll get many supporters.
Who knows, though. Human history is rife with people who will sacrifice liberty and sanity for ideals. We've already had alcohol prohibition, and they got millions of people to come out in support of that.
All I can say is, the USA is totalitarian enough with the Dept of Homeland Security and the DEA running around out there...the last thing we need is a new federal agency locking up our own citizens for this kind of "crime."
"I believe moral absolutism in itself unfounded, and therefore I reject any argument based upon it."
Wow, that's not at all circular or absolutist or anything, is it?
Your argument is essentially, since not everyone can or should be vegetarian, no one should. That sounds pretty absolutist to me.
The question is "Should we eat meat?" It is not, "Should meat be banned?"
What is it with you veggies, that you keep attributing things to me that I never said?
"Your argument is essentially, since not everyone can or should be vegetarian, no one should."
No. I never said anywhere that nobody should be vegetarian. I could care less if you want to be one. Anyone who WANTS to be one should be one. Go for it.
If you could honestly care less what I do or how I believe, then why are you participating in this debate at all?
You are being insincere. You posted a whole list of anti-vegan/ anti-animal rights links and you expect me to believe you when you claim you're nonbiased and have no opinion on the matter? You are not being honest, either with yourself or with the rest of us.
You veggies are masters of misinterpretation and putting words into other people's mouths, aren't you. Too little fuel to make neurotransmittters, I guess.
Elaine wrote: "you claim you're nonbiased and have no opinion on the matter? "
Please show where I claimed to be unbiased and to have no opinion on the matter?
Please also show where I said that "nobody should be a vegetarian."
You can't. Why? Because I never said anything remotely approaching either of these statements. Yes, I am biased. So is everyone in this thread. Duh. Try reading what people say, instead of making stuff up and then attributing it to them.
Please answer my question first,
"If you could honestly care less what I do or how I believe, then why are you participating in this debate at all? "
And please stop insulting us.
Originally, I participated to give my personal viewpoint on the matter. Now I'm participating in order to deny words that have been put into my mouth.
ebsarver:
First, I should remind you that you are probably a moral absolutist. Most people are moral absolutists. When someone tries to defend rape or child exploitation as a morally permissible practice, most people believe that rape or child exploitation is always wrong, absolutely, and without exception – they are “absolutists” about it. Vegans carry that same moral conviction to the exploitation and killing of animals. We think that violence against the sentient and innocent is wrong, absolutely, and without exception. We are consistent in our beliefs. We don’t make arbitrary and elitist distinctions like the human-nonhuman distinction.
Second, I should remind you that this is NOT about legislating anything. It is not about politics (notice: it is in the “society” section, not the “politics” section). I agree with you that we cannot and should not try to legislate veganism at this time in history. It would be absurd to try. The argument being made is that we are not morally justified in exploiting and killing innocent animals for food (or for any other reason), and it is an argument that you seem desperate to avoid addressing by repeatedly bring up the “legislation” issue that is utterly irrelevant to the discussion. I don’t blame you for your evasiveness, because there is no plausible moral argument supporting the violence, exploitation, and killing inflicted on innocent non-human animals.
Visit the links I posted.
Contrary to your assertion that, "there is no plausible moral argument supporting the violence, exploitation, and killing inflicted on innocent non-human animals," the links I posted already make arguments to this effect, and additionally completely debunk the arguments of animal rights activists very effectively.
ebsarver:
I agree with you that people should read the pros and cons. They should read the arguments of the experts on this site on both sides and the links you provided, but they should also read just as many pro animal rights links to get a balanced perspective. If we read carefully and in a detached, rational manner, temporarily putting aside our cultural prejudices and conclusions and letting the arguments and reasons speak for themselves, there is no doubt that reasonable and decent people will conclude that there are many fallacies in the anti animal rights arguments and that the pro animal rights arguments are as sound and irrefutable as the arguments against slavery and other obviously immoral institutions.
I’ve been advocating for animal rights for several years now. There is no argument against animal rights that I haven’t already read or heard, and they are all inadequate. That is why I strongly encourage people to read BOTH sides (not just the side they currently “prefer”) and decide for themselves. The only thing I ask for is intellectual honesty (which often requires a detachment from cultural prejudices and personal attachments) when reading and evaluating.
This has been one of the most sane responses on the No side of the argument. I agree that people should read both sides and choose for themselves. I think that the "reasonable and decent people" will conclude just the opposite, but that's obviously my own perspective talking.
