Turn on thread page Beta

vegan, vegetarian, omnivore? watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: are you vegan, vegetarian, omni, other?
    vegan
    27
    17.31%
    vegetarian
    38
    24.36%
    omni
    85
    54.49%
    other
    6
    3.85%

    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    I have never heard that tedious joke before.

    Tea Party grassroutes types should be targeted by the american left. Or you can drive them further into the Republican right by laughing and ridiculing them.
    I'm not really joking - I hate the summer normally, it's too hot and people are too happy, the winter where everyone is miserable and quiet is so much better, but having a pit of fire is fantastic fun.

    Agreed, but I dare say you've slightly missed the point I was making, that being part of a minority group doesn't necessitate sympathy for other minority groups. Much like my firm distaste for greenpeace and their ilk

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Absolutely. Most of the philosophers are, as I am, utilitarians, so they wish to reduce net suffering to the greatest extent possible. All of them, of course, are vegans.

    David Pearce is one of the main proponents of this idea, and promotes abolishing all involuntary suffering both humans and nonhuman animals.

    The best summary of his views is contained in this article, in my view. As he states in his typically sophisticated manner: "I tentatively predict that the world's last unpleasant experience in our forward light-cone will be a precisely datable event — perhaps some micro-pain in an obscure marine invertebrate a few centuries hence. "

    Jeff McMahan is another philosopher who has written on this topic, in this New York Times piece. He responds to some of the typical objections to phasing out predators in this follow-up piece.

    Brian Tomasik has founded the Foundational Research Institute, which aims to research how we can best reduce suffering in the far-future. One of the main concepts it focuses on is how to reduce and eliminate wild-animal suffering.

    All of this has led Animal Charity Evaluators, an independent charity evaluator looking at animal charities, to discuss wild-animal suffering too.

    Peter Singer, a more familiar utilitarian philosopher and perhaps the father of the animal liberation movement, is more cautious, but obviously states that if "in some way, we could be reasonably certain that interfering with wildlife in a particular way would, in the long run, greatly reduce the amount of killing and suffering in the animal world, it would, I think, be right to interfere."

    Obviously, making predators extinct - or genetically engineering them in order to turn them into herbivores - would be a massive technological project, and we would have to continually painlessly sterilise some herbivores in the wild, too, to prevent overpopulation and therefore starvation. But, I'm reasonably confident that, in a few centuries time, it wouldn't be too difficult to achieve this. I would agree with the ethicist Oscar Horta that “our job now is to prepare the grounds for forthcoming generations to take action where we may be currently unable to act.”

    This mainly includes, at the moment, reaching out to vegans and vegetarians who have already acted rationally in rejecting speciesism.

    For an overview, the wild-animal suffering Wikipedia page is good. There's also a Facebook group called "reducing wild-animal suffering".
    According to the philpapers survey, a small plurality (almost 26%) of professional philosophers are deontologists (i.e. non-utilitarians) and almost 24% are consequentialists. As you know, consequentialists include utilitarians and non-utilitarians alike. So the utilitarians will be even less than 24%.

    Among ethicists (whose views on this issue are far more weighty than the views of ,say, philosophers of mathematics), you've far fewer consequentialists than deontologists. Social and political philosophers are even more inclined to support deontologism than ethicists. Their views too count more on this topic.

    Survey is here
    http://philpapers.org/surveys/result...1&grain=coarse

    I think you're 40 years late. Utilitarians most certainly used to dominate philosophy in the mid 50s or so. Since the 70s though, Rawls and other Harvard deontologists won the debate or at least changed the terms dramatically.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Omnivore, consumer of all, calories from wherever I do please.

    I know a couple of vegetarians, guys girlfriend got him into it, man loved them steaks before, says he's fine....but of course we all know a part of him is dying inside, screaming...

    I know of no vegans.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wyf101)
    http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/22/2/286.long

    'Vegan diet seems to confer lower risk for overall and female-specific cancer than other dietary patterns'
    Vegans had a 16 percent decreased risk of all cancers, and vegan women had a 34 percent decreased risk for other specific cancers including breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers, compared with nonvegetarians.
    Correlation does not prove causation.

    There are quite a few studies that show correlation between vegetarianism and veganism, and reduced risk of various diseases. That does not mean vegetarian or vegan are inherently any healthier than diets that include meat, or that vegetarianism has caused that reduced risk.

    Vegetarians tend to be more health conscious than the average person, and the diet basically forces them to eat a decent amount of fruit and veg (which some people are lacking). Meat eaters includes "everyone else" - it makes no distinction between the physically active meat eater who eats meat in a meal once or twice a week, and the one who sits in front of the TV eating burgers and bacon sandwiches all day.

    Compare a health conscious group to the average person, and of course there's going to be a difference with various measures of health.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thade)
    According to the philpapers survey, a small plurality (almost 26%) of professional philosophers are deontologists (i.e. non-utilitarians) and almost 24% are consequentialists. As you know, consequentialists include utilitarians and non-utilitarians alike. So the utilitarians will be even less than 24%.
    You misunderstand what I was saying, but that's probably because you weren't aware of the context. I had stated to the person to whom I replied that there are a fair few philosophers out there calling for wild-animal suffering to be reduced through human intervention in nature, and when I was asked to name some of the philosophers, I was simply noting that most, if not all, of them are utilitarians, in the passage that you bolded.

    (Original post by Thade)
    I think you're 40 years late. Utilitarians most certainly used to dominate philosophy in the mid 50s or so. Since the 70s though, Rawls and other Harvard deontologists won the debate or at least changed the terms dramatically.
    I find the objections to utilitarianism to be incredibly weak, and they're often based on our emotions and moral intuitions which we know to be flawed. And, in my view, as the great Henry Sidgwick largely demonstrated, with small additions from later philosophers, utilitarianism is the objective moral system.

    Seeing as you bring up surveys, there's one particularly relevant to this thread: work by Eric Schwitzgebel has demonstrated that 60% of moral philosophers believe that eating meat is wrong, 45% of non-ethicist philosophers believed that eating meat was wrong, and 19% of non-philosophers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    You misunderstand what I was saying, but that's probably because you weren't aware of the context. I had stated to the person to whom I replied that there are a fair few philosophers out there calling for wild-animal suffering to be reduced through human intervention in nature, and when I was asked to name some of the philosophers, I was simply noting that most, if not all, of them are utilitarians, in the passage that you bolded.
    Okay you're right then. I misunderstood.

    I find the objections to utilitarianism to be incredibly weak, and they're often based on our emotions and moral intuitions which we know to be flawed. And, in my view, as the great Henry Sidgwick largely demonstrated, with small additions from later philosophers, utilitarianism is the objective moral system.

    Seeing as you bring up surveys, there's one particularly relevant to this thread: work by Eric Schwitzgebel has demonstrated that 60% of moral philosophers believe that eating meat is wrong, 45% of non-ethicist philosophers believed that eating meat was wrong, and 19% of non-philosophers.
    I am not sure how the second paragraph is relevant. I didn't say that meat eating is right or neutral. It is wrong and I don't know of any major philosopher today (Parfit, Singer, etc) who does not think so.

    As for the first, it is probably off-topic so I won't get into that. I didn't say that utilitarianism is wrong btw, I said it's not the dominant power it once was due to the criticisms levied by Rawls, Nozick, etc.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I'm vegan but no one I know is which is why I get sh*t for it all the time.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
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.