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

Vegetarians... watch

Announcements
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Humans rape humans...does that mean I get to.

    Look up the is ought gap.

    And how do you respond to someone who does respond with the moral capacity card (for the sake of other readers, that the vast majority of animals show no sign of understanding the general idea of morality).
    Again, you're using analogies which have nothing to do with this argument. That some people rape has got sod all to do with whether it's right or wrong to kill animals for meat.

    I understand the vast majority of animals don't share our moral capacity. But if I use the example of the chimpanzee again (as our closest living relative, highly intelligent, and possessing the ability to make 'moral' judgements) - they will hunt when they want to, though they don't need to eat meat at all. How would you respond to that?

    I would also ask what makes your moral standards the 'correct' standards? I've used my moral capacity to decide whether eating meat is OK, and I conclude that it is. So now what? Am I wrong, just because my moral reasoning doesn't comply with yours?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tillytots)
    been a veggie all my life. Never tried meat and never had the desire too. So no, I'm not trying to be cool or different
    im sort of the same, except i have tried meat and havnt liked it, i find the texture of it weird and not very nice :/ funny as everyone told me as soon as i had bacon i wouldnt be a vegetarian anymore! lol. iv even tried alpaca but i feel a bit guilty about that one cause theyre so cute. it wasnt even nice.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bourgeois)
    Which argument in favour of animal rights bridges the is-ought gap?
    I hope you realise that I'm not in favour of animal rights.
    My point was she's saying X happens. But that is miles away from saying that X ought to happen. They're reporting very different things.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cybele)
    Again, you're using analogies which have nothing to do with this argument. That some people rape has got sod all to do with whether it's right or wrong to kill animals for meat.

    I understand the vast majority of animals don't share our moral capacity. But if I use the example of the chimpanzee again (as our closest living relative, highly intelligent, and possessing the ability to make 'moral' judgements) - they will hunt when they want to, though they don't need to eat meat at all. How would you respond to that?

    I would also ask what makes your moral standards the 'correct' standards? I've used my moral capacity to decide whether eating meat is OK, and I conclude that it is. So now what? Am I wrong, just because my moral reasoning doesn't comply with yours?
    The rape analogy is important here. You are saying that chimpanzee's hunt, but they may be moral agents. The fact that they do it does not mean that they are morally justified to do so. It may even be the case that they have moral capacities in some situations, but do not have the capacity to extend it in others. The same logic is being used in both examples, which is exactly why it has relevance. If it is not an acceptable argument in one case but is in another you need to provide the relevant differences (note: an appeal to speciesism will need logical justification of speciesism being adhered to).

    More than that, you've not put forth your entire argument (I hope) for eating meat being justified. How am I meant to review it and see whether I think you're being coherent or not in your moral judgements?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I've been one all my life. I hardly thought it was cool or rebellious when I was crawling around and it clearly isn't that way now.

    I don't particularly see how it's any of your business what I eat. I don't go around preaching vegetarianism so what makes you think you have the right to bang on about what I'm eating? If you like meat, fine, go ahead and eat it. I'm not going to stop you and I don't particular care what you eat. My life isn't so insignificant that I have to worry about such things.

    So stop being such a self-righteous git and get over yourself.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I hope you realise that I'm not in favour of animal rights.
    My point was she's saying X happens. But that is miles away from saying that X ought to happen. They're reporting very different things.
    Yes I do understand you favour some form of utilitarianism. I used her post to pose a question. I'm curious as to how people go from "pain is bad" (or at least inflicting pain is bad) to "we ought to minimise/stop inflicting pain". Isn't that the argument?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sammydemon)
    It is only with the advent of technology and domestication that mass production of meat has been possible. The way animals are treated in these industrialised situations is very poor though and people should do more to stop the unnecessary suffering.

    I presume you advocate the consumption of meat?
    Not all animals who are bred for meat, suffer. If you are willing to pay for it, then you can ensure you meat comes from a source with high animal welfare standards. You're absolutely right when you say we should be doing more to prevent unnecessary suffering, and there's no reason why farm animals should have to suffer in the slightest. But it's hard to convince people to buy expensive meat when cheaper meat is available.

    I wouldn't consider myself an advocate. I like meat, I don't consider it immoral to consume it (within reason), I just find a few of the arguments against eating meat completely bizarre/unfounded.


    (Original post by guitarmike456)
    ^completely disagree with this, an animal hunted in the wild has lived a free life, which there is absolutely no comparison with to a farmed animal, who has never had a chance. That's what put me off eating meat.
    Also you should know it isn't humane, that's what people tell themselves to justify it, when of course the meat feels pain, it is the way they're programmed and there is no way around it. For example chickens are hung upside down on by their legs for the last 5 minutes of their lives on a machine, and their neck is cut by a rotating blade. This isn't 100% efficient as the chickens swing, if they are partially cut they are put right back at the front of this machine to go round for another 5 minutes whilst slowly bleeding to death only to be cut again. There's no way you can justify that as humane.
    An animal in the wild is also exposed to predators, injuries, illness, hunger etc etc. Farm animals are protected from all of this.
    I would absolutely love to be able to kill my own meat. I believe all meat eaters should be willing to do this as well. If I had the opportunity, I would, but I don't, so I just have to be more aware of where my meat is sourced from.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bourgeois)
    Yes I do understand you favour some form of utilitarianism. I used her post to pose a question. I'm curious as to how people go from "pain is bad" (or at least inflicting pain is bad) to "we ought to minimise/stop inflicting pain". Isn't that the argument?
    I wouldn't call myself a utilitarian.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why are most vegetarians women though?
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I wouldn't call myself a utilitarian.
    Ok. Where do you base your belief that we shouldn't eat meat (or use animals) on?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bourgeois)
    Ok. Where do you base your belief that we shouldn't eat meat (or use animals) on?
    At the moment I'd describe myself as a (somewhat rusty) universal prescriptivist (see R.M.Hare).

