Ethical basis for Veganism or Vegetarianism?

[Whitney]

This is just a personal anecdote, not science.  


My wife (snip).

No comment.

Ok, one comment read the link I posted...

[bfat]

The other reason for beef eating is, hold on, ethicalâ€"a matter of animal rights. The familiar argument for vegetarianism, articulated by Tom Regan, a philosophical founder of the modern animal-rights movement, is that it would save Babe the pig and Chicken Run's Ginger from execution. But what about Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse? asks Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, pointing to the number of field animals inadvertently killed during crop production and harvest. One study showed that simply mowing an alfalfa field caused a 50% reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with each pass of the tractor to plow, plant and harvest. Rabbits, mice and pheasants, he says, are the indiscriminate "collateral damage" of row crops and the grain industry.

the whole article is actually pretty good:  http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020715/story.html

What about all the crops and grasses required to feed Babe, Ginger, and Bessie the cow?  Also from this article: "In terms of caloric content, the grain consumed by American livestock could feed 800 million people..."  So what about all the bunnies and mice and voles that Babe and Bessie and Ginger inadvertently kill?  This reasoning seems faulty...

The whole article seemed like it was trying a little too hard to plead both sides, rather than just present the facts.  It did have some really great facts about vegetarianism and its benefits, but most of the "negatives" were the result of people being poorly educated about nutrition, not because of the vegetarian diet itself.  Obviously, a vegetarian who eats nothing but fried cheese sticks, pizza, and Chinese food will not be healthy.  But an omnivore who eats the same thing, but adds pepperoni to the pizza and pork to the fried rice is certainly not any healthier, and probably much worse off.  The quotes about bone-loss and deficiencies were qualified with things like "At least among the vegans who are also philosophically opposed to fortified foods and/or vitamin and mineral supplements." (So take your vitamins and pay attention to what you eat!)  and that children who drink less milk (and drink fake juice and soda instead) have lower calcium intake.  Um, duh?  But children who drink fortified soymilk (or rice milk or almond milk, whatever) are healthy, and can easily get their recommended amount.

A balanced diet is important, no matter what form it takes.  I still eat junk food.  I'm human, and I love me some french fries.  But trying to make vegetarianism seem unhealthy by saying that it doesn't give you enough of certain nutrients is silly.  Not eating enough of those nutrients is what causes the deficiencies--the nutrients are there in the food and supplements, its just people that are weak and prone to making poor decisions.  That's true of omnivores, carnivores, and herbivores alike.

Let's say, hypothetically, as time goes on more progressive elements in government can put in place legal protections for animals and more environmentally friendly procedures and practices. Animals are fed organic, locally grown grass and seeds instead of corn, live full and happy lives, are killed in a painless and un-frightening way, and are bought at the farm by local people. In other words, how would you feel about meat if the cruelty and environmental costs were reduced significantly or even removed?

Sorry, yes, back to the original topic.  If this were the case, I'd be much happier, but I still wouldn't eat it.  I don't need to take the life of another creature to survive, and all my nutritional needs are met by other means.  But I'd have much less of a problem with meat in general if it was ecologically friendly, less cruel (because killing something innocent, no matter how friendly you are when you do it, is still killing something innocent), and healthier.  The issue would be much less depressing and frustrating.

If it was a matter of survival, however, I would most likely eat meat.  If it was me or the chicken... so long, Ginger.

[Whitney]

Why do vegetarians and vegans value animals over plants when both are living things?

[Typist]

Why do vegetarians and vegans value animals over plants when both are living things?

Why do we value people over both plants and animals?

[bfat]

Why do vegetarians and vegans value animals over plants when both are living things?

Really?

Animals have intelligence, consciousness, and belong to an entirely different biological kingdom than plants.  We can interact with them and share mutual communication.  They can demonstrate an understanding of their surroundings and many can show affection, loyalty, fear, and other emotions that we share.  Would you eat your dog?  What about your houseplant if it produced something delicious?



Plants are alive, and I respect their right to live, but some are designed to be eaten (like fruit that spread seeds of the plants by being eaten).  They do not have central nervous systems, brains, or a demonstrable awareness of themselves or the world around them.  If someone can prove otherwise, maybe I'll become a fruitarian, but somewhere a line has to be drawn, and for me its done by biological hierarchy.  I won't eat anything in the Phylum "chordata" (nothing with a spinal chord), and pretty much nothing else in the "animal" kingdom except scallops.  Though they're made of animal tissue, to me they seem pretty much like plants.

[elliebean]

When I was a vegetarian it was always for health and environmental reasons, and really just to try it out. It was more about introducing more variety into my diet than cutting anything out of it. Ethics never really entered the equation. I'll probably have a nearly vegetarian diet again pretty soon, once again for health reasons. Legitimate ones, not because I fell for any sort of propaganda. Unless my and my partner's doctors are all propagandists.

[Whitney]

Why do vegetarians and vegans value animals over plants when both are living things?

Really?

yes, really.

Animals have intelligence, consciousness, and belong to an entirely different biological kingdom than plants.  We can interact with them and share mutual communication.  They can demonstrate an understanding of their surroundings and many can show affection, loyalty, fear, and other emotions that we share.  Would you eat your dog?  [/quote]

some people do eat dogs...and cute fluffy bunnies.

Fish, shrimp, turtles, lobster etc are off the vegetarian menu yet aren't affectionate et all.  

imo, you are either concerned about harming other living things (in which you should be a frutarian) or you are simply reacting to a cultural gut feeling about only certain types of living things.

[SSY]

What about all the crops and grasses required to feed Babe, Ginger, and Bessie the cow?  Also from this article: "In terms of caloric content, the grain consumed by American livestock could feed 800 million people..."  So what about all the bunnies and mice and voles that Babe and Bessie and Ginger inadvertently kill?  This reasoning seems faulty...

You miss the point. Vegetarians still kill lots of animals by