The Student Room Group

Post arguments against vegetarianism/veganism, please!

I've thought for years that killing and eating animals while we, as westerners and members of the 'developed' world, have dietary options that don't require meat and provide us with similar nutrition is wrong.

Saying that, I've also been fairly undisciplined and immoral because I hold these beliefs while being a frequent meat-eater. I'm considering becoming a vegetarian because animals are capable of suffering and they are conscious, living things that want to survive in the same way we do. You can't make the same statements about plants, and even if you could, it would be impractical to adopt an alternative beyond vegetarianism or veganism. At least for now it would.

Are there any good arguments against this? Please post them! :smile:

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
It's harder to get good quality protein if you're a vegan or vegetarian.

Eating protein helps make you alpha. Let's face it, who wants to be a skinny beta who eats carbs all day?

So you can see the dilemma.
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 2
We are Humans and we are granted dominion over the animals.
Reply 3
Original post by Effy.
We are Humans and we are granted dominion over the animals.


By whom, or what, are we granted dominion over the animals?
Reply 4
An animal raised for meat, if it's treated right, can live a happy pampered life and have a relatively painless death. If it were left to live in the wild, on the other hand, it would constantly be in danger and have to work hard to survive, and when it did die it would probably be from either starvation, disease or predation. None of which are very nice ways to go.

So, as long as we try our best to get rid of battery farms and similar, I don't think there's anything at all wrong with eating animal products.
Reply 5
Original post by Alpha brah
It's harder to get good quality protein if you're a vegan or vegetarian.

So you can see the dilemma.


That's true, but aren't there a lot of practices that are harder when you're doing the 'right' thing?
Reply 6
Original post by Effy.
We are Humans and we are granted dominion over the animals.


Wat
Reply 7
Original post by Arbolus
An animal raised for meat, if it's treated right, can live a happy pampered life and have a relatively painless death. If it were left to live in the wild, on the other hand, it would constantly be in danger and have to work hard to survive, and when it did die it would probably be from either starvation, disease or predation. None of which are very nice ways to go.

So, as long as we try our best to get rid of battery farms and similar, I don't think there's anything at all wrong with eating animal products.


Does raising a creature in good conditions give you the right, or make it moral, to then kill it for food? Should its death not be, to the greatest degree possible, a natural one? We apply this to humans, and the only thing that distinguishes us from animals is intelligence.
Original post by Ralph Lauren
By whom, or what, are we granted dominion over the animals?


If you're religious; by the grace of God. If you're not; by the indisputable evidence that we are the 'top' of the food chain through our superior intelligence.

Reasons against vegetarianism? It's a perversion of nature. Everything, from our teeth to our primal behaviour to our digestive system, is geared towards omnivorousness.
Reply 9
Bacon. :coma::mmm:
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 10
Original post by StretfordEnd
If you're religious; by the grace of God. If you're not; by the indisputable evidence that we are the 'top' of the food chain through our superior intelligence.

Reasons against vegetarianism? It's a perversion of nature. Everything, from our teeth to our primal behaviour to our digestive system, is geared towards omnivorousness.


The first argument refers to God. Is there proof that a god exists?

Why is something wrong if it perverts nature? Why does being designed to eat meat, when we can live healthily by adopting alternatives, make it morally acceptable to kill creatures that obviously want to continue living?
Reply 11
Original post by Ralph Lauren
Does raising a creature in good conditions give you the right, or make it moral, to then kill it for food? Should its death not be, to the greatest degree possible, a natural one? We apply this to humans, and the only thing that distinguishes us from animals is intelligence.


It's not morally right, but as long as it doesn't cause suffering I wouldn't say it's morally wrong either.

I take the opinion that, for humans, the thing that makes a painless killing wrong is the effect it has on their family and friends. The victim himself wouldn't notice a thing and therefore can't be upset about it. Since most animals don't feel grief or have a sense of bereavement, the same rules don't necessarily apply to them.
Reply 12
Original post by Arbolus
It's not morally right, but as long as it doesn't cause suffering I wouldn't say it's morally wrong either.

I take the opinion that, for humans, the thing that makes a painless killing wrong is the effect it has on their family and friends. The victim himself wouldn't notice a thing and therefore can't be upset about it. Since most animals don't feel grief or have a sense of bereavement, the same rules don't necessarily apply to them.


What about people who don't have a family and friends?
Original post by Ralph Lauren
The first argument refers to God. Is there proof that a god exists?

Why is something wrong if it perverts nature? Why does being designed to eat meat, when we can live healthily by adopting alternatives, make it morally acceptable to kill creatures that obviously want to continue living?


I'm an antitheist, I firmly believe no God exists. What I'm saying is regardless of whether you want to talk about religious, scientific or logical explanations - everything points to the fact that humanity is the dominant sentient species.

Ultimately I'm not a person to push my own agenda on other people; personally speaking the fact that I'm demonstrably designed/have evolved to digest meat is a good enough reason to eat it. It's the healthiest option.
Original post by Ralph Lauren
By whom, or what, are we granted dominion over the animals?


I believe she's joking.
Reply 15
Original post by StretfordEnd
I'm an antitheist, I firmly believe no God exists. What I'm saying is regardless of whether you want to talk about religious, scientific or logical explanations - everything points to the fact that humanity is the dominant sentient species.

Ultimately I'm not a person to push my own agenda on other people; personally speaking the fact that I'm demonstrably designed/have evolved to digest meat is a good enough reason to eat it. It's the healthiest option.


Should a marginally better diet, for you, give you the right to kill a creature that wants to continue living? How does being designed to do something make doing it right? Are there not people who are 'designed' to be immoral?
Reply 16
Original post by member841230
I believe she's joking.


She might have been. Are there not many people who, because of their religious affiliations, would agree with what she said?
Reply 17
Original post by Rinsed
What is a natural death, then?

In nature there is no such thing as dying of old age. Animals die from disease, injury or of course being eaten by other animals, few of which are so conscientious in their method of slaughter as humans.

A domesticated sheep/cow/pig gets protected from the predators, disease and food-shortages that would plague its wild relatives. Yeah, they get eaten at the end, but that really is how life works, there is nothing unnatural about it.


Could 'natural death' and 'murder' (or something like it) not be placed on opposite ends of a spectrum?

Are animals in the wild not forced to kill, in a way that we aren't seeing as we have viable alternatives in many parts of the West?

If a human were to be killed, 'conscientiously' after having been treated well, or having been given a better life than they otherwise would have gotten, would that be moral?
(edited 10 years ago)
Reply 18
Original post by Ralph Lauren
What about people who don't have a family and friends?


I believe that no-one has the right to be the first to condemn an act, other than someone directly affected by it. Even if that someone doesn't actually exist but is only a hypothetical possibility, what they would think and feel about the matter should be the basis for what everyone else thinks.
Original post by Ralph Lauren
Should a marginally better diet, for you, give you the right to kill a creature that wants to continue living? How does being designed to do something make doing it right? Are there not people who are 'designed' to be immoral?


How do you know these animals want to keep on living? It's extremely controversial as to whether animals even have a developed sense of self-concept.

Quick Reply

Latest