Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The point of ethical veganism is to reduce unnecessary suffering, we don't need to eat meat as we have other ways to get all the nutrition it provides and in fact by eating vegan can avoid many diet related diseases, therefore there is no point torturing and killing animals. Thus, vegans are morally superior.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vikingninja)
    I eat meat because I can.



    Pretty sure if a superior race came here and harvested us it wouldn't give two ****s about its right to eat us. They can go ahead, we have nukes.
    I respect that you're blunt about it & don't try to come up with some bs excuse unlike most other people.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    It's just how the food chain works. Obviously, we wouldn't just go "Yep, I get it, I'm now lower on the food chain - go ahead and eat me", it's not like any living species in the world would do that, it's natural for us to want to sustain our own lives.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    "It is okay to eat animals because we are top of the food chain.

    This is a fairly common objection to veganism and is argued on the basis that since humans are the dominant species of the earth, we have the right to eat other animals, just like other apex predators such as lions. For the purposes of this counter-argument I will, despite evidence to the contrary, accept the premise that humans really are apex predators and seek to instead disprove the conclusions often drawn from this supposed fact.This argument stems from one of the most ancient justifications for violence in existence; the proposition that might makes right. That because we are powerful enough to kill other animals, that gives us the right to do so.

    The flaws in this as an ethical system, and the consequences of universally applying such a notion, should be obvious. That humans are, by our technology and our societal organisation in a position to mass produce, exploit and slaughter billions of animals for our consumption is not a good ethical reason for us to continue to do so, or any ethical reason whatsoever for that matter.This proposition also arises from a basic misunderstand of how natural systems work. “The food chain” is simply a construct we have imposed on the natural world in an effort to understand it; we are not at the top of a chain, we are part ofa complex system of mutual reliance. This argument relies on a version of hard biological determinism, that how we behave is entirely dictated by our biology, but in any other context this would not be entertained as a justification for behaviour which causes harm. Besides this, a society practicing industrialized agriculture cannot reasonably count itself as being “part of the food chain;” the vast majority of humans are not contending with wildlife and giving back to the cycle when we die by being eaten by someone with sharper claws. Most of us buy our meat pre-packed from our local stores, or kill game with mechanised weaponry.

    Realistically, we ceased to be part of the natural give and take of nature the day we invented agriculture.Irrespective of what the food chain is and is not, what is absolutely certain is that it is of no ethical relevance whatsoever. What those holding this argument fail to account for is the fact that humans, unlike lions and other predators, are moral agents. Lions and other similar predators are obligate carnivores and have no choice in what they eat; therefore they are not subject to the same moral standards as humans are. We however, have a choice. Since the vast majority of humans can be perfectly healthy without consuming any animal products, most of do so purely for taste, convenience, habit and tradition. This makes consuming animals a moral decision and considering the fact that animal agriculture is responsible for the deaths of billions of animals and is one of the leading causes of climate change, that moral decision is very much open to criticism. When we can choose to live in a way that minimises our harm to animals and the planet, and we choose otherwise, we cannot use our place in “the food chain” to justify that behaviour.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WoodyMKC)
    It's just how the food chain works. Obviously, we wouldn't just go "Yep, I get it, I'm now lower on the food chain - go ahead and eat me", it's not like any living species in the world would do that, it's natural for us to want to sustain our own lives.
    Humans are rational and do not need to eat meat any longer, especially not in Western societies, therefore we can rationalise what we put in our diet. Also food chain argument is irrelevant really because we are not eating what we catch and therefore contributing to a healthy ecosystem, we are breeding animals to eat which is actually detrimental to the environment.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I like meat, I will eat meat.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by goam)
    Spoiler:
    Show
    "It is okay to eat animals because we are top of the food chain.

    This is a fairly common objection to veganism and is argued on the basis that since humans are the dominant species of the earth, we have the right to eat other animals, just like other apex predators such as lions. For the purposes of this counter-argument I will, despite evidence to the contrary, accept the premise that humans really are apex predators and seek to instead disprove the conclusions often drawn from this supposed fact.This argument stems from one of the most ancient justifications for violence in existence; the proposition that might makes right. That because we are powerful enough to kill other animals, that gives us the right to do so.

    The flaws in this as an ethical system, and the consequences of universally applying such a notion, should be obvious. That humans are, by our technology and our societal organisation in a position to mass produce, exploit and slaughter billions of animals for our consumption is not a good ethical reason for us to continue to do so, or any ethical reason whatsoever for that matter.This proposition also arises from a basic misunderstand of how natural systems work. “The food chain” is simply a construct we have imposed on the natural world in an effort to understand it; we are not at the top of a chain, we are part ofa complex system of mutual reliance. This argument relies on a version of hard biological determinism, that how we behave is entirely dictated by our biology, but in any other context this would not be entertained as a justification for behaviour which causes harm. Besides this, a society practicing industrialized agriculture cannot reasonably count itself as being “part of the food chain;” the vast majority of humans are not contending with wildlife and giving back to the cycle when we die by being eaten by someone with sharper claws. Most of us buy our meat pre-packed from our local stores, or kill game with mechanised weaponry.

