The Student Room Group

Can you counter this flawless argument for Veganism?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Original post by DiddyDec
Better than whatever the Welsh eat.

You'd be surprised. They aren't that different from normal people.
Reply 21
Original post by angelike1
"Morality is subjective. If the Aztecs thought it was morally acceptable to sacrifice humans, why would they care what their offering thinks about it?"

Exactly. That was the point I was making. :confused:
Original post by Napp
No all animals don't, just most animals. Be they birds, bears, cats, lizards etc. etc.

It rather helps and is infinitely healthier than eating soggy lentils.


No all animals don't, just most animals. Be they birds, bears, cats, lizards etc. etc.

I mean, even if that were true, I still don't see how that's relevant to whether it is moral for us to eat meat.

Other animals are not intelligent enough to have empathy towards other members of another pack or tribe, let alone another species.

It rather helps and is infinitely healthier than eating soggy lentils.

Citation needed

Now whose using farcical comparisons? :rolleyes:

Thats your opinion and you're welcome to it. The majority of the world disagrees though.



The majority of the world once thought enslaving people was fine. So not relevant.

Then again, if we were to initiate your plan to end meat eating it would entail a mass genocide of livestock which would no longer serve any purpose. Or simply letting it loose to destroy the natural habitat. How exactly do you square this with your unique interpretation of 'morality'?

I don't know but the answer clearly isn't to keep the cycle going and letting the demand for animal suffering to keep on increasing.
I'm assuming you do think battery farming chickens is immoral yes? What should we do to those billions of chickens being battery farmed? Do we just continue supplying the demand because there's no where for them to go?
Original post by QE2
As I said, morality is subjective. We would see it as immoral, they would not.



As I said, morality is subjective. We would see it as immoral, they would not.


So I guess you'd probably agree, from the chicken's perspective, we are pretty evil right?
Same goes from the perspective of slaves/torture victims etc?

We are omnivores. There was a time (and there may be occasions now) where eating animals for food is a necessity.

Do you believe that it is immoral for a fox to eat a chicken?

Of course not. Foxes need to eat meat to survive. If a person needed meat specifically to sustain themselves then I would of course not be against it.

You also seem to be succumbing to the appeal to nature fallacy. There's no governing body on what is and isn't considered "natural". It's as absurd as believing in a God who dictates what you are meant to do. Just because we can do a certain thing doesn't mean we should.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by QE2
Exactly. That was the point I was making. :confused:

If you saw me torturing a dog in my back garden because "morality is subjective" and I believed what I was doing was perfectly fine, would you not feel the need to intervene or at least convince me to stop?

Also, don't want you to use a cop-out so let's assume it's also legal for me to do this.
Reply 25
Original post by angelike1
So I guess you'd probably agree, from the chicken's perspective, we are pretty evil right?

Does the chicken think the fox is evil?

Same goes from the perspective of slaves/torture victims etc?

Not necessarily. They may be working within the same moral framework. A torturer may dislike his work but see it as a necessary course of action for the greater good. Or where both sides in a conflict would happily make slaves of the captured.

Of course not. Foxes need to eat meat to survive. If a person needed meat specifically to sustain themselves then I would of course not be against it.

So, as I said, eating meat per se is not immoral, but the circumstances under which it is eaten may be.

You also seem to be succumbing to the appeal to nature fallacy. There's no governing body on what is and isn't considered "natural". It's as absurd as believing in a God who dictates what you are meant to do. Just because we can do a certain thing doesn't mean we should.

Not so. I'm not saying that eating meat is "good" because it is natural, only that it is natural. Ironically it is you who is committing an inverse appeal to nature by claiming that because we don't always have to eat meat, it is therefore "bad".
Reply 26
Original post by angelike1
If you saw me torturing a dog in my back garden because "morality is subjective" and I believed what I was doing was perfectly fine, would you not feel the need to intervene or at least convince me to stop?

Also, don't want you to use a cop-out so let's assume it's also legal for me to do this.