I've read both sides of the argument extensively, and while I lived as a vegetarian for an extended period in my youth, I have since changed my personal opinion on the matter, and will be a meat-eater until I die.... I have been advocating against vegetarianism for several years now, and while I have read scores of arguments against eating meat, they all appear inadequate to me.
ebsarver:
I’m glad you liked the idea of people exploring the issue with honesty. I must add, though, that an egoist (i.e. a person who sees “morality” or “ethics” mostly or solely as a matter of what benefits themselves), is not going to relate to or understand any argument for animal rights (or human rights for that matter). If morality, by which I mean a sufficient sense of justice and empathy, is not part of one’s life to begin with, animal rights arguments aren’t going to salvage that deficiency.
OTOH, if morality – a sense of justice and empathy – is part of one’s character and part of the meaning one gets out of life, then the animal rights arguments will be as compelling as any moral argument can be.
So, I don’t want to make this seem like a “taste test” where some people prefer an IPA over a lager or stout. It’s more of a test of how important justice and empathy are in one’s life, i.e. a test of moral character.
I could not disagree more.
I've talked to a number of people since first reading this thread. These are people that astound me with their love, compassion and ethical choices. Most people could not hold a candle to them. Their integrity seems stellar in comparison to those around them. Among people who have met me, I am also considered to be a person with very high integrity, love and compassion. Indeed, my career is as a healer and a writer. In my work as a healer, I have to be compassionate, loving, moral, and have high integrity...or my work would suck.... Among all these people, only one thinks eating meat is morally wrong, and even she said she views her choice as a personal matter, rather than a societal one.
So, your contention that a person having a sense of justice and empathy will find arguments here compelling...does not seem to align to observable results, at least within my circle of friends.
I would not consider this a test of a person's empathy or moral character. I would see it as a test of how well their reality tunnels align with your reality tunnel. While empathy and morality might have a bit to do with the probability of them traveling down the same tunnel as you, as I've demonstrated here, it does not guarantee they'll be aligned with the view that humans should stop eating meat.
ebsarver:
I have no reason to doubt that you are very kind, just, and empathetic to your in-group, which may well include all humans. However, like most people who have wittingly or unwittingly separated an out-group for arbitrary different treatment, your regard for the out-group (in this case, other sentient species) lacks sufficient kindness, empathy, and justice and it is immoral.
I explicitly am NOT comparing you to the Nazis or big-city crime bosses because such comparisons have other incongruent issues that make such a comparison inappropriate. However, I want to make the point that many crime bosses and many of the Nazis were very kind, just, and empathetic to their in-group while being horrifically cruel and insensitive to their out-group, and in that very specific manner, you are the same.
Your out-group is sentient nonhuman beings. It is an out-group based solely on species membership without regard to any relevant characteristic to justify exploiting and intentionally killing them. It is the same wrong as racism or sexism.
You can follow Carl Cohen’s lead and say that you’re a speciesist and you don’t care if it’s justified or not, and in that case, we have nothing more to discuss. But if you claim to be justified in your speciesism, I will call that out for the moral wrong that it certainly and absolutely is.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?ei=5090&en=23ff00b4cd4b1e91&ex=1357880400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
http://www.westonaprice.org/healthissues/ethicsmeat.html
http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/aniright.html
Oh, and by Godwin's Law, this discussion is now over. Thanks for bringing up Nazis. It shows your true colors.
ebsarver:
My analogy regarding the Nazis was a perfectly sound one which focused on a specific point at issue. It was not a general analogy, which I agree would not have been sound. I challenge you to refute the specific point that I made instead of dogmatically throwing out an irrelevant generalization that such analogies are always inappropriate under any and all circumstances and vaguely referring to “true colors” (whatever that’s supposed to mean). Otherwise, I’m just going to have to say “checkmate.” (The fact is that you can’t refute it, so I’ll go ahead and say it: “checkmate.”)
Here’s a question for you: Why is it that you think spamming the forum with links (none of which justify speciesism) is a substitute for addressing the specific points made here and now? Is that a technique for diverting attention away from the debate? I don’t have a problem with links when you are trying to provide evidence for a specific claim, but posting multiple links (or any link) with no explanation of what specific point you’re making is crude and evasive. Anybody can gather up a bunch of links and spam the forum with them, but it takes a thoughtful person to make or refute a point in their own words.
Dan, though the links I've posted, I think I've made myself quite clear. I think you have too. I think we'll simply never agree, and I find most of your posts to be filled with nonsense unworthy of a response, and realize you find mine to be the same, so I'll bow out at this point.
