Philosophical Vegan Forum

Antiheld wrote:I choose to eat dead animal parts because I love the taste of meat and many organs. Additionally I personally don't see the difference between Golden Retriever lasagna, cow lasagna, horse lasagna or pig lasagna or a mix of those. For me my personal enjoyment of those meals weighs more than the life and suffering of all the animals used to make them.

You will likely enjoy your meats and organs even better if you can confirm that these animals have had a "good" life and died a painless death. Unrealistic, I know. But even non-vegans/vegetarians can make a difference by being selective and meat-picky. For example go for the ones with "green" labels, and avoid dishes like Foie Gras, which reek of suffering and rank among the worst and most inhumane.

I am quite picky when it comes to meat but primarily out of quality reasons. An animal that had a good life and diet generally tastes better and has better quality meat and organs. Many of the labels used can't be trusted and animal rights advocates often find bad conditions even in production lines using "green" labels. There are very few labels I can trust and I don't have the money to pay for them.
If I cared enough for the well being of animals I would go fully vegan and I don't think that it is possible to make killing an animal morally justifiable if you follow the values of the majority, which I obviously do not.

Antiheld wrote:I choose to eat dead animal parts because I love the taste of meat and many organs. Additionally I personally don't see the difference between Golden Retriever lasagna, cow lasagna, horse lasagna or pig lasagna or a mix of those. For me my personal enjoyment of those meals weighs more than the life and suffering of all the animals used to make them.
From a health perspective I choose to live shorter willingly when it means that I can enjoy the delightful taste of dead animal parts.

I assume you acknowledge that pleasure is an awful justification doing harm?

Another question, what if it were humans being slaughtered for food? Would you buy their meat?

Antiheld wrote:Many of the labels used can't be trusted and animal rights advocates often find bad conditions even in production lines using "green" labels. There are very few labels I can trust and I don't have the money to pay for them.

This is a real problem. Some labels are just here to earn $$$ while making consumers think they bought a healthy and animal-friendly product. Oftentimes these products are only slightly better. I did a quick search and found this example:
http://www.meatfreemondays.com/germany- ... eat-label/

I too am skeptical about these labels, and it's one of the reasons why I have been eating less meat.

In the Netherlands we joke about the broken promise of the meat industry to reduce the speed at which chickens are being fed and raised. The plofkip (fat chicken) has become flopkip (fail chicken).

miniboes wrote: I assume you acknowledge that pleasure is an awful justification doing harm?

If you state that for all harm in every situation I do concur, but I make an exception for the killing and consumption of animals.

miniboes wrote: Another question, what if it were humans being slaughtered for food? Would you buy their meat?

As a human I am naturally inclined to object to and despise the killing and the consumption of other humans and those close to humans. It makes evolutionary sense, since other humans and those close to humans, like apes, are more likely to have diseases, which one could contract during the preparation and consumption of their meat. Therefore I am of course against humans being slaughtered against their will and would not buy their meat especially but not exclusively when that opens the possibility of myself being slaughtered for food. I would however consider the consumption of human meat if it is proven to be given willingly and if it is free of diseases. This I would do out of curiosity.

caLRo wrote: This is a real problem. Some labels are just here to earn $$$ while making consumers think they bought a healthy and animal-friendly product. Oftentimes these products are only slightly better.

Yes that is exactly what I meant.

caLRo wrote: I too am skeptical about these labels, and it's one of the reasons why I have been eating less meat.

Reducing the meat consumption has a good effect on health and the environment so it is a easily justifiable step to take.

Antiheld wrote:Carnist also seems to be more useful as a general label but it is still not great and I can't identify with it.

Carnist isn't a diet, it's an ideology.
How would you not identify with it? You seem to have confirmed the points of the carnist ideology, with regard to your beliefs.

In terms of diet, if you want precision, you could simply define what percentage of your calories you typically consume from animal products.

Antiheld wrote:Vegans tend to focus on the meat eating part of my diet when referring to me as meat-eater or carnist but my diet is not focused on meat.

We're more concerned with irrational beliefs that you hold.