You seem to be missing the point.
If we both lived in a society where dog torturing was a morally acceptable, common practice, why would I feel the need to intervene?
Reply 27
Original post by angelike1
Other animals are not intelligent enough to have empathy towards other members of another pack or tribe, let alone another species.

Clearly not true. Many species show empathy, some even display altruism.

The majority of the world once thought enslaving people was fine. So not relevant.

Did they believe what they were doing was immoral?
Because the Bible says it OK.
Does the chicken think the fox is evil?


No, because the chicken knows the fox needs to eat it for sustenance. The fox also only acts on its instincts.

If I get attacked by a hungry bear, I'm not gonna lock it up in a bear prison. The bear isn't in the moral wrong. It's a bear.
If I get attacked by a cannibal, I'd say the actions of the cannibal are morally wrong. Wouldn't you?

So, as I said, eating meat per se is not immoral, but the circumstances under which it is eaten may be.


Ok I agree. So if the circumstance was: a person wanted to kill and consume a chicken because it tastes nice, would that be immoral?

If we both lived in a society where dog torturing was a morally acceptable, common practice, why would I feel the need to intervene?


"If we both lived in a society where slavery was a morally acceptable, common practice, why would I feel the need to intervene?"

Are you telling me your morals should only come from societal norms as opposed to using your own critical thinking?
Are you not willing to decide what's wrong and right unless the rest of the population thinks the same?
Isn't this why we have radicalization and corrupt governments?
Surely, if everyone thought this way, we would still be owning slaves?

But what do you think about killing animals for satisfying your taste buds? You don't have to bring society into this to answer the question.

Not so. I'm not saying that eating meat is "good" because it is natural, only that it is natural. Ironically it is you who is committing an inverse appeal to nature by claiming that because we don't always have to eat meat, it is therefore "bad".

Ok so what if it is natural? Why is it relevant to the discussion?
Reply 30
Original post by angelike1
I mean, even if that were true, I still don't see how that's relevant to whether it is moral for us to eat meat.

Other animals are not intelligent enough to have empathy towards other members of another pack or tribe, let alone another species.

1) As i said, 'morals' do not factor in on this
2) Plenty of animals do, what're you on about? It's a well known fact that plenty of species are highly intelligent from Elephants onwards.


Citation needed

Basic facts that can be taken as a given do not need to referenced... If you think a balanced diet is less healthy than lentils, well..

The majority of the world once thought enslaving people was fine. So not relevant.

Every single one of your arguments seems to be facetious, is that on purpose or?


I don't know but the answer clearly isn't to keep the cycle going and letting the demand for animal suffering to keep on increasing.
I'm assuming you do think battery farming chickens is immoral yes? What should we do to those billions of chickens being battery farmed? Do we just continue supplying the demand because there's no where for them to go?

Indeed, one doesnt support battery farming but that is somewhat different from your plot to remove livestock completely. I'm curious though how do you square the morals of forcing millions and millions of people into poverty by destroying their livelihoods.. for 'chickens'?
Original post by Napp
Basic facts that can be taken as a given do not need to referenced... If you think a balanced diet is less healthy than lentils, well..

"Lol just trust me bro"

You know there's actual scientific debate as to whether an omnivore diet is more or less healthy than a plant based one?
Reply 32
Original post by angelike1
"Lol just trust me bro"

You know there's actual scientific debate as to whether an omnivore diet is more or less healthy than a plant based one?

Your words, not mine. If you don't get how referencing works though.. :smartass:
There is indeed, given that in no way does your hemp based 'diet' come out trumps yet, the status quo stands :smile:. It's a fairly standard principle of scientific rigour that your point of view needs to be proved not merely conjectured to be considered as proof.
Never mind it is a matter of extremely base biology that the nutrients available in a balanced diet is preferable to, well, nibbling on a parsnip.