So, treating others as you would want to be treated if you were them (empathy) and treating similar cases similarly (justice), which is what my position boils down to, is “nonsense unworthy of a response”? Okay, if that’s your position, then I agree that we will never agree.
response...
Other readers please note that I do not believe what Dan attributes to me in the above post.
Since ebsarver would apparently like to continue this discussion, I’ll add (at least) another comment.
ebsarver told us that he and his circle of friends who consume animal products are wonderful, kind, compassionate people.
I replied by stating in so many words that I have no reason to doubt that when it comes to humans (or perhaps their dogs or cats) – their “in-group” – they are wonderful, kind, and compassionate people. But when it comes to sentient nonhuman beings (chickens, pigs, cows) – who are their “out-group” – they are indifferent to exploitation and killing, at least sufficiently indifferent to continue supporting the exploitation and intentional killing.
I provided two analogies, by one of which ebsarver was dramatically “offended”. I’ll provide one more analogy, and I’m sure ebsarver won’t like this one either: I’m sure many slave owners in the antebellum American South were wonderful, kind, compassionate people to non-slaves (their in-group), but indifferent toward the slaves they owned (their out-group). Humans can switch empathy on and off like a light switch when there is an out-group whose important interests they are completely indifferent toward.
Another way of looking at this is to read about our society’s “moral schizophrenia” regarding animals, a term coined by Professor Gary Francione. You can read more about moral schizophrenia in the following link:
http://unpopularveganessays.blogspot.com/2008/08/in-defense-of-term-moral-schizophrenia.html
Enjoy, and go vegan. It's just. It's empathic. It's the right thing to do.
Dan,
Please kindly refrain from pretending to know my views or express my views. You are clearly clueless about my views.
To all reading here. Dan's portrayal of what he thinks my views are, is WHOLLY AND COMPLETELY INACCURATE and he has misportrayed and twisted my viewpoint numerous times here.
Please, Dan. Be the kind of "compassionate, kind, wonderful" person that you claim to be, and my friends definitely are, and stop attributing things to me that I never said.
Just read the last several comments leading up to this one. It's all in print for "the reader" to decide for him- or herself. :-)
With all due respect ebsarver, you haven't really read any "counter-argument" because you haven't raised ANY argument, whatsoever.
And, you haven't counter-argumented any of the arguments raised by the "NO" side either. Just a single "I don't believe them". That is not an argument, it's an opinion.
You are just saying, over and over again, that you're against "imposition". But we've said, over and over again, that we don't want to impose anything, let alone the impossibility of doing so at this time in history.
If we are ever going to change the status of other animals as human commoditties, it will have to come from a paradigm shift in our thinking, in people's minds FIRST. Then can come a regulation or legislation of society as a whole.
Human slavery wasn't abolished when everyone thought human slavery was OK. No. It was abolished after a good amount of people realized the immorality of it.
Sadly, there was a violent revolution to get that abolition.
But, please be honest and answer me this... Do you think that the abolishment of human slavery was wrong? That it was an imposition of someone's beliefs? Poor slave owners?
Same with prohibitions against rape. Are you against them? Poor rapists can't exercise their personal choices?
Your moral relativism really doesn't hold any water.
I'm not a moral absolutist. I think that under certain circumstances, killing other animals (humans or not) can be justified (as in a kill-or-die situation). But, the fact that some action can be justified under a very specific situation, doesn't mean that doing the same action every day, just because you want to, it's justifiable.
There's a clear difference between smoking marijuana/drinking alcohol and eating meat. Basically, the former ARE personal choices, since, under normal circumstances, the only one involved is the consumer (not talking about drunk people driving cars, hitting their couples, or whatever). Eating meat is NOT a personal choice, because it REQUIRES the violation of the interests of someone else (unless you only eat your own flesh, roadkill, or animals that died in the wild from natural causes).
That's why, in my view, labeling marijuana or alcohol consumption as immoral in itself it's nonsense. Enslaving, exploiting and/or killing other animals, in the other hand, is immoral when there is no true necessity involved -- and that is the case for 99.9999% of our uses of other animals.
How do you justify this, then?
An argument would be greatly appreciated.
I would justify it thusly:
In all of nature, omnivorous beings exist. Homo sapiens sapiens falls into this categorization. That means that homo sapiens sapiens eats other animals.
If I accept that other animals eating other animals is correct and part of the natural order, then humans would be included in this. If I deny it, I must deny the whole of nature, and view nature itself as "morally wrong."
