Ethical basis for Veganism or Vegetarianism?

[Asmodean]

I would break it down farther and say that it's causing unnecessary suffering, which is wrong, but yes, I agree with you, except on the part about how it's not natural for humans to murder over disagreements -- how is it not natural? We perceive someone as an enemy, we kill them.

Are you refering to tribalism? Because that's not about disagreements. That's territorial behaviour. Within our "tribe", we can fight for status and position with varying degree of aggression, however, killing a member of one's own flock diminishes it's strength as a whole. Thus, we have some instincts saying "don't".

Rape is wrong (almost always, anyways), not consenting sex.

So we agree that it's the consenting part that is the moral issue here, not the sex part, right..?

I would define it as both -- you're causing yourself joy, even if just a tiny amount, without the expense of others, which is moral.

A moral issue you can disregard. A basic biological need, however, you can not. Say urinating was immoral. How would you stop yourself, provided you aimed for goodness..? Same applies to eating. Without food, you die in a matter of weeks. Being omnivorous, you can utilize both plant and animal food. Morals come later in the equasion.

[Sophus]

Rape is wrong (almost always, anyways)...

Almost always?  

Just a simple question I want to pose: is eating meat morally justifiable or not, and what is your reasoning behind your answer?

Of course. To say it's not would be to say a large number of animal's survival is unethical.

[i_am_i]

Just a simple question I want to pose: is eating meat morally justifiable or not, and what is your reasoning behind your answer?

I don't see how morality enters into slow-smoking a nice dry-rubbed pork butt until the juicy meat is falling apart and is served with a lovely home-made barbecue sauce and corn on the cob.

[Tanker]

I struggle with this question. On the one hand, eating sentient animals feels akin to murdering a human being. On the other hand, they will die anyway, so why should we not eat them?

I hate to be a stickler on this but the only (proven) "sentient" species is Man. Sentient means selfaware or conscious. So this sentence could be taken to mean you want people to be cannibals. Lol.

By that definition, chimpanzees, dolphins, and gorillas are all sentient to a greater or lesser degree.  Dolphins recognize themselves in mirrors, and name themselves(which means they understand the concept of personhood).  We have much documentation of the great apes in captivity which have been taught ASL or computer communications using self-referential terms.

So that sentence only means what it reads. "Lol."

I guess you missed the (proven) I put in there. It was to try and mitigate responses like yours. Sentience is a fairly loose term. Some people, usually activists, use it to mean the ability to feel suffering which would include nearly all animals. Traditionaly it is used to mean at or near human inteligence. Some animal species actually come close to a human childs level of understanding ie about 3-5 year old human. The most common usage is actually in science fiction usually when refeing to a non-human species or intelligence that rivals or exceeds our own.

The ability to recognise yourself in a mirror, while impressive and and obvious sign of intteligence does not automatily prove a species to be "sentient" all it proves is that they can recognise themselves in a mirror. The same with rudimentary sign language skills. language skills prove memory and symbol regognition but are not in themselves proof of anything.

A human child with a severe mental handicap could both be able to speak words and recognise himself in a mirror and yet not understand his existance, could not understand "I think there fo I am". While this wouldn't preclude him from being human and all the rights that come with it, it could be argued that the child was not sentient (as most babies are not).

While I didn't specify on my first post I do personally believe that the are a few species that are probably sentient. Most apes, cetations, and a few bird species would probably fall under sentient. However no species besides man has been deffintively decided as sentient.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

[Thumpalumpacus]

I guess you missed the (proven) I put in there.

I'm unsure how referring to oneself doesn't not meet the definition you laid down: "selfaware".

quote]It was to try and mitigate responses like yours. Sentience is a fairly loose term. Some people, usually activists, use it to mean the ability to feel suffering which would include nearly all animals.[/quote]

I was answering in terms of your posted definition, not what some people say.  

Traditionaly it is used to mean at or near human inteligence.

Which may or may not indicate self-awareness.

Some animal species actually come close to a human childs level of understanding ie about 3-5 year old human. The most common usage is actually in science fiction usually when refeing to a non-human species or intelligence that rivals or exceeds our own.

Are not five-year-olds aware?

The ability to recognise yourself in a mirror, while impressive and and obvious sign of intteligence does not automatily prove a species to be "sentient" all it proves is that they can recognise themselves in a mirror.

... and this fits the criteria you laid down.  They are aware of themselves as individuals -- self-aware.

The same with rudimentary sign language skills. language skills prove memory and symbol regognition but are not in themselves proof of anything.

You missed my point here.  I am not citing their use of ASL as evidence of self-awareness.  I am citing their referring to themselves as evidence of self-awareness.  The medium they use is irrelevant.