Then again, given your starting position claimed that your argument was "flawless" (:rofl: ) and then proceeded to go off on a, err.. 'unique' example about alien restaurants. Well...
Original post by Napp
Your words, not mine. If you don't get how referencing works though.. :smartass:
There is indeed, given that in no way does your hemp based 'diet' come out trumps yet, the status quo stands :smile:. It's a fairly standard principle of scientific rigour that your point of view needs to be proved not merely conjectured to be considered as proof.
Never mind it is a matter of extremely base biology that the nutrients available in a balanced diet is preferable to, well, nibbling on a parsnip.

Then again, given your starting position claimed that your argument was "flawless" (:rofl: ) and then proceeded to go off on a, err.. 'unique' example about alien restaurants. Well...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408398.2016.1138447

"This comprehensive meta-analysis reports a significant protective effect of a vegetarian diet versus the incidence and/or mortality from ischemic heart disease (−25%) and incidence from total cancer (−8%). Vegan diet conferred a significant reduced risk (−15%) of incidence from total cancer."

Also idg why you're being so defensive lol.

I want to continue eating meat, it tastes good. It would be great if you could convince me that there aren't any implications of doing so compared to a vegan one.
Original post by angelike1
No, because the chicken knows the fox needs to eat it for sustenance. The fox also only acts on its instincts.

If I get attacked by a hungry bear, I'm not gonna lock it up in a bear prison. The bear isn't in the moral wrong. It's a bear.
If I get attacked by a cannibal, I'd say the actions of the cannibal are morally wrong. Wouldn't you?



Ok I agree. So if the circumstance was: a person wanted to kill and consume a chicken because it tastes nice, would that be immoral?



"If we both lived in a society where slavery was a morally acceptable, common practice, why would I feel the need to intervene?"

Are you telling me your morals should only come from societal norms as opposed to using your own critical thinking?
Are you not willing to decide what's wrong and right unless the rest of the population thinks the same?
Isn't this why we have radicalization and corrupt governments?
Surely, if everyone thought this way, we would still be owning slaves?

But what do you think about killing animals for satisfying your taste buds? You don't have to bring society into this to answer the question.


Ok so what if it is natural? Why is it relevant to the discussion?

@QE2

Soz didn't realised I didn't properly quote you.
Reply 35
Original post by angelike1
No, because the chicken knows the fox needs to eat it for sustenance. The fox also only acts on its instincts.

I don't think the chicken is aware of the the fox's needs and motivations.

If I get attacked by a hungry bear, I'm not gonna lock it up in a bear prison. The bear isn't in the moral wrong. It's a bear.
If I get attacked by a cannibal, I'd say the actions of the cannibal are morally wrong. Wouldn't you?

If the cannibal has been raised as a cannibal in a cannibal culture, why it it any more "morally wrong" than the bear?
And what if the bear eats another bear? Is it then morally wrong?

Ok I agree. So if the circumstance was: a person wanted to kill and consume a chicken because it tastes nice, would that be immoral?

Depends on the circumstances. Simply killing for food is not immoral, per se.

"If we both lived in a society where slavery was a morally acceptable, common practice, why would I feel the need to intervene?"

You seem to be under the delusion that if you were alive in the 18th century, you would necessarily have been an abolitionist. You might have been a slaver. You probably would have had no opinion on the issue.
Are you currently trying to change the moral consensus of the society you live in? If so, which bits? And why those and not others?

Are you telling me your morals should only come from societal norms as opposed to using your own critical thinking?
Are you not willing to decide what's wrong and right unless the rest of the population thinks the same?
Isn't this why we have radicalization and corrupt governments?
Surely, if everyone thought this way, we would still be owning slaves?

Morals are mostly social consensus and imposed rules. Most people simply accept the status quo - which is why slavery endured for millennia.

But what do you think about killing animals for satisfying your taste buds? You don't have to bring society into this to answer the question.

I think it can be morally questionable (depending on the circumstances), but I still eat meat occasionally. I am more concerned with the environmental impact of commercial livestock farming.

