Greetings

[Katrik]

I am an atheist, and a former Christian apostate. I deconverted several years ago after nearly 2 years of serious thought on the matter and assessing all possible evidence, before finally coming to the conclusion that my former beliefs were unfounded.

I am not a vegan, which is a primary reason for my being here. Typically all one can find of vegans out in the internet are "holier than thou" vegans trying to tell me I am a horrible person, or people getting more than a little argumentative with said vegans. Thus I am here primarily to find answers to numerous questions without all the emotional bickering.

I do not care for emotional arguments, only reason.

[Mr_E]

i do not care for emotional arguments either, as they are subjective. Now as you see i am listed as a meat eater like you. This is not me thinking it is okay, i simply lack the will to change my way of life. Making me a hypocrite.

To find the answer that you seek, always twist your question to reflect another perspective. I would like to ask you a set of questions to try and show you the answer within your own opinion. No one is gonna tell you that eating animals is wrong because they feel it is so, if so they are idiots. But they are gonna show you where the logic for eating animals lacks any good reason.

Questions: Please always explain your answer in order for me to give a proper response.

Do you think that humans are worth more than animals?

Do you think that liking meat is a proper reason for eating animals?

Do you think that because animals are intellectually inferior to humans, it is okay to eat them?

Do you think that eating humans is ever okay?

Do you think that eating eating retarded people is okay?

Do you think that eating people is okay, if someone likes it?

If an alien species that was smarter than humans came to earth would you hate them. Or would you simply accept that they are superior and evidently worth more. Therefore they have the right to eat us?

^to the previous question saying that "that would never happen" is not a valid answer.

[miniboes]

Welcome to the forums! I hope you enjoy your stay.

[Katrik]

Alright

1.) Worth can mean different things to different people in different contexts. Monetary, sentimental, etc. If the question is do I value human life over other animals then yes. This is due to both the fact that I am one, and that humans are the only species known to exist that is sapient.

2.) The ultimate goal here is food. Death is necessary no matter what you eat. Even fruits and vegetables will result in countless insect deaths due to the use of pesticides.

3.) As I said sapience is where I draw the line (with a margin of grey area). A species that is sapient would qualify as being persons.

4.) Technically yes, though this would be extremely circumstantial. For instance a matter of survival, and the person was already dead.

5.) This seems to be implying killing the person, which would be wrong. Otherwise see previous example.

6.) You mean if someone wanted to eat human flesh? I guess if the person who was eaten was already dead and had consented to having that happen to his body. Though I cannot imagine that being a realistic scenario.

7.) Again worth isn't a clearly defined term here. Additionally why would the only 2 options be to hate or bow down? Surely the vast majority of people's reactions would more along the lines of curiosity and fascination. Finally no, I draw the line at sapience.

[TheVeganAtheist]

Hi Katrik,
welcome to the forum. We too very much value reason and evidence, so you will be well received here.

[Mr_E]

As i expected you were going to argue value. The value of something. You say that sapient beings is the where you draw the line. If being sapient is what you value as worth having the right to live and not being slaughtered against your will. Then lets continue with that in mind. Sapient meaning the ability to think by applying experience and logic into your think process. Although i would argue that alot of Animals are sapient, in fact alot of animals are able to learn and indeed remember, some can even use tools. If we do not agree on that being sapient then lets continue with only humans as sapient. Then as i can understand from your statement that sapience is the line. I would expect you to allow me to eat you or one of your family members should they one day become brain damaged only able to observe. They would feel fear, sorrow, and anxiety as any animal does when losing a relative or when they are next in line to be slaughtered. If we say we had 2 of these brain dead people that are no longer considered sapient, is it okay for us to slaughter them one by one infront of each other, even though we know that they are scared to their guts and feel immense pain.

You did not answer "Do you think that liking meat is a proper reason for eating animals?". I consider your answer irrelevant to the question. And also find it to be incorrect in the context that the answer would normally be used in. The ultimate goal is not and has not for a long time been food regarding animals. The goal is taste. The food it requires to feed animals in order to slaughter them and eat them outweighs the food we stand to gain through the animals them self. Therefore taste/pleasure is the ultimate goal.

You seem to use the answer that killing as a means to eating a retarded person is not okay. But that person is not sapient or at least not the kind of retarded person that i meant. If you thought it was a sapient retard simply with low intellect i am sorry for not clarifying that. But following your earlier statement that sapient is the line to be drawn in your case. I would assume you would be okay with it, seeing as they are not sapient. I fail to see why a human body should not be slaughtered if they are not sapient then by your own argument. (now i know you might not known that i meant "non sapient" in regard to the retard question, if not please provide me with a new answer).

Number 6. Since you did not answer question number 2 in the way that would make number 6 a counter. I cannot make the point that i wanted. You think that it is okay if there was consent prior to death. I doubt any animal ever consented to being eaten nor slaughtered. If humans only ate animals that died of natural causes, i doubt there would be any vegans. Except for those finding the consummation of any previously living being gross. When you say that my example is not a realistic scenario you are not being open to the question. The scenario is simply flipping the table and showing the viewpoint from a different perspective.

