Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

My favourite pro veganism quotation! watch

Announcements
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by daydreamer4life)
    Do you and your family enjoy eating similar food? Then thats like me saying to you "You don't love your family if you eat their food."

    But the truth is, you DON'T eat their food because there is enough around for everyone to share

    Same goes here, we might eat the same food as the animals, but thats fine because there's enough for both them and us!


    I know you were trying to be smart, but your argument just makes no sense.
    hmm okay, you made a fair point, I do agree.
    Thank you for not accussing me for being a troll for just making a simple statement, I appreciate it, unlike you other guys
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JD1lla)
    I'm great with my money, I saved 3 grand this year! Strict £50 a week diet. Where are you getting this broccoli from?! It's 67p per broccoli here, tenderstem is much more expensive, but it works better in a stir fry.

    Lamb derived.
    Strict 50 quid a week diet is just an extortionate amount to be spending. You may be saving but you could easily save another 10-20 quid a week. That's another grand right there.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Basic animalistic survival does not equate to eating meat, for the simple reason that we don't require meat in order to survive. You could also use "basic animalistic survival" to justify murdering other humans and enslaving them.
    No, you couldn't - the survival of the species is paramount, so harming fellow members of our species is in violation of that basic rule, harming other species to survive isn't.

    And, whether lions consider the ethics of what they do is irrelevant: why are you using lions as ethical role models? Lions also kill each other to steal their homes and their "wives", and also kill each other's babies.
    I'm not using lions as moral guides, the point I'm making is morals don't exist in predator-prey relationships.



    Meeting humans' basic needs is justifiable under an anti-speciesist ethic: most humans are rational and self-aware and have an interest in continuing to live. There's very little that's ethically problematic with the actual act of killing most nonhuman animals (aside from chimpanzees and other primates; dolphins; elephants and some birds), because they have no preference to continue to live, and do not conceive of their existence on a time continuum. Therefore, killing animals in order to meet basic human needs is justifiable, and we also have to ask: what would have happened to these wild-animals had they not been killed? The answer is that they would've died deaths just as bad, if not worse.
    So it's justifiable to kill animals - why then is it wrong to eat them?


    Now, all of the examples you cite are to do with wild-animals. To address your previous point about morality in nature, wild-animal suffering is actually incredibly important for many vegans (see Brian Tomasik and David Pearce's work, for instance), and the vegan community is increasingly on board with the idea of striving to eliminate wild-animal suffering too.
    .
    Then there's one simple question - why do they not abandon veganism for diets such as the insectivorous one that does reduce suffering? Or, if the thought of eating insects makes them squeamish, bivalve based or fruitarianism - as it is wild animals are killed for them to eat, it's avoidable so then we're still trying to find out why killing to eat is fine so long as it's not the animal that you eat?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    No, you couldn't - the survival of the species is paramount, so harming fellow members of our species is in violation of that basic rule, harming other species to survive isn't.
    Now you're just making things up. Why is the survival of the species paramount, first of all? Natural selection, recall, isn't about the survival of the species, but about the survival of your genes. Secondly, you still fail to recognise that we don't need to eat meat to survive.

    Either you really believe what you're saying, or you've gone on a parody site for worst meat-eater arguments ever and then transferred them here as a joke.

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    I'm not using lions as moral guides, the point I'm making is morals don't exist in predator-prey relationships.
    You're using the fact that lions don't think about the ethics of what they're doing as evidence that morals don't exist in predator-prey relationships. So you demonstrably are using lions are moral guides.

    In anything that humans do, we're able to think about the morality of what we're doing, especially considering that we do a lot of things, such as eating meat, which aren't necessary for survival.

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    So it's justifiable to kill animals - why then is it wrong to eat them?
    The majority of nonhuman animals are raised in factory farms where they suffer, all of them are transported to the slaughterhouse under a great amount of stress and a significant proportion are slaughtered in intense pain, simply because a significant proportion of slaughters in abattoirs go wrong and even the most experienced workers get it wrong.

    On top of this, the meat industry is one of the biggest emitters of greenhouse gas emissions.