    The distinction you made between eating meat and using animals is important. Within the realms of the meat industry and how it operates, and the context of everyday life in Western culture, I'd argue it's wrong to subscribe to it/support it.
    This is on the basis that I think it's wrong to cause [negative] pain.
    I'm throwing the word negative (perhaps mis-using language, if there's a better way to put this let me know) there because there is a form of "positive" pain, with regards to when people enjoy being put in pain (from BDSM to people enjoying being put in pain on a martial arts mat, to who knows?)

    Where a subject wants to be put in pain.

    There is an issue in morality, in that it is immaterial. It can't be proven in the same way as an empirical proposition can (although all statements are tentative; I'm drawing on this from Brian Cox saying 'all scientific claims are tentative'. That implies some claims aren't tentative, and I can't think of any to include, thank you the sceptics of the world).

    This is precisely why I'm drawn to a form of coherent-ism within morality.
    The relationship between pain and morality I'd argue, flows (and I'm being overly brief because to be frank with you, I don't have the energy or time to write a thesis on this, and even if I did I probably wouldn't have the motivation to do it well) from several different 'potential' scenarios (I'm going through this break down to keep things as simple and understandable as possible).

    Firstly a scenario where there is no, or at least less pain.
    Secondly a scenario where a moral agent has the relevant powers to stop the pain.
    Thirdly nothing in either scenario where more pain will be caused either caused to another being/other beings.

    Now there are some scenarios where things will of course get murky, how do you compare two different subjects pain?

    But this isn't one of those times.
    We have the relevant power to stop discomfort and suffering that is being caused to these subjects.
    Further we can do this without causing more pain.


    The relationship between morality and pain I argue is through experience and power. The ability to alleviate suffering or cause pleasure.

    The reason many people don't want to say that an animal that needlessly kills isn't acting in an immoral fashion comes from identifying people as moral or immoral, from looking at the actions as excusable, justifiable and judgements that stem relating to things like accountability. Different language games (see Wittgenstein's "Philosophical investigations" for more on that) end up being played with the words.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cybele)
    An animal in the wild is also exposed to predators, injuries, illness, hunger etc etc. Farm animals are protected from all of this.
    I would absolutely love to be able to kill my own meat. I believe all meat eaters should be willing to do this as well. If I had the opportunity, I would, but I don't, so I just have to be more aware of where my meat is sourced from.
    Yes, but THAT is true cause, its natural predators, which we are not. There is no chance at freedom from farmed animals. I'm not preaching my personal choices, just saying that farming animals isn't natural, everything deserves a right to freedom.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guitarmike456)
    Yes, but THAT is true cause, its natural predators, which we are not. There is no chance at freedom from farmed animals. I'm not preaching my personal choices, just saying that farming animals isn't natural, everything deserves a right to freedom.
    What is freedom in this instance?
    And I'm not sure I'd want to follow a universal rule like that myself.
    Further, what does something being "natural" have to do with, well, anything?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by -Invidious-)
    Saw an episode of Come dine with me earlier and it got me thinking; anyone else notice the majority of "vegetarians" our age (17-23) are usually females just merely trying to be hip/cool/different? With completely retarded reasons for being vegetarian, such as "we don't have a necessary enzyme that digests meat" and "killing animals is wrong", all the while wearing leather and more often that not eating fish "because they're not as smart".
    Until I befriended someone who decided me being vegetarian is a fact everyone and anyone needs to know, only a handful of people knew I was vegetarian. I'd imagine a lot of people are the same. The only people who tend to find out are people who I live with and people who are going to cook a meal for me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dnumberwang)
    Why are most vegetarians women though?
    Who says they are?

    Stereotypically men are more into eating meat then women anyway so perhaps it's easier for a woman to give it up?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by guitarmike456)
    Yes, but THAT is true cause, its natural predators, which we are not. There is no chance at freedom from farmed animals. I'm not preaching my personal choices, just saying that farming animals isn't natural, everything deserves a right to freedom.
    How are you defining 'natural' exactly? You seem to be ignoring the fact that humans are also predators.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cybele)
    How are you defining 'natural' exactly? You seem to be ignoring the fact that humans are also predators.
    According to whom? Being forced to eat meat does not make us predators.


    (Original post by Cybele)
    OK, fair point. But what about, for example, chimpanzees - our closest living relative - they don't 'require' meat, but they will hunt when they want to. Same with any omnivore really.
    We might not be omnivores. That said, I've never heard of chimpanzees hunting for meat, will have to check that out.


    (Original post by Cybele)
    Unless you're choosing Halal/kosher meat, then the animal is stunned before the throat is cut. It's instantly brain dead. It's probably a nicer way to go then when an animal is hunted in the wild.
    Psh, you're naive if you think that's true. Don't get me wrong, it's true in most cases, but often it's not. However, that still doesn't stop it being immoral, if you believe that murder is immoral. Put yourself in the shoes of the animal and tell me you'd happily be killed, having lived a life in captivity, all because the murder was "humane".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by callum9999)
    Who says they are?

    Stereotypically men are more into eating meat then women anyway so perhaps it's easier for a woman to give it up?
    Statistics say they are...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm vegetarian because I like it. Is that a silly reason?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Are you serious? I'm a female and I've been one since I was thirteen, almost four years ago. People who do it to get attention rarely stick to it that long and even then they are in the minority. Most people have genuine reasons, so just accept that.
 
 
 
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: April 2, 2011
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.