A human child with a severe mental handicap could both be able to speak words and recognise himself in a mirror and yet not understand his existance, could not understand "I think there fo I am". While this wouldn't preclude him from being human and all the rights that come with it, it could be argued that the child was not sentient (as most babies are not).

According to the definition you posted, if they can recognize that they themselves are individuals, they would appear to be sentient.

While I didn't specify on my first post I do personally believe that the are a few species that are probably sentient. Most apes, cetations, and a few bird species would probably fall under sentient. However no species besides man has been deffintively decided as sentient.

I'm pretty sure some others are, based on what I've seen.  When a dolphin gives itself a "name", used uniquely for itself and no other, is that not evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

Oddly enough, the very first sentence undercuts what you are saying here:  "Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive."  By this definition, almost every animal known is sentient.

I think this is the wrong word for what you trying to get across, perhaps?  We seem to be talking past each other.

[LegendarySandwich]

Rape is wrong (almost always, anyways)...

Almost always?  

Well, I don't want to say always, as any act can be morally justified.

Just a simple question I want to pose: is eating meat morally justifiable or not, and what is your reasoning behind your answer?

Of course. To say it's not would be to say a large number of animal's survival is unethical.

Morality is a human concept, so it only applies when humans are involved.

[Asmodean]

Morality is a human concept, so it only applies when humans are involved.

...And only after certain needs are satiated.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Morality is a human concept, so it only applies when humans are involved.

Humans, too, are animals.

[LegendarySandwich]

Morality is a human concept, so it only applies when humans are involved.

Humans, too, are animals.

Yes -- so?

[_7654_]

Eating meat is a fairly good way of staying alive. Given the energy and nutritious value of meat, it would have been one of the factors contributing to us humans evolving our nice complex and large brains . An evolutionary process that still goes on today by the way. On the flip side, eating meat is exactly as immoral as eating vegetables and plants. Both animals and plants are farmed for food. Now i do not agree with the inhumane practices associated with the farming, we should change those practices. Cannibalism is a natural phenomena too, but its very rare. very few animal species practice it. Humans happen to be a species that does not practice it. It's evolutionary and survival value is very low if not negative.

[Cite134]

Humans happen to be a species that does not practice it.

Not so sure about that. I think there are a number of humans who have practiced it, and I don't think the wil be the last. Jeffery Dahmer? Just one person I can think of off the top of my head.

[goatwitch]

In my opinion, raising and then killing a sentient being for food is amoral.  To say that meat eating is in our biology is pure crap; we started off as vegetarians.  To say that meat eating is cultural, so was slavery at one point, that doesn't make it right.  As humans, we do not need to eat meat, it is purely a choice.  Meat is bad for the environment and health of humans.  Vegans and vegetarians have such a far less colon cancer rate than those who eat meat.

[LegendarySandwich]

In my opinion, raising and then killing a sentient being for food is amoral.  To say that meat eating is in our biology is pure crap; we started off as vegetarians.  To say that meat eating is cultural, so was slavery at one point, that doesn't make it right.  As humans, we do not need to eat meat, it is purely a choice.  Meat is bad for the environment and health of humans.  Vegans and vegetarians have such a far less colon cancer rate than those who eat meat.

It's nice to see a different opinion.

[Cite134]

In my opinion, raising and then killing a sentient being for food is amoral.  To say that meat eating is in our biology is pure crap; we started off as vegetarians.  To say that meat eating is cultural, so was slavery at one point, that doesn't make it right.  As humans, we do not need to eat meat, it is purely a choice.  Meat is bad for the environment and health of humans.  Vegans and vegetarians have such a far less colon cancer rate than those who eat meat.

Going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think that meat is necessarily 'bad' for humans. Bad in what way? My godmother lived to be 95 and she was a meat-eater her whole life.I don't think it is either moral or immoral to eat it. Personally, I love eating meat. Not giving up my beef burritos and turkey sandwhiches.

[tunghaichuan]

To me it boils down to: do animals have to suffer? If they do, then it is immoral for me to eat them. Or use any products derived from them. The corporate farming of animals in the USA is done in a manner that promotes suffering of animals.

I do not eat red meat, mainly because I don't like it. I do however, eat lots of eggs. But I always buy the cage free organic variety as 1) the animals can wander around not being cooped up and 2) it doesn't harm the hens to collect their eggs.

I do eat chicken and turkey meat, but I'm less choosy about that. Yes, I know I am a hypocrite. I'm not made of money, and have to budget very carefully. If I were made of money, I would eat only organic/cage free/cruelty free products.

This book:

http://www.amazon.com/Some-We-Love-Hate ... =1-1-fkmr2

states:

most Americans regard cockfighting as cruel but think nothing of eating chicken, when in reality gamecocks are treated very well when they are not fighting, and most poultry headed for the table lead short, miserable lives and are killed quite painfully.

Food for thought, so to speak.