I would justify it as a natural part of the order of life. I would justify it as "this is where we fit in the ecosystem." I would justify it as "if humans did not exist, the same behaviors would continue, but the ecosystem would not be "wrong"." To me, that's all the evidence I need.
I have no problem with animal rights folks trying to win hearts and minds. I have a problem with them legislating their values upon everyone.
If we're going down the "all life is sacred and has rights" path...a seemingly clearly spiritual/religious belief pattern, and not one verifiable by science...then where do we draw the line? Is it okay to eat an egg, but not a chicken? Is it okay to kill a rat? What about a worm? What about a centipede? A dust mite? An aomeba? A bacterium? A virus? A tree? The grass? Is a nervous system required for it to be wrong to eat a thing? If so, how much of a nervous system? Is a small bundle of nerves enough, or does it require an actual medulla be present? Where is the line exactly? Which living beings have a right to life, and which do not? Why? To really take the "living beings have rights" conversation to its logical conclusion is to decide to stop eating.
Some reading for arguments against animal rights:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2921/LRE080.html
http://doingethics.com/Blog/2008/08/arguments-against-animal-rights.html
http://www.pulpless.com/jneil/aniright.html
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4376.html
http://www.leaderu.com/ftissues/ft9202/articles/derr.html
http://gadfly.igc.org/papers/Animal.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/machan6.html
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--926-The_Problem_Animal_Rights.aspx
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/machan/machan43.html
http://www.ucalgary.ca /~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/cohen.txt
You bring up a very interesting point about natural order. I would agrue that human are quite seperate from the natural order of nature. We really don't quite fit in anymore. We bring to nature quite powerful tools, technology that we use to act of nature in a way that are quite powerful and often destructive. An animal in the kingdom is no match against a well-armored human. We are powerful and with that power comes a great responsiblity for our action. Lest we sow the seeds of our destruction.
To your point, we cannot meaningful compare our behavior with the behavior of other animals in the kingdom, because we are quite different. Loins don't threaten the environments they live in. They are nature keep in check. It does not seem that there is anything in nature that will keep us in check, except for human beings, who are honest about themselves.
Consider the case of a bear eating a human couple, who were camp in the forest. Our response was to send in 20 humans arm to the teeth with shotguns. The 400-pound bear was kill for nothing more than making a meal of humans. Imagine going to a steakhouse and having yourself a steak. The next day you wake up there are 20 cows arm with shotgun outside your door prepare to kill you for eating that steak. You did nothing more than satify your hunger , do cows have the right to kill you for eating them?
The problem is we humans dominate other animals in a way that does not respect thier greater interests. Going back to the example of the bear killing the couple. There was nothing can be done to bring back the couple. Killing the bear was nothing short of revenge killing. You could say that bear was kill because we wanted it, not because it was needed. It goes against the bear right to continue exist.
Naturalistic fallacy... ever heard of that?
Well that's what your whole "argument" amounts to.
"Nature" cannot be "morally wrong" because nature is NOT a moral agent. Nature is AMORAL, therefore, any moral conclusions from what is "natural" or not is absurd and fallacious.
To take your argument seriously, it would mean that things like human murder, rape and infanticide are not morally "wrong" because other animals do it; because "if humans did not exist, the same behaviors would continue, but the ecosystem would not be 'wrong'". Right?
Because "in all of nature, rapist beings exist. Homo sapiens sapiens falls into this categorization. That means that homo sapiens sapiens rapes other animals. If I accept that other animals raping other animals is correct and part of the natural order, then humans would be included in this." Right?
This is just absurd and fallacious.
You also commit the "straw man" fallacy. You make an erroneous characterization of the animal rights position, and then counter-argument that erroneous characterization.
Have you read any Animal Rights activist saying that "all life is sacred and has rights". I haven't, either in this discussion or any other. If you took the time to even read the arguments in favor of Animal Rights, this debate would be much, much easier. If you can, please take a look at the arguments made by Gary Francione.
I don't believe in sacred things. Nor in gods, leprechauns, zombies, superheroes, fairies, pink-flying elephants or anything alike. So your characterization it's completely out of place.
Where do we draw the line? In sentience. The capacity of feeling pain and pleasure, of being aware of them, etc., which in turn make the sentient being develop "interests". No sentience, no interests. No interests, no rights no protect interests. Simple.
"Rights" are a way of protecting "interests". That's why giving "rights" to other sentient animals is perfectly logical. It's not that we want to give every right a human have to the rest of the animal kingdom, since most of them wouldn't serve any purpose to other animals (such as the right to vote or get an education). They do not have such interests so any "right" would be meaningless.
