Hello. Trans-diet CIS male reporting in.

[Tentative]

Hi,

Posting on this forum mainly for advice on transitioning (my thread is over at: https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... f=7&t=1595)

Figured it was only polite to post here and introduce myself.

I'm not actually a vegan, I'm a weekday vegetarian right now, who's trying to get closer to full-vegan for health reasons.

[brimstoneSalad]

Welcome Tentative! Thanks for introducing yourself.

I responded to your thread, I hope that helps. Please don't hesitate to ask any questions.

[garrethdsouza]

Hi tenrative whats your take on veganism and atheism?

[Tentative]

Welcome Tentative! Thanks for introducing yourself.

I responded to your thread, I hope that helps. Please don't hesitate to ask any questions.

Thanks, I won't.

Hi tenrative whats your take on veganism and atheism?

I wasn't raised religious, so atheism comes naturally. As I grew I became more humanist in my views, and consider myself a liberal (in the classical sense, not a progressive modern-day liberal) humanist. I've always been interested in religious belief as a subject, and I feel faith is an important issue today.

As for veganism, I find some of the moral arguments compelling, but I'm quite pragmatic when it comes to consuming living things to survive. I'm more interested in the health benefits.

[brimstoneSalad]

As for veganism, I find some of the moral arguments compelling, but I'm quite pragmatic when it comes to consuming living things to survive. I'm more interested in the health benefits.

Don't the efficiency and environmental arguments defeat the old pragmatic argument?

That is, that it's more efficient in terms of agriculture and feeding the most people on plants, and eating animals damages the environment we rely on to survive. Thus, meat is no longer pragmatic as it may have been a hundred years ago before modern farming methods and nutritional supplements, and in a day where we are dealing with global warming and the destabilization it threatens.

[Tentative]

As for veganism, I find some of the moral arguments compelling, but I'm quite pragmatic when it comes to consuming living things to survive. I'm more interested in the health benefits.

Don't the efficiency and environmental arguments defeat the old pragmatic argument?

That is, that it's more efficient in terms of agriculture and feeding the most people on plants, and eating animals damages the environment we rely on to survive. Thus, meat is no longer pragmatic as it may have been a hundred years ago before modern farming methods and nutritional supplements, and in a day where we are dealing with global warming and the destabilization it threatens.

I was only addressing the moral arguments regarding animal welfare - specifically, any claims that it is morally "wrong" to eat animals - on which I have yet to be persuaded.

For what it's worth, I agree with most arguments centred on animal welfare, and given a choice at a supermarket to buy cruelty-free, ethically sourced meat I would and do - but quite often the choice isn't there - or at least it is incredibly difficult.

It should not be understated that it requires significant will, patience and time to be a meat-eater who is constantly mindful of where and how his meat is sourced, particularly if one eats out on a regular basis (and spending most of my time in the East, where most countries don't seem to have words for "ethically-sourced" or "cruelty-free" complicates my own situation further).

It seems to me the people I come across who are most strongly persuaded by the welfare argument - enough to put it their beliefs into action - tend to be the ones who just stop eating meat at all. That seems to be significantly easier than maintaining a strictly welfare-ethical meat-eater stance.

As for your point on environmental concerns, those are the hardest to ignore. They are also something most people ignore out of a combination of (arguably misguided) indifference and laziness of the kind I outlined above. I think for those for whom it does pose an ethical dilemma, there are at least two factors that would block a move to stop eating meat, both of which I recognise in myself:

The first is the quite rational understanding that your own individual actions have a negligible effect on large, complex systems. That you aren't actually making a difference, and stopping eating meat won't change anything unless billions of other people did it too (in which case you not stopping wouldn't make a difference). Note: I would concede that this is a morally void way to live ones life, but it is a comfortable get-out clause because it really is true of most actions most of the time.

The second, and probably stronger factor is the civilisational tendency to offload responsibilities. We are used to living by a series of social contracts: we entrust the police to protect us; we entrust the courts to punish those who do us harm; we entrust schools to educate our children and so on. The extent to which each individual is willing to subrogate their own autonomy within a social contract, of course, varies wildly; however most people extend this implicit trust to food production companies (large and small), and the governmental bodies which oversee them. We entrust (however misguidedly) that our leaders will act in our best interests and pass (and enforce) legislation that protects the environment; ensures safe meat production; enforces policies of animal welfare that are agreed upon by society as a whole, and so on.