And number 7. I doubt that you would find it fascinating that an alien race has come to slaughter or boil you alive. At least not for very long. The idea of the question is to put yourself in the place of the lessor being. Which to you is the animal. And let me get this straight, you would not hate an alien race that ate us, with their justification being "oh you humans are dumber than us, you cant even think like we do."

Personally i don't believe anyone has the right to determine the worth of anyone or anything on their behalf. If you think that someone has the right to determine someone's value and right to decide whether or whether not they get to live based on your superior intellect and state of mind. Then surely Hitler condemning Jews to death is okay from his perspective since he valued them to be worth less.

[Katrik]

I did not answer your second question to your desires because the question as I see it is irrelevant to the matter of eating meat. Do people like the taste of meat, sure. However we kill and eat animals because we need to eat, and not solely because we care for taste.

I have to question if you have met a retarded individual. They can vary remarkably in severity depending on the cause. Some can still be quite highly functioning even if they do have issues. The issue here is you are taking sapience on an individual basis where I am applying it to entire species. Thus even if an individual is truly next to brain dead, they are still part of a sapient species.

I am not sure how 6 is related to 2. Though it does concern me that you seem to be suggesting that you are trying to push this into a molded script rather than addressing my position as it is.
The reason I required consent in that extremely unrealistic scenario is that the individual who is dead was a member of a sapient race and thus likely had a wish as to what to do with his body (be it bury, cremate, etc), and to dismiss that wish would be wrong.

Your interpretation of 7 isn't what I was expecting... You made no mention of these alien's intents in the original question. For all I know they were simply explorers or scientists interested in learning about our world. Why would you assume hostility? Besides I have already said that we should not eat a sapient race, so I am not sure what you are getting at here.

[Mr_E]

Well the question that i asked you in the first half of the questions. Are the common Meat eating arguments i therefore asked those in order to see if you related to any of them. then the second part was the flip side version and i wanted to see how you would rationalize not having the same views when i was related to your own species.

I still don't agree that we kill animals because we need to eat. Not when there is an alternative food source that is actually also being use to feed the animals. Therefore the food source that is animals could simply be skipped and we could avoid the pain and suffering of the animals.

In regard to your question. I think that you should always evaluate based on individual cases. But you think that we should apply a criteria to a species. Therefore rendering the humans that are today kept alive artificially not subject to evaluation although they can not be considered sapient. I fail to see the reasoning behind a species based approach. If a cow started talking and reading, and told you please stop fumbling with my tits, and please do not slaughter me when you are done with me. Would you not say that this cow should be evaluated as an individual case based on this clear sign of intelligence. Whether or whether not that would happen, is irrelevant. Your statement is that sapience is the boundary, then you don't get to simply dismiss it by saying that because something is the same species it is excused of the rule.

6 is related to 2 because they are the exact same questions with the exceptions of who is being eaten. i am not pushing it into a molded script, if i was i would have dismissed your answers until you properly answered all my questions to my satisfaction. I did however access each answer individually although i felt you tried to avoid the thought experiment.

in question 7 i did state that "Therefore they have the right to eat us?" . I did actually think that i phrased it "if aliens came to earth to eat you". But the way that i construct sentences i often re edit parts of my sentences and forget to make sure that the sentence makes sense as a whole. This is something that has always punished as i often made error such as that one. But the question is not whether you think it is okay to eat sapiens. Obviously these advanced beings draw the line at an even higher state of consciousness. And regard human life to hold little value. Now if this is their justification would you now consider them to be unfair. Or do you see it as their choice to decide our right to live simply because they more evolved than us.

[brimstoneSalad]

"Sapience" or any cognitive ability is not a magical line or quality like a "soul", it is a gradation, like IQ, and the vast majority of other intellectual qualities.
There's no magical point we can identify at which *bing* an individual or an entire species is suddenly "sapient".

This is like saying you wouldn't eat animals that are tall, wherein you arbitrarily define "tall" as more than two meters. Does that seem reasonable to you?

It is not reasonable to make up arbitrary labels that you arbitrarily apply to things, and declare those as the only metrics of moral value just because it's convenient for you.
The reasonable position is to recognize where real value comes from -- from the will to live and act -- in sentience, as expressed in terms of a gradation. Worms have little value, insects have ever so slightly more (killing them in agriculture is not a comparable travesty to animal agriculture by any stretch of the imagination), mice more so, cows even more so, pigs even more so, and humans (usually) the most (unless they are profoundly mentally retarded).

You're making the same kind of mistake crazy extremist vegans do when they claim an insect has the same moral value as a human -- failing to recognize gradation of qualities.

We can understand that it is more or less wrong to kill and eat different organisms.
It would be most right to subsist on a diet of worms or other lesser organisms, or directly on plants.

You can't draw arbitrary lines, and say "well these are slightly more intelligent, crossing an arbitrary line I just made up, so by the grace of god I'm randomly going to name them sapient!".
This is the same thing the hypothetical human-eating alien species Mr_E mentioned does.
They don't have to eat humans, they have advanced technology and can produce their food without harming anybody. They just like to eat humans. They have arbitrarily labeled themselves sapient, drawing a different arbitrary line just above humans for their own convenience and enjoyment. Now in their view, you are no longer sapient, so will you surrender yourself to be eaten? Will you consider this morally acceptable? Will you help them out, turning in other humans like a pet ferret, because it's the right thing to do since they deserve to be able to kill and eat us?