Ok so what if it is natural? Why is it relevant to the discussion?

Erm, you brought it up. I never mentioned it until then.
Original post by QE2
I don't think the chicken is aware of the the fox's needs and motivations.


If the cannibal has been raised as a cannibal in a cannibal culture, why it it any more "morally wrong" than the bear?
And what if the bear eats another bear? Is it then morally wrong?


Depends on the circumstances. Simply killing for food is not immoral, per se.


You seem to be under the delusion that if you were alive in the 18th century, you would necessarily have been an abolitionist. You might have been a slaver. You probably would have had no opinion on the issue.
Are you currently trying to change the moral consensus of the society you live in? If so, which bits? And why those and not others?


Morals are mostly social consensus and imposed rules. Most people simply accept the status quo - which is why slavery endured for millennia.


I think it can be morally questionable (depending on the circumstances), but I still eat meat occasionally. I am more concerned with the environmental impact of commercial livestock farming.


Erm, you brought it up. I never mentioned it until then.

I think you're being way too philosophical than necessary.

I don't think we'd be so deep into what it means to be "moral" if we were discussing any other heated topic like FGM or something. So I feel as though your love for meat is making you a bit biased in your arguments.

Anyway, I think the whole "treat others how you would like to be treated" (The Golden Rule) is the main gist of what I was trying to get at in the OP, in case it wasn't obvious.
Reply 37
Original post by angelike1
I think you're being way too philosophical than necessary.

I don't think we'd be so deep into what it means to be "moral" if we were discussing any other heated topic like FGM or something. So I feel as though your love for meat is making you a bit biased in your arguments.

Anyway, I think the whole "treat others how you would like to be treated" (The Golden Rule) is the main gist of what I was trying to get at in the OP, in case it wasn't obvious.

When your question is essentially "is survival of the fittest moral", Id think most of the answers would be philosophical :lol:

The world doesnt work in unspoken rules, especially not ones about love and kindness. To say that a chicken or a cow should be equivalent to a human live is nonsense, the human brain is programmed to care for members of their own species and not about our food's feelings. It comes down to pure instinct.

I also question why you're asking this if you too eat meat? For someone who has all these 'flawless arguments', surely they would be strong enough of reasons for you to go vegetarian/vegan yourself?
Reply 38
Original post by angelike1
I think you're being way too philosophical than necessary.

You started what is essentially a philosophical discussion and keep raising philosophical issues like the morality of bears or the how chickens perceive the motives of others, so you can't complain when people respond in kind.

I don't think we'd be so deep into what it means to be "moral" if we were discussing any other heated topic like FGM or something.

Do you believe that FGM is ever "natural" or "necessary"? If not, your point is fundamentally flawed.

So I feel as though your love for meat is making you a bit biased in your arguments.

I don't have a "love for meat".
And I clearly stated that I think livestock farming can be morally questionable, and that I appreciate the inherent contradiction is people's positions on this issue.
It seems that it is actually your hatred of meat that is making you a bit biased in your "all or nothing" arguments. There is nuance and context in this issue, as there is in so many others.

Anyway, I think the whole "treat others how you would like to be treated" (The Golden Rule) is the main gist of what I was trying to get at in the OP, in case it wasn't obvious.

Does the Golden Rule only apply to humans?
Does it always apply in all circumstances?

Anyway, I thought you wanted to avoid moral philosophy?
Original post by LovelyMrFox
When your question is essentially "is survival of the fittest moral", Id think most of the answers would be philosophical :lol:

The world doesnt work in unspoken rules, especially not ones about love and kindness. To say that a chicken or a cow should be equivalent to a human live is nonsense, the human brain is programmed to care for members of their own species and not about our food's feelings. It comes down to pure instinct.

I also question why you're asking this if you too eat meat? For someone who has all these 'flawless arguments', surely they would be strong enough of reasons for you to go vegetarian/vegan yourself?

Yeah I'm thinking about it.

Quick Reply