For example, we would call the pope a theist. And we would also call somebody a theist who believes in god, and only prays in emergency situations and just goes to church once a year.

Both of them share that belief system or ideology of theism.


Do you consider yourself a moral relativist, and believe there's no such thing as good or bad, but right and wrong are only arbitrary and generally meaningless opinions?
E.g. if a pedophile believes it's right to pedo children, then that pedophile is just as correct in that belief as anybody else in claiming it's wrong?

I missed this post.

Antiheld wrote: If you state that for all harm in every situation I do concur, but I make an exception for the killing and consumption of animals.

As mentioned above, I'd like to understand if you're a 'relativist'

Would you agree that a pedophile is equally justified in making an arbitrary exception for the kidnapping and raping of children, as you are for the killing and consumption of animals?

Do you understand that morality has no weight if you make arbitrary exceptions to allow whatever unethical act you feel like doing at the time?

Antiheld wrote: As a human I am naturally inclined to object to and despise the killing and the consumption of other humans and those close to humans.

No you aren't. This is learned behavior. Cannibalism has been practiced in the past.
Even if this were true, it's an appeal to nature fallacy. What we're naturally inclined to do or not do does not make it right or wrong. Are you against riding in cars, or using toilets too?

Antiheld wrote: It makes evolutionary sense, since other humans and those close to humans, like apes, are more likely to have diseases, which one could contract during the preparation and consumption of their meat.

That's nonsense. Have you ever heard of Mad cow disease? Prion diseases aren't in practice more probable in very close relatives. The fact of an organism being a chordate and having similar biochemistry is generally enough to make that kind of disease transmission probable.

The thing which produces a problem with high risk is when the consumption is cyclic. Eating an animal which ate an animal which ate an animal which ate an animal, etc. It creates an unbroken chain along which prion diseases can be carried, particularly within long lived specimens.

Anyway, I doubt you don't care about evolution or advancement of the human species, this just seems like a bad 'appeal to nature' kind of excuse.
If you did care about human survival and evolution, you'd stop eating meat, since the practice of animal agriculture is extremely inefficient, and damaging to our environment; it reduces our ability to thrive and survive as a species.

Antiheld wrote: Therefore I am of course against humans being slaughtered against their will and would not buy their meat especially but not exclusively when that opens the possibility of myself being slaughtered for food.

Why would will have anything to do with it? Why would you care, at all?

It wouldn't necessarily open up the possibility of you being slaughtered for food. Just as people were born into slavery to be slaves, humans could be born and grown specifically for meat. This would not endanger you, who were born free.

Antiheld wrote: Reducing the meat consumption has a good effect on health and the environment so it is a easily justifiable step to take.

Absolutely, it does help to reduce consumption.
And eliminating it has an even better effect. Why would you argue against veganism?

Why would you argue for the inefficiency, environmental harm, and cruelty that is animal agriculture at all?

There are other things to eat. There are also fake meats, if you miss the taste and texture, which are quite convincing. Particularly in something like lasagna (the sauce and spice covers and small differences, and makes it so most people can't tell them apart).

brimstoneSalad wrote: Carnist isn't a diet, it's an ideology.
How would you not identify with it? You seem to have confirmed the points of the carnist ideology, with regard to your beliefs.

I don't label myself carnist, but you can call me one if you want. It does fit me very well as an ideology. I however searched for a more fitting term concerning my diet and not my ideology. Concerning my diet omnivore fitted more closely than "meat-eater".

brimstoneSalad wrote: In terms of diet, if you want precision, you could simply define what percentage of your calories you typically consume from animal products.

I actually never measured that percentage, hence I can't tell you any details.

brimstoneSalad wrote: We're more concerned with irrational beliefs that you hold.

For example, we would call the pope a theist. And we would also call somebody a theist who believes in god, and only prays in emergency situations and just goes to church once a year.

Both of them share that belief system or ideology of theism.

