Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Meat eaters, defend your position Watch

    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JuliusDS92)
    Can you name a single mineral, amino acid or vitamin which a typical vegetarian cannot obtain through a reasonably balanced diet?
    Vitamin B12 - can only be obtained synthetically.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Obiejess)
    Vitamin B12 - can only be obtained synthetically.
    B12 is in milk and other dairy products.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Obiejess)
    Vitamin B12 - can only be obtained synthetically.
    No. Bacteria and archaea produce it, a lot of foods have it naturally because of bacterial symbiosis.
    Quick Google search showed that ^
    • Section Leader
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    CHICKEN :sogood:
    • Section Leader
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I was actually brought up a vegetarian - but feel much stronger and healthier for eating meat
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by donutaud15)
    why do I have to defend my eating habits? :facepalm:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Your eating habits are not exempt from criticism, just like any of your lifestyle choices. In this country most people have a choice in what they eat and if you choose to eat something that causes harm then you may be expected to defend that choice. I'm not sure why so many people are offended by being asked to consider the impact of their dietary choices; if you can't even think about where your food comes from you shouldn't be eating meat.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Your eating habits are not exempt from criticism, just like any of your lifestyle choices. In this country most people have a choice in what they eat and if you choose to eat something that causes harm then you may be expected to defend that choice. I'm not sure why so many people are offended by being asked to consider the impact of their dietary choices; if you can't even think about where your food comes from you shouldn't be eating meat.
    I know exactly where my food comes from, including how the meat is killed. I don't think all people are offended, more annoyed at having to defend a personal choice that is not really anyone's business.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by donutaud15)
    I know exactly where my food comes from, including how the meat is killed. I don't think all people are offended, more annoyed at having to defend a personal choice that is not really anyone's business.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It is other people's business if your actions are causing others harm. Ethical vegetarians believe you are so it is legitimate for them to question your consumption. You might not believe that animals are worthy of moral consideration, but you should be able to defend that view rather than saying it is just a personal choice with no consequence.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It tastes nice.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    It is other people's business if your actions are causing others harm. Ethical vegetarians believe you are so it is legitimate for them to question your consumption. You might not believe that animals are worthy of moral consideration, but you should be able to defend that view rather than saying it is just a personal choice with no consequence.
    Vegetarians are no better for eating plants because they are just eating a more defenceless form of life. Killing a plant is the same as killing an animal. Actually probably worse as plants can't defend themselves. There is no moral difference between killing a plant and animal.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    It is other people's business if your actions are causing others harm. Ethical vegetarians believe you are so it is legitimate for them to question your consumption. You might not believe that animals are worthy of moral consideration, but you should be able to defend that view rather than saying it is just a personal choice with no consequence.
    For what may be the first and last time I'm going to agree with you on something. There is nothing in principle different between questioning someone's choice to eat meat, and questioning their choice to eat eggs from caged hens/veal/foie gras, wear fur or angora, drive a gas-guzzling 4 x 4, have an abortion, or shoot in the back someone who burgled your house and is running away. The only difference is the degree to which those things are generally accepted as being okay.

    The fact that it is generally accepted that eating meat is okay, though, does make a big difference to how and where it is appropriate to raise the matter socially. But, in any of those cases, an internet forum is probably top of the list of places in which there is nothing wrong with raising the issue.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Not eating meat is very unhealthy. Plus steak is good and so is bacon. YUM
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Animals die pretty horrific deaths at the hands of other animals too. It's not like everything would be rosy if we humans weren't eating them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by donutaud15)
    Vegetarians are no better for eating plants because they are just eating a more defenceless form of life. Killing a plant is the same as killing an animal. Actually probably worse as plants can't defend themselves. There is no moral difference between killing a plant and animal.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    :K: Ability to feel pain? Animals become distressed when separated from their mother/children; plants don't have relationships. Animals have social hierarchies that are disrupted in the animal industries; plants don't. Also all animals aren't the same - do you really think that other primates have more in common with plants than humans?
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I don't even feel it's something that needs to be 'defended'.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    :K: Ability to feel pain? Animals become distressed when separated from their mother/children; plants don't have relationships. Animals have social hierarchies that are disrupted in the animal industries; plants don't. Also all animals aren't the same - do you really think that other primates have more in common with plants than humans?
    A cow is not a primate. Social hierarchy means nothing. Plants are deemed lower form of life by vegetarians as they are treated not as equals like animals.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Section Leader
    • Political Ambassador
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion, most people's justifications are terrible. I'll try to run through some of the most common ones.

