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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by louisjevans)
    I eat beef, you eat grass. Therefore, my food sh*ts on your food!
    Ah yes, as a vegetarian I regularly go out to farmer's fields and feast on grass!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not really bothered to read everyone's views, but:
    for animal welfare: good thing, but think of the shortage of chickens and such since we dont need them if we all become vegi? They'll be near extinction!
    environment: not necessarily. Obviously less transport will be needed from farms to meathouse to supermarkets etc for meat, but this transport will be used for fruit and veg., but the cows still left for milk etc will produce lots of methane which is not good for greenhouse gases layer in atmosphere so less heat will get through it from sun and it'll get really cold.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kaypc)
    its all part of nature to eat meat. Never met a vegetarian lion in the wild so i don't see the problem with it and many people can source their meat responsibly and sustainably.
    Right after I called out the above posters for making the appeal to nature, you make it.

    (Original post by Aimeelou.x)
    Animals will always die with or without us eating them. It's nature.
    (Original post by Nitrogen)
    Im afraid thats how the food chain works.
    (Original post by rainbow.panda)
    Humans are omnivores, thus I will carry on eating my bacon sandwiches.
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    We are omnivores, nature built us to eat animals as well as vegetables and fruit. There is no moral wrong in doing so; just because we possess more intelligence than other animals doesn't mean we should necessarily halt eating them assuming the above 'no suffering or pain' criteria is met.

    There is no reason to believe that if humans were not the dominant species on Earth and, say, pigs were, that they would take the same ethical concerns into account and not eat us for food. Hence I don't buy into the whole 'we know better' argument.
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    All omnivoress kill other animals by depriving them of life.
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

    Thanks to all of you I'm probably going to get in trouble for spamming again.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Right after I called out the above posters for making the appeal to nature, you make it.











    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

    Thanks to all of you I'm probably going to get in trouble for spamming again.
    Oh sorry, you must have not read my point. Try again. That doesn't address any of it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Oh sorry, you must have not read my point. Try again. That doesn't address any of it.
    Sorry to ask, but do you have some kind of memory problem because:

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    We are omnivores, nature built us to eat animals as well as vegetables and fruit. There is no moral wrong in doing so; just because we possess more intelligence than other animals doesn't mean we should necessarily halt eating them assuming the above 'no suffering or pain' criteria is met.
    Here you said that nature "built" us in a certain way and implied that that makes it justified.

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    All omnivoress kill other animals by depriving them of life. We just do it with technology, and in a far more humane manner than other animals. Should we train all omnivores to stop eating meat?
    And here you suggested that it was justified because other omnivores do it, mixed in with the Two Wrongs Make a Right fallacy you made by suggesting because other animals do it, that somehow makes it okay.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    And here you suggested that it was justified because other omnivores do it, mixed in with the Two Wrongs Make a Right fallacy you made by suggesting because other animals do it, that somehow makes it okay.
    The essential vitamin B12 is only found naturally in animal products. Explain that if eating animal products isn't "right"?
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by rainbow.panda)
    The essential vitamin B12 is only found naturally in animal products. Explain that if eating animal products isn't "right"?
    Saying that a thing is natural is not the same as saying that it is morally right. Here is a vegetarian resource page on vitamin B12 which gives information on available alternative sources of it, so although it may have been an issue in the past, it is not anymore.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'm omnivorous, but on the subject of abstaining from meat eating due to the animal cruelty issue, I really think it is very hypocritical of vegetarians to be vegetarian. If one really cares about animal cruelty, then they'd know that the egg and milk industries are some of the cruellest to animals. By continuing to eat eggs and milk (and even honey, some vegans think that is cruel as well) then you're just undermining the millions of male chicks that are culled, and the cows that suffer in the milking process, in order to prioritise livestock.

    I'm probably going to keep being omnivorous my whole life, but frankly if you're going to go down the animal cruelty veggie route, you really should go the whole hog. Otherwise it's kinda pointless.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by edithwashere)
    I'm omnivorous, but on the subject of abstaining from meat eating due to the animal cruelty issue, I really think it is very hypocritical of vegetarians to be vegetarian. If one really cares about animal cruelty, then they'd know that the egg and milk industries are some of the cruellest to animals. By continuing to eat eggs and milk (and even honey, some vegans think that is cruel as well) then you're just undermining the millions of male chicks that are culled, and the cows that suffer in the milking process, in order to prioritise livestock.