    Realistically, we ceased to be part of the natural give and take of nature the day we invented agriculture.Irrespective of what the food chain is and is not, what is absolutely certain is that it is of no ethical relevance whatsoever. What those holding this argument fail to account for is the fact that humans, unlike lions and other predators, are moral agents. Lions and other similar predators are obligate carnivores and have no choice in what they eat; therefore they are not subject to the same moral standards as humans are. We however, have a choice. Since the vast majority of humans can be perfectly healthy without consuming any animal products, most of do so purely for taste, convenience, habit and tradition. This makes consuming animals a moral decision and considering the fact that animal agriculture is responsible for the deaths of billions of animals and is one of the leading causes of climate change, that moral decision is very much open to criticism. When we can choose to live in a way that minimises our harm to animals and the planet, and we choose otherwise, we cannot use our place in “the food chain” to justify that behaviour.

    (Original post by Tigger46)
    Humans are rational and do not need to eat meat any longer, especially not in Western societies, therefore we can rationalise what we put in our diet. Also food chain argument is irrelevant really because we are not eating what we catch and therefore contributing to a healthy ecosystem, we are breeding animals to eat which is actually detrimental to the environment.
    That wasn't an argument against vegetarianism or veganism. I was merely answering the OP's question. If I had any inkling this was just another "Veganism is the future! Meat eaters, explain yourselves!" thread I wouldn't have even bothered posting, I've read every argument on every side through the thousands of that type of thread on these forums already and I didn't really care the first time.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    I've spoken with plenty of animal-eaters in my time, and one of their favourite reasons (excuses?) for doing so seems to be that we are simply superior to the animals we eat. We are the dominant species on the planet, and so it is our right to eat whatever inferior animals are under our dominion.

    So what if a highly advanced, super-intelligent alien species arrives, subjugates us, and becomes the dominant species on the planet? Presumably meat-eaters should have no problems with their systematically breeding, caging, slaughtering and eating us - it would be their right as our superiors.

    Any thoughts?
    I've spoken to quite a few vegetarians and meat eaters alike but I must admit I've never heard this argument come up. Although I did see a variation on it in one of Peter Singer's books. Discounting the fact that at the present time aliens are purely hypothetical and there has been no solid scientific evidence of their existence thus far, I would say no. Humans show a level of intelligence and creativity that sets them apart from pretty much every other species of animal on the planet. We are unique and unmatched in our understanding and use of technology and science. No other species on the planet can produce magnificent works of art and music. No other animal can understand the concepts of religion and philosophy. I doubt animals have the incredible language diversity we have either. We are entirely unique.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goaded)
    I like meat, I will eat meat.
    So then, anything that is enjoyable is therefore justified?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goam)
    So then, anything that is enjoyable is therefore justified?
    sure, why not? you'll just come up with some bs example of how I'm wrong


    and guess what?

    you still won't change the fact i'm going to have chicken for dinner tonight and probably tomorrow night
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand why people espouse vegetarianism and veganism as natural diets when you have to take supplements to make up for what your diet is lacking. If you have to take supplements for something, your diet is inadequate by default. I'm not saying that veganism isn't better for the planet or for animal welfare, but the human body just isn't designed for it
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goam)
    Wow what an intelligent response!! You must be so smart.
    He is Mohammed (PBUH) himself, of course he is intelligent



    Before anyone beheads me, it was just a joke, his username is "Mohammed Himself"
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goaded)
    sure, why not? you'll just come up with some bs example of how I'm wrong


    and guess what?

    you still won't change the fact i'm going to have chicken for dinner tonight and probably tomorrow night
    What's wrong? Can't handle someone critiquing you? And I love how you say that you're gonna have chicken as if it's gonna make me angry, my family will probably be having it for dinner too.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goam)
    What's wrong? Can't handle someone critiquing you? And I love how you say that you're gonna have chicken as if it's gonna make me angry, my family will probably be having it for dinner too.
    Critique all you like, doesn't bother me lol

    Not to make you angry, just because I can, just like I can and will eat meat
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goaded)
    Critique all you like, doesn't bother me lol

    Not to make you angry, just because I can, just like I can and will eat meat
    Sure, enjoy it
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by goam)
    Sure, enjoy it
    Oh I do
    • Very Important Poster
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    Welcome Squad
    I just ate chicken and I ****ing loved it.

    Fish tonight as well, yum yum!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Whenever I see wildcows, i feel bad for eating meat.

    However, me going vegan still won't change anything for them...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    I don't understand why people espouse vegetarianism and veganism as natural diets when you have to take supplements to make up for what your diet is lacking. If you have to take supplements for something, your diet is inadequate by default. I'm not saying that veganism isn't better for the planet or for animal welfare, but the human body just isn't designed for it
    This just isn't true, do some more research. The only vitamin that a vegan diet can't provide is B12. Animal products contain B12 but only because supplements have been given to the animals so you may as well just take the supplements yourself.

    The National Health Service and the American Dietetic Association, both health authorities, state that vegan diets are nutritionally adequate and healthy.

    " A growing body of research also suggests that a vegan diet appears to be useful for increasing the intake of protective nutrients and phytochemicals and for minimizing the intake of dietary factors implicated in several chronic diseases. Vegans also have lower serum cholesterol and blood pressure, have reduced rates ofcardiovascular disease and a substantially lower risk of cancer. If eating animals is necessary, it is curious indeed that we gain quite so many benefits when we stop doing it."
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    what if a highly advanced, super-intelligent alien species arrives, subjugates us, and becomes the dominant species on the planet?
    Were they owt like this then I'd be first in line to offer 'em a meaty treat :awesome:

 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.