I just don't care if animals suffer for my pleasure. I justify eating animals with my pleasure. Why is that irrational? I am fully aware of the health repercussions and accept them willingly, I know that some people object morally to the killing of animals, I do not. In fact I have killed an animal for food before, in part because a vegetarian told me that doing so would show me the error of my ways. I found it interesting and in no way disturbing.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Do you consider yourself a moral relativist, and believe there's no such thing as good or bad, but right and wrong are only arbitrary and generally meaningless opinions?
E.g. if a pedophile believes it's right to pedo children, then that pedophile is just as correct in that belief as anybody else in claiming it's wrong?

Like I wrote before I do object to the killing and suffering of fellow humans. I do not object to the killing and suffering of animals however.
Does that sound irrational?
Let me explain: If other humans suffer or are killed I see the possibility of that happening to myself or those close to me. If animals suffer or are killed that isn't the case. So even from a purely egoistical standpoint can I justify my views rationally.

Antiheld wrote: I just don't care if animals suffer for my pleasure. I justify eating animals with my pleasure. Why is that irrational?

Do you accept and agree with a pedophile justifying molesting children for his or her pleasure?

Antiheld wrote: I am fully aware of the health repercussions and accept them willingly,

Doing something to produce limited short-term pleasure, which will cause much larger long-term suffering to yourself in the future is not particularly rational.

Look into substance abuse. Do you consider somebody who uses methamphetamine recreationally to be rational in that choice? Why or why not?

Antiheld wrote: I know that some people object morally to the killing of animals, I do not.

You are confusing emotion with morality. A person can have no emotional problem with something, but object on purely logical moral grounds, because he or she values internal consistency.

Antiheld wrote: Like I wrote before I do object to the killing and suffering of fellow humans. I do not object to the killing and suffering of animals however.
Does that sound irrational?

It doesn't just sound irrational, it is irrational.

Antiheld wrote: Let me explain: If other humans suffer or are killed I see the possibility of that happening to myself or those close to me.

As I explained in the last post, this doesn't open you or your loved ones up to that same treatment. It's the difference between being free, or a citizen, and being a disenfranchised class.
Historically, blacks were considered fair game for slavery and abuse; this did not inherently endanger whites.

All you have to do, as a society, is draw an arbitrary line on some visible characteristic.

Humans grown for meat could simply be branded, or otherwise marked in a way that would put you and yours at no risk of suffering the same fate.

Antiheld wrote: If animals suffer or are killed that isn't the case.

On a small scale, it's more likely that people who will hurt and kill animals for enjoyment will also hurt and kill humans.
If you're going by statics on merely those grounds, you should be against harm to animals.

In terms of psychology, cruelty begets cruelty, and compassion begets compassion. The victims being non-human doesn't make a difference in that, any more than them having been black in the past.
It's that kind of thinking, that we should feel entitled to cause suffering to pleasure ourselves as long as those who suffer are 'other' which is dangerous to social good.

Antiheld wrote: So even from a purely egoistical standpoint can I justify my views rationally.

As I have explained, you can't.

Do you consider yourself a rational egoist?
Are you a proponent of Ayn Rand?

brimstoneSalad wrote: Do you understand that morality has no weight if you make arbitrary exceptions to allow whatever unethical act you feel like doing at the time?

I have my own moral code and I follow it without exceptions.

brimstoneSalad wrote: No you aren't. This is learned behavior. Cannibalism has been practiced in the past.
Even if this were true, it's an appeal to nature fallacy. What we're naturally inclined to do or not do does not make it right or wrong. Are you against riding in cars, or using toilets too?

While I do have a choice to change my morality, some of it I'm born with. I can however overcome it.
Most humans are born with a distaste for the strange and foreign. That is where racism comes from but it is also where little children not wanting to eat new food even if their parents know they would like it comes from. The same holds true for killing and hurting humans. As soon as we understand that hurting others could mean we are hurt, too, we object to it.
The appeal to nature fallacy would apply here if I leaned my argument solely on the fact that it something is in me by instinct. I do not but I state that I'm inclined to to so by my nature. I'm never forced to accept a certain morality by my nature but my instincts can be a factor.

brimstoneSalad wrote: That's nonsense. Have you ever heard of Mad cow disease? Prion diseases aren't in practice more probable in very close relatives. The fact of an organism being a chordate and having similar biochemistry is generally enough to make that kind of disease transmission probable.