    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    Then there's one simple question - why do they not abandon veganism for diets such as the insectivorous one that does reduce suffering? Or, if the thought of eating insects makes them squeamish, bivalve based or fruitarianism - as it is wild animals are killed for them to eat, it's avoidable so then we're still trying to find out why killing to eat is fine so long as it's not the animal that you eat?
    Firstly, veganism leads to the reduction of a lot of suffering compared to a diet with animal products in it, especially as 40% of the world's grain is used to feed nonhuman animals reared for meat in the first place, meaning that any deaths of wild-animals from plant-based agriculture are also included in the total death toll from animal agriculture.

    Secondly, it's perfectly possible to follow a vegan diet and completely minimise wild-animal suffering, whether it's through buying from farms which don't use technology such as combine harvesters which lead to the deaths of around 0.76 animals per hectare, which isn't exactly a lot, according to a study conducted by Tew and MacDonald. It's also possible to grow food in one's own back garden and buy from farms practising veganic agriculture. The reality is, though, that plant-based agriculture is actually responsible for the suffering of very few wild-animals, and certainly less than meat production and, on top of this, it's far better for the environment in the vast majority of cases and doesn't involve confining, transporting and slaughtering tens of billions of sentient beings every year.

    Third, many vegans, in theory, have no objection to eating bivalves, but there's often a lot of by-catch from bivalve farming, which makes it ethically problematic. Similarly, insect farming may be ethically problematic because there's a non-zero probability that they can actually suffer, and the numbers of insects who would be raised in insect farms thus makes the expected disutility of eating them quite high.

    Fourth, with all of the diets you mention, it's likely that your basic needs won't be met, so not following these diets may be necessary for self-aware and rational beings, such as normal humans.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)

    Third, many vegans, in theory, have no objection to eating bivalves, but there's often a lot of by-catch from bivalve farming, which makes it ethically problematic. Similarly, insect farming may be ethically problematic because there's a non-zero probability that they can actually suffer, and the numbers of insects who would be raised in insect farms thus makes the expected disutility of eating them quite high. .
    If they eat bivalves, they are no longer vegan or vegetarian, they would be pescatarians. I object to the notion of eating bivalves because it is an animal product and I am against the notion of using anything that comes from an animal for ethical reasons.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    If they eat bivalves, they are no longer vegan or vegetarian, they would be pescatarians. I object to the notion of eating bivalves because it is an animal product and I am against the notion of using anything that comes from an animal for ethical reasons.
    Indeed, but I still call them vegans as most don't eat bivalves for the reasons mentioned.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BekahMay)
    People are entitled to their opinion on what they eat.

    What about the animals are they not entitled to their own opinions? I'm sure they wouldn't be happy with being eaten 😂

    Personally I believe that people should have to kill the animals themselves before eating them. That way the connection would be much easier to make.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    Are you a vegan?
    Vegetarian. I keep trying, I just like cheese too much.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    I believe that people who eat meat have a lower moral standard than vegetarians who in turn have a lower moral standard than vegans. I mean how anyone can honestly think eating meat is morally acceptable baffles me. Please can you explain to me how killing a sentient being against their will when we don't need to do so for us to survive is morally acceptable. Thank you.
    You're preaching to the choir. I'm a vegetarian.

    I just don't think that I or anyone else can prove that it makes me (or any other vegetarian/vegan) morally superior to anyone. I'd like to see someone offer a logical proof - it's in my best interest. But no one can.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stiff Little Fingers)
    No, you couldn't - the survival of the species is paramount, so harming fellow members of our species is in violation of that basic rule, harming other species to survive isn't.


    Even if it was, I can conjurer up many scenarios where the the survival of the species is put above individual human rights.

    Evolution doesn't really work like that. Firstly most species die and secondly the fact we die of old age is a testament to how survival of the human race as a sexually reproducing organism, nature nothing to do with looking after humans on an individual human level. It's as if we are creating our own "rational" atheistic God concept onto science. Nature does not care about you.

    You're a lefty so you should know this. When a warring feudal Lord fights the Lord on the other side of the river the peasants lives are forfeit. If they run away their own lord will kill them. They have no individual rights. Yet that is a form of natural selection between different societies of humans. If there is a shortage fo resources the winning (stronger) faction gets the resources.