    Other animals eat meat, therefore it's okay if we do too.
    Yes, they do, but I missed the conference where we apparently decided that matters of ethics can decided by observing the behaviour of wild animals. Other animals kill humans and members of their own species, but nobody would ever offer this as a defence of murder. Civilised society is marked by its rejection of instinct and wild behaviour. What animals do is completely irrelevant.

    It's nutritious and good for us.
    That depends. Generally Western cultures eat far too much meat than is simply healthy and nutritious. Even if this defence did fly, it'd only justify a much smaller amount of meat than is typically consumed by the average Western meat eater. But even then, it's by no means necessary for health and nutrition for the vast majority of people.

    We evolved to eat / have always eaten meat.
    This is an argument from tradition. What has happened in the past does not validate those actions as in any way ethical. It's irrelevant what proto-humans did, or what pressures pushed us into eating meat. Eating meat may well have been necessary for our species in the past, so we might have evolved to chew and digest it, but the times have changed. We have an abundance of food - we don't need to hunt and kill things now, and pointing out we needed to in the past is irrelevant.

    Eating meat is natural.
    This is an instance of the naturalistic fallacy. That something is natural does not imply it is ethical. There are many things that are natural for humans which we collectively agree to be unethical: rape, murder, violence, etc. We cannot adequately justify a crime by saying it was a natural instinct or that nature was responsible for my desires and impulses. We expect people to use self-control and forgo harmful indulgences, whether they can be argued to be natural or not.

    It tastes nice.
    This is the worst one in my opinion. Not only is it lazy, but it's effectively a statement to the effect that you don't care whom or what you injure so long as it feels good enough. If pleasure were an acceptable justification for overruling animal rights, we would not be so against dog fighting, bestiality and other condemned practices. This kind of reasoning would never factor into other crimes such as the murdering of a human.

    Even hypothetically, if there existed a human who was a million times as delicious as bacon, we absolutely would not allow someone to simply eat them and justify it by saying, "they tasted good enough for me to kill them." Pleasure in committing what would otherwise be a crime does in no way reduce the criminal nature of it. This on its own does not at all justify killing animals unless you are prepared to accept it as a defence for other crimes - anything else is either contradictory or hypocritical.

    I acknowledge that other animals eat meat, that it's to an extent nutritious and healthy for us to eat, that there may have been evolutionary pressures for our species to eat meat, that eating meat may be a natural want of our species, and that it can taste very nice indeed, but these are all lacking as moral justifications. They do not challenge the idea that eating meat is a crime, nor even suggest that it is a necessary crime. They give no ethical redemption at all - they just help us to feel good about our willing complicity in what is in fact a very injurious and immoral industry.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mickey O'Neil)
    The holier than thou attitude of some vegetarians and vegans annoys the hell out of me tbh.
    Works both ways. Animal charities like the RSPB amuse me. It's okay to prosecute egg collectors but 99% of people eat chicken. And I've seen people, presumably meat eaters, suffer moral panics when they hear of someone who has committed bestiality. If consent is ignored for the consumption of an animal then it shouldn't matter when it comes to sexual interactions.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by miser)
    It tastes nice.
    This is the worst one in my opinion. Not only is it lazy, but it's effectively a statement to the effect that you don't care whom or what you injure so long as it feels good enough. If pleasure were an acceptable justification for overruling animal rights, we would not be so against dog fighting, bestiality and other condemned practices. This kind of reasoning would never factor into other crimes such as the murdering of a human.
    I'm gonna address this one because I feel like it's the most common justification, and if it weren't the case, many more people would probably give up eating meat (myself included).

    While I agree that at it's very base, this justification is an admittance that we place our own desires over what is likely a more ethical choice, your analogy is a little off and a little harsh.

    The vast majority of us are born into a world where eating meat pervades every facet of our lives. Most non-vegetarians eat meat every day, and very often in more than one meal per day. It is a huge part of our lives from as early as we can remember. Rejecting that and changing your entire diet is really a big life-change and not an easy thing to do.

    For that reason I have a lot of respect for vegetarians. But I also respect that everyone has to make their own choice, and it's not an easy one.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Quorn is horrible. Eggs are nice. I could live on eggs for my protein, but meat..... I can't give up meat..... It's so.... meaty.... :drool:
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?

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

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