The thing which produces a problem with high risk is when the consumption is cyclic. Eating an animal which ate an animal which ate an animal which ate an animal, etc. It creates an unbroken chain along which prion diseases can be carried, particularly within long lived specimens.

Anyway, I doubt you don't care about evolution or advancement of the human species, this just seems like a bad 'appeal to nature' kind of excuse.
If you did care about human survival and evolution, you'd stop eating meat, since the practice of animal agriculture is extremely inefficient, and damaging to our environment; it reduces our ability to thrive and survive as a species.

I do not refer to prion diseases here but to diseases like AIDS.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Why would will have anything to do with it? Why would you care, at all?

Antiheld wrote: I would however consider the consumption of human meat if it is proven to be given willingly and if it is free of diseases. This I would do out of curiosity.

Does this answer that question?

brimstoneSalad wrote: It wouldn't necessarily open up the possibility of you being slaughtered for food. Just as people were born into slavery to be slaves, humans could be born and grown specifically for meat. This would not endanger you, who were born free.

Not all slaves where born slaves.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Absolutely, it does help to reduce consumption.
And eliminating it has an even better effect. Why would you argue against veganism?

Because being a vegan myself would reduce my pleasure.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Why would you argue for the inefficiency, environmental harm, and cruelty that is animal agriculture at all?

I'm simply too much of an egoist to be a vegan.

This raises an interesting question:
What do you have against the consumption of wild animals?

brimstoneSalad wrote: There are other things to eat. There are also fake meats, if you miss the taste and texture, which are quite convincing. Particularly in something like lasagna (the sauce and spice covers and small differences, and makes it so most people can't tell them apart).

I looked into it. And if it were so I would already be a vegan. Sadly enough only processed foods and some heavily spiced foods can be convincingly made vegan. I know of vegan minced "meat" and vegan sausages and vegan chicken wings and I buy them if I find them because it helps the environment and my health.
The things you can't find, or at least I didn't find are replacements for organs like liver, kidneys, testicles, cow stomach and also bone marrow or simply a good steak.
I do eat all those things and enjoy them greatly.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Do you accept and agree with a pedophile justifying molesting children for his or her pleasure?

I don't because it could be my children, if I had some or it could be children that are close to me.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Doing something to produce limited short-term pleasure, which will cause much larger long-term suffering to yourself in the future is not particularly rational.

The pleasure of eating meat is mine until I can't eat with my mouth anymore. That is a pretty a long time.

brimstoneSalad wrote: Look into substance abuse. Do you consider somebody who uses methamphetamine recreationally to be rational in that choice? Why or why not?

Methamphetamine brings one much shorter pleasure and much faster body degredation than eating meat does so it is not a good comparison.
Let's compare it to drinking alcohol. I do consume alcohol, purely because I take pleasure in the taste of many alcoholic beverages. I know of possible damages that alcohol could inflict in my body but I accept the risk.

brimstoneSalad wrote: You are confusing emotion with morality. A person can have no emotional problem with something, but object on purely logical moral grounds, because he or she values internal consistency.

Antiheld wrote: Like I wrote before I do object to the killing and suffering of fellow humans. I do not object to the killing and suffering of animals however.
Does that sound irrational?

It doesn't just sound irrational, it is irrational.

Then explain why you deem it irrational.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Antiheld wrote: If animals suffer or are killed that isn't the case.

On a small scale, it's more likely that people who will hurt and kill animals for enjoyment will also hurt and kill humans.
If you're going by statics on merely those grounds, you should be against harm to animals.

In terms of psychology, cruelty begets cruelty, and compassion begets compassion. The victims being non-human doesn't make a difference in that, any more than them having been black in the past.
It's that kind of thinking, that we should feel entitled to cause suffering to pleasure ourselves as long as those who suffer are 'other' which is dangerous to social good.

It is like you said on a small scale so it doesn't affect me greatly enough.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Antiheld wrote: So even from a purely egoistical standpoint can I justify my views rationally.

As I have explained, you can't.

Do you consider yourself a rational egoist?
Are you a proponent of Ayn Rand?

I am not familiar with the theories of Ayn Rand.