    I'm probably going to keep being omnivorous my whole life, but frankly if you're going to go down the animal cruelty veggie route, you really should go the whole hog. Otherwise it's kinda pointless.
    I don't agree with this argument because it fails to recognise the idea that a complicity in less cruelty is better than one in more cruelty. Whether a person who is concerned for the welfare of animals will be vegan or not I suspect directly relates to how able they feel at doing so.

    It is also possible to be vegetarian in principle and vegan in practice due to not condemning the idea that the consumption of eggs and dairy is cruel ipso facto, but out of recognition that there are no cruelty-free sources to procure them.

    There is also the issue that not all people's bodies are able to cope with a vegan diet and experience symptoms of malnourishment. This does not seem to be the case for everyone, however.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Socktor)
    Here you said that nature "built" us in a certain way and implied that that makes it justified.
    Not quite. You refused to address why I think it's justified -- you just said 'APPEAL TO NATURE OMGZ'. I don't think it's okay JUST because it's natural.

    I said it IS natural, and there is also no proof of moral equivalence between animals. Like I said, if pigs were at the top of the intelligence/food chain and we were the lower species, there is no guarantee of a different higher, moral power making the same decisions we do. Morals are very abstract and subjective, and I don't believe they make a great argument -- certainly not as good as science and, yes, nature, which says we are allowed to eat meat (within reason).

    And here you suggested that it was justified because other omnivores do it, mixed in with the Two Wrongs Make a Right fallacy you made by suggesting because other animals do it, that somehow makes it okay.
    I didn't say it's okay because other omnivores do it. You must be illiterate, I apologise, I'll make it clearer.

    All omnivores kill other animals by depriving them of life. That is the nature of killing, after all. Are you to suggest that this act is barbaric, immoral and just because they have less intelligence it's somehow okay for them to do it and not us? Yet vegetarians constantly argue that the same intellect is what should make us keep animals alive.

    Like I said, just because we are a 'higher function' creature doesn't mean we necessarily have less rights to eating meat. There is no proof of moral equivalence, it's an abstract human concept and it's impossible to know how animals would act if our roles were switched.

    I never said two wrongs make a right -- I said there is no proof of wrongdoing. Sheesh.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I don't agree with this argument because it fails to recognise the idea that a complicity in less cruelty is better than one in more cruelty. Whether a person who is concerned for the welfare of animals will be vegan or not I suspect directly relates to how able they feel at doing so.
    Is it though? I don't think you can pick and choose morals. If you agree that animals are entitled to a good life free of suffering and premature death then it is entirely hypocritical to suggest that battery chickens have less of that right than a cow being lead to slaughter.

    There is also the issue that not all people's bodies are able to cope with a vegan diet and experience symptoms of malnourishment. This does not seem to be the case for everyone, however.
    Surely that says a lot about the idea of having an unbalanced vegan diet...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rainbow.panda)
    The essential vitamin B12 is only found naturally in animal products. Explain that if eating animal products isn't "right"?
    Animals, including humans, need incredibly tiny amounts of B12. It's not true that it's only found in animal products, although they are a very good source. B12 is produced by bacteria and (I think) yeast, and herbivores ingest it from contaminants on the surfaces of the plants they eat. Carnivores don't eat plants (mostly), so they get it from the flesh of animals they kill, particularly their livers. Omnivores can get it from either source, and humans would probably get all their requirements from plants if we lived in a state of nature. Bizarre though it sounds, it's our modern hygiene practices (washing / peeling our food) which are the main threat to a vegetarian's B12 health Fortunately, there are veggie/vegan sources out there.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    Saying that a thing is natural is not the same as saying that it is morally right. Here is a vegetarian resource page on vitamin B12 which gives information on available alternative sources of it, so although it may have been an issue in the past, it is not anymore.
    This doesn't address the point; it's suggesting you get it artificially from B12-fortified foods. Without technology, if we were to follow the correct moral guidelines in your eyes, we'd get permanent neurological damage. Again don't say we're a higher power and therefore the rules are different, since this is unproven.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Is it though? I don't think you can pick and choose morals. If you agree that animals are entitled to a good life free of suffering and premature death then it is entirely hypocritical to suggest that battery chickens have less of that right than a cow being lead to slaughter.
    As in, 'is a complicity in less cruelty is better than one in more cruelty'? Yes, I bellieve it is. I don't believe it is hypocritical to hold that a cow's rights are more important than a chicken's, as this can be the implication of a perfectly sound theory of where rights come from.