But they do have other basic interests they share with us, and that's enough to grant them "rights" to protect those interests.
It's that simple.
It's good that you took the time to google "arguments against Animal Rights" but it would be better if you took the time to read them, consider them, and draw your own logical conclusions. The one's I've read so far are really shallow, if not plainly absurd (like the one listing the things only humans can do -- like going on vacation (!!) -- to support his view that humans are "superior" therefore entitled to do whatever they want with other animals.)
One of them starts saying that "Rights can only be held by beings who are capable of reasoning and choosing."
This is not true, as explained before, since rights are one way of protecting interests, thus, being with interests can be right-holders. Whether the being is capable of reasoning and choosing it's irrelevant.
And we already recognize this, since, although human babies, old senile humans, and severely retarded ones, are NOT capable of reasoning and choosing, we grant them rights anyway, because they DO have interests. They might not be able to be "moral agents" (to think morally and choose accordingly), but the very fact that they have interests is enough to grant them the status of "moral patients" and protect their interests with rights.
The same applies to other animals. They might not be "moral agents" (not being able of thinking morally and choosing accordingly) but they are "moral patients" (bound to the consideration of "moral agents") because they have interests.
Other talks about the wrong in trying to legislate against something. Again, he fails, like you, to recognize that the same happens with rape, murder and human slavery. You have not been able to answer whether the fact that this legislation forced some humans not to rape, murder or enslave other humans, makes it a morally wrong position, or an "imposition" against someone's liberties. Culture or tradition, are not arguments enough to maintain a status-quo that's immoral. We've recognized this before, and will continue to do so in the future.
So, we're back again at the place where we started.
Why is it ok to violate the interests of other animals, and only protect the same interests of human animals?
You make a lot of assumptions about me, Liberacion Igualdad.
You assume I have not read Francione, but I assure you that I have read his arguments on this site and elsewhere, and don't accept his arguments.
You assume that I was saying that animal rights activists have an "all life is sacred" viewpoint, though I have never made such a statement, and don't think this argument has been put forward. To make it perfectly clear, I do not nor have I ever thought that this is a viewpoint of most animal rights activists. This viewpoint seems reserved for a handful of radical deep ecologists.
You assume that I did not read every single one of those articles before posting the links. I assure you, I did read them thoroughly, and do agree with most of the points made in most of the articles.
Yes, we're back where we started...it seems clear that my thoughts on this matter will never penetrate into the "no side" of the argument, but hopefully I'll never have to worry about this kind of thing being legislated in my lifespan....
So far your responses have been:
1) It's natural
Clearly refuted
2) Legislation without a majority agreement is impractical and improbable
No need to refute that one. Straw man argument. And most would completely agree.
3) Because you can't tell me what to do
Ok, now we're just getting silly. Eating meat is only a personal choice inasmuch as it affects only one person. It does not.
4) Other animals do it.
Well refuted.
As it is, all of the rebuttals still stand uncontested by you. Finally, you simply gave up arguing and ended with a "because I said so" argument.
Let's put morals aside, then, and explain to me how your modus operandi will not land us all in a heap of ecological trouble? Irrefutable data pointing to greenhouse gasses, destruction of vital rainforest, introduction of biohazards and deadly bacteria, huge consumption of water, grain, and fossil fuels. And the problem is only getting worse.
So put morals to the wind and simply justify your actions to the future of the human race (since that seems to be the only species you are concerned most about when it comes to suffering).
ebsarver:
I will repeat what I said to another commenter who appealed to “nature” to “justify violence:
Appeals to “nature” don’t hold water. It is not “natural” to type on a computer. It is not “natural”, in the way you use the term, to do most of the things humans do.
Slave owners appealed to the same arguments that non-vegans appeal to against ethical veganism: “Slaves are ‘naturally’ fit for slavery.” (Aristotle and slave owners made that claim.) “The Bible defends slavery.” “Slavery has been going on for millennia.” “Slavery is not necessarily cruel; we just need to reform it.” You could replace “slavery” with “exploiting animals” or “exploitation” or “slaughter” in all of these, which is what non-vegans generally do.
We are repeating history. All the arguments defending slavery 200 years ago are now used to defend exploiting and killing nonhuman beings today. Just as it was with slavery, cultural prejudices, appeals to nature, appeals to tradition, and appeals to unrealistic reform are made rather than a detached, serious, and well-reasoned examination of the issue. Read Gary Francione’s arguments on this topic – they are irrefutable.
Read the links I posted. They speak directly to all the arguments used so far in this topic, and debunk them quite successfully.