    When a troupe of Chimpanzees fight another troupe they are part of the natural selection process. Enlightenment values are a human invention, one which may or may not help the survival of our species. The impulse to look after each other is a result fo evolution but so are the impulse to kill each other. Just like many other animals, inter species conflict is/was a vital part of that species. Humans killing each other will have played a vital part in our evolutionary tract.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    So you would eat a human if it tasted nice? :lolwut: And the lion would have lost in hand to hand combat. Teach a lion to use a gun and it would win against you too. Having said that I think you would lose against a lion even with a gun. You don't strike me as the type of macho hunter type.
    No, obviously I wouldn't as I said cannibalism is different. It doesn't matter if it wouldn't, humans are intelligent enough to tilt the odds in our favour. You can't teach a lion to use a gun, they aren't intelligent enough. How would you know if I'm a hunter or not?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    If they eat bivalves, they are no longer vegan or vegetarian, they would be pescatarians. I object to the notion of eating bivalves because it is an animal product and I am against the notion of using anything that comes from an animal for ethical reasons.
    People who eat bivalves are hardly pescatarian. They would be at odds with most pescatarians due to their avoidance of pretty much every fish for ethical reasons, with the exclusion of bivalves (obviously).

    Why would you consider something unethical to eat merely because it is an animal product? For example, there is the famous case in Germany where one man consented to his body being eaten by another man. You would find this morally unethical merely because he is eating an animal product, despite there being full consent between two adults?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    I believe that people who eat meat have a lower moral standard than vegetarians who in turn have a lower moral standard than vegans. I mean how anyone can honestly think eating meat is morally acceptable baffles me. Please can you explain to me how killing a sentient being against their will when we don't need to do so for us to survive is morally acceptable. Thank you.
    What if I told you that you could be immoral and a vegan. What if I told you that being vegan does not make you morally superior to anyone else. What if I told you that being a vegan severely limits the diet and as you will know, most therefore depend on supplements. Fox hunting is wrong, dog fighting is wrong and halal preperation of meat is wrong due to the subjection of unnecessary pain to animals. However, when animals are slaughtered in a paralysed state to minimise distress and pain and chickens are reared uncaged then I see no issue with that. It's not that people have to go vegan, we should focus on people buying ethically sourced meat, whereby it isn't overfarmed, they are bred in fair conditions and given pleasant existences prior to their death. I myself substitute quorn to some of my meals to reduce the impact of my meat eating, however it is ridiculously authoritarian to try and force your lifestyles on other people. Morality itself is subjective anyway...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I will always stick by my guns on this. Firstly, I like meat too much to be a vegetarian; does it make me feel guilty when I think about it? Yes. But there is no point dwelling on it when I know the side of me that likes meat is always going to win. Secondly, what does insulting meat eaters or vegetarians (in the case of some vegans) do really? You can consider them savages if you want but all preaching it is going to do is piss people off. Thirdly, this whole "vegetarians/vegans have higher moral standards" is bs. You know who was a vegetarian? Hitler. And no I'm not saying all vegetarians are bad people, especially not as evil as Hitler. What I'm saying is meat eaters MAY have lower moral standards in regards to animal life but animal life is not the only area of moral standards in the world.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EllieC130)
    I will always stick by my guns on this. Firstly, I like meat too much to be a vegetarian; does it make me feel guilty when I think about it? Yes. But there is no point dwelling on it when I know the side of me that likes meat is always going to win. Secondly, what does insulting meat eaters or vegetarians (in the case of some vegans) do really? You can consider them savages if you want but all preaching it is going to do is piss people off. Thirdly, this whole "vegetarians/vegans have higher moral standards" is bs. You know who was a vegetarian? Hitler. And no I'm not saying all vegetarians are bad people, especially not as evil as Hitler. What I'm saying is meat eaters MAY have lower moral standards in regards to animal life but animal life is not the only area of moral standards in the world.
    Actually that myth is mostly based on Goebbels's propaganda.

    And lets says that Trigger warning:
    Spoiler:
    Show
    I had a friend who said he knew rape was wrong, but he just couldn't help himself

    Would you just accept him saying he would never change?

    I'm not comparing the two, what I'm doing is using the exact logic you've used in another scenario. I'm not saying either one is less or more immoral here.