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Surely that says a lot about the idea of having an unbalanced vegan diet...
    It would say that veganism was difficult given our biology. If I'm missing any further implications feel free to point them out.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    As in, 'is a complicity in less cruelty is better than one in more cruelty'? Yes, I bellieve it is. I don't believe it is hypocritical to hold that a cow's rights are more important than a chicken's, as this can be the implication of a perfectly sound theory of where rights come from.
    Why are cows rights more valid than chickens rights? What is the significant biological difference between the two which determines the right to life and the right to be treated like ****?

    It would say that veganism was difficult given our biology. If I'm missing any further implications feel free to point them out.
    Hence humans are supposed to eat meat if we are unable to cope without something present only in meat. It's not just difficult -- it's impossible to live healthily without it.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    This doesn't address the point; it's suggesting you get it artificially from B12-fortified foods. Without technology, if we were to follow the correct moral guidelines in your eyes, we'd get permanent neurological damage. Again don't say we're a higher power and therefore the rules are different, since this is unproven.
    That's of course untrue. The moral action in any given circumstance is the one that is most moral. What might have been considered necessary in the past is not necessary today, and our actions ought to adapt in recognition of that.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Why are cows rights more valid than chickens rights? What is the significant biological difference between the two which determines the right to life and the right to be treated like ****?
    I don't believe chickens have 'the right to be treated like ****'. What I said was that it was not hypocritical to hold the belief that a cow's rights are more important than a chicken's, in the same way as you might consider a human's rights more important than an ant's.

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Hence humans are supposed to eat meat if we are unable to cope without something present only in meat. It's not just difficult -- it's impossible to live healthily without it.
    'Supposed to' according to whom? That we are of a certain biology is merely circumstantial.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    I don't believe chickens have 'the right to be treated like ****'. What I said was that it was not hypocritical to hold the belief that a cow's rights are more important than a chicken's, in the same way as you might consider a human's rights more important than an ant's.
    Well you do believe that complicity in smaller cruelty is better than complicity in larger cruelty, you said so yourself. I don't see how you (not actually you, general you!) can hold that view and consider some animals off-limits and others not. And yes, since humans are at the top of the food chain, I do consider our ability to eat any animal we deem fit acceptable. I am arguing that animals also have that same right to eat meat, but I don't see how it fits into the complicity into less cruelty thing.

    'Supposed to' according to whom? That we are of a certain biology is merely circumstantial.
    It's not circumstantial, it's fundamental to the argument. We are of a certain biology because that is just how we developed. If we were built to require something only available from meat, it makes no sense to say that is immoral.

    Remember again that morals are a human construct, and not actual scientific proofs.
    • Section Leader
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Well you do believe that complicity in smaller cruelty is better than complicity in larger cruelty, you said so yourself. I don't see how you (not actually you, general you!) can hold that view and consider some animals off-limits and others not. And yes, since humans are at the top of the food chain, I do consider our ability to eat any animal we deem fit acceptable. I am arguing that animals also have that same right to eat meat, but I don't see how it fits into the complicity into less cruelty thing.
    There would be several factors involved. For example, what is the feasibility of avoiding eating one animal, versus the feasibility of avoiding eating others? Does animal x suffer less than animal y? No matter how people answer these sorts of questions, I recognise that less suffering is a better outcome than more suffering, and this is what I care about.

    (Original post by MattKneale)
    It's not circumstantial, it's fundamental to the argument. We are of a certain biology because that is just how we developed. If we were built to require something only available from meat, it makes no sense to say that is immoral.

    Remember again that morals are a human construct, and not actual scientific proofs.
    Let's compare it to a hypothetical scenario. If we were 'built' to require torturing children, what would be your reaction to it? Would you use the same retort that you use here: "If we were built to require something only available from torturing children, it makes no sense to say that is immoral"?

    Thankfully that is not how it turned out, but in such a scenario I would like to think I would simply refuse. I would still class it as immoral.

    However, it certainly is circumstantial now because we are not required to kill animals to get vitamin B12, so the point that we were once required to is irrelevant.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I like the taste of meat, it's also fairly good for me, if you want to be a veggie fine but leave me alone I'll do as I please thanks and that's all there is to it. People getting into over the top debates over the nutritional value of meat and vegetables etc :rolleyes:
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
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.