[brimstoneSalad]

I was only addressing the moral arguments regarding animal welfare - specifically, any claims that it is morally "wrong" to eat animals - on which I have yet to be persuaded.

It's difficult to make a claim that it's wrong to eat animal products -- unless we talk about how they affect personal health, and the responsibility we have to ourselves and our families to stay healthy and not cause our own early deaths (much as in the case of smoking) -- but the wrong comes from the consequences of production which are hard to get around.

There is something called freeganism, in which people may eat meat obtained from waste (like by dumpster diving), and I would say that's pretty much morally equivalent to veganism (except in the negative health effects, which have their own consequences upon society and our loved ones).

For what it's worth, I agree with most arguments centred on animal welfare, and given a choice at a supermarket to buy cruelty-free, ethically sourced meat I would and do - but quite often the choice isn't there - or at least it is incredibly difficult.

I would say that not only is it difficult, but that "cruelty free" is mostly a marketing thing. There are only marginal differences in the cruelty involved in most meat production.

Less cruelty is certainly better than more, but I'm very doubtful of the actual conditions, and whether even the current notion of ideal conditions (when they're followed, which in practice is unlikely) comes very close to something legitimately cruelty free.
And since meat isn't necessary or healthy (For people who need to eat meat due to living in third world countries with poor agricultural technology/output, that's understandable), any cruelty becomes unnecessary cruelty.

Any time we have to harm others, we should consider what we're getting in return. Animal testing to develop life saving drugs? That's a much more reasonable trade off, and probably does more good than harm. Meat which isn't necessary and gives people heart disease too? Not a very good trade off. Kind of a lose-lose scenario.

That is why, in essence, I would say it's immoral to produce animal products.

If you have to harm another or kill to save your life (which applies to poor people in certain places where they can't afford vegetables), or do a greater good (like develop a life saving drug to save many lives), that can be justified.
But harming or killing others for no practical reason -- or just for pleasure/enjoyment, particularly when there are other options -- and at personal cost (like the health cost), wouldn't be justified, so would be immoral.

The first is the quite rational understanding that your own individual actions have a negligible effect on large, complex systems. That you aren't actually making a difference, and stopping eating meat won't change anything unless billions of other people did it too (in which case you not stopping wouldn't make a difference). Note: I would concede that this is a morally void way to live ones life, but it is a comfortable get-out clause because it really is true of most actions most of the time.

Even if it's just you, you are making a small difference; people often make the mistake of equating small to zero.

But even if so, I think you hit the point that, morally, we should behave in a way that if all people behaved that way, the world would be a better place. The only actions and effects we're ultimately responsible for are our own -- so even if the world goes to shit, at least we weren't part of it.

The reasoning of negligible contribution has a lot of frightening consequences.
A horrific example of this is the logic of the gang rape/murder. Each of the 20 men can reason independently "well, even if I don't, she's still going to be raped by 19 guys and 20 isn't really worse, and she's going to be killed and buried in a shallow grave anyway". Nobody feels responsible when a large number of people are colluding on something. It's a troubling aspect of human psychology.

But practically (and more optimistically), it's also not true that it's going to be negligible, since our actions and arguments also influence others to change. Meat consumption in the west IS reducing over time, and it's because the actions of many individuals (and their influence on each other in terms of social attitudes) are working together. This is a combination of people being vegetarian, and others just eating more vegetarian food and less meat as they are exposed to these ideas.
While you may not influence anybody to "go vegan" in your life, chances are hundreds of people who meet and interact with you will reduce their meat consumption slightly, and that makes a big difference too.

The second, and probably stronger factor is the civilisational tendency to offload responsibilities.

That's definitely a very troubling tendency. We've seen the same in wars and genocides. Unfortunately the government relies on the will of the people, and if the people are behaving irrationally or willing to ignore something, there's nothing the government will do about it. The demand for meat is hard to overcome, even in the light of overwhelming expert advice on health and climate change.