    So would you accept that same logic you presented in the above scenario?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Relevant article published on bbc a couple of days ago:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34541077
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Indeed, but I still call them vegans as most don't eat bivalves for the reasons mentioned.
    Anyone who eats bivalves, by definition, is not vegan. You are either vegan or you aren't. 0% of vegans eat bivalves.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by XenonSabre)
    What if I told you that you could be immoral and a vegan. What if I told you that being vegan does not make you morally superior to anyone else. What if I told you that being a vegan severely limits the diet and as you will know, most therefore depend on supplements. Fox hunting is wrong, dog fighting is wrong and halal preperation of meat is wrong due to the subjection of unnecessary pain to animals. However, when animals are slaughtered in a paralysed state to minimise distress and pain and chickens are reared uncaged then I see no issue with that. It's not that people have to go vegan, we should focus on people buying ethically sourced meat, whereby it isn't overfarmed, they are bred in fair conditions and given pleasant existences prior to their death. I myself substitute quorn to some of my meals to reduce the impact of my meat eating, however it is ridiculously authoritarian to try and force your lifestyles on other people. Morality itself is subjective anyway...
    You are right, morality is subjective. What I said in the post you quoted me in is my opinion. You have your opinion, and that is fine, just as whoever reads our respective posts are entitled to theirs.

    Also I am not forcing my views on anyone. Forcing them would be me threatening to kill them if they didn't listen to me. I am not doing anything like that. We are having a rational discussion about the pros and cons of each diet and lifestyle and their moralities. I hope that by reading my arguments about animals having feelings and a right to exist just as much as we do, people will question whether it is right or wrong to eat meat. That is my only aim here - not to force people to do anything.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EllieC130)
    I will always stick by my guns on this. Firstly, I like meat too much to be a vegetarian; does it make me feel guilty when I think about it? Yes. But there is no point dwelling on it when I know the side of me that likes meat is always going to win. Secondly, what does insulting meat eaters or vegetarians (in the case of some vegans) do really? You can consider them savages if you want but all preaching it is going to do is piss people off. Thirdly, this whole "vegetarians/vegans have higher moral standards" is bs. You know who was a vegetarian? Hitler. And no I'm not saying all vegetarians are bad people, especially not as evil as Hitler. What I'm saying is meat eaters MAY have lower moral standards in regards to animal life but animal life is not the only area of moral standards in the world.
    It's not that veg*ns are necessarily more ethical in their life as a whole, but it is the case that, when it comes to the issue of consuming animal products, they are more acting in a more moral way.

    One clear way in which a meat-eater could be more ethical in her life as a whole compared with a veg*n is if she donates a lot of money to the most cost-effective animal charities, as evaluated by Animal Charity Evaluators, for instance, which promote veg*nism and strive to improve the conditions on farms and in slaughterhouses.

    I'm aware of quite a few people who have reduced but not eliminated their meat consumption, but every time they eat meat they donate money to these charities, which, per animal, reduce suffering very effectively.

    (Original post by rock_climber86)
    Anyone who eats bivalves, by definition, is not vegan. You are either vegan or you aren't. 0% of vegans eat bivalves.
    Yes, my point was that some vegans would, in theory, be willing to eat bivalves but don't do so because of concerns about by-catch and so on. The people who actually eat bivalves are not vegans, no.

    I myself would assign very little moral weight to bivalves as it is unlikely that they can feel pain and suffer. I do not eat them, however, because of other concerns to do with the production of bivalves,
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    It's not that veg*ns are necessarily more ethical in their life as a whole, but it is the case that, when it comes to the issue of consuming animal products, they are more acting in a more moral way.

    One clear way in which a meat-eater could be more ethical in her life as a whole compared with a veg*n is if she donates a lot of money to the most cost-effective animal charities, as evaluated by Animal Charity Evaluators, for instance, which promote veg*nism and strive to improve the conditions on farms and in slaughterhouses.

    I'm aware of quite a few people who have reduced but not eliminated their meat consumption, but every time they eat meat they donate money to these charities, which, per animal, reduce suffering very effectively.



    Yes, my point was that some vegans would, in theory, be willing to eat bivalves but don't do so because of concerns about by-catch and so on. The people who actually eat bivalves are not vegans, no.

    I myself would assign very little moral weight to bivalves as it is unlikely that they can feel pain and suffer. I do not eat them, however, because of other concerns to do with the production of bivalves,
    Out of interest, why do bi-valves appear to flinch when lemon juice touches them?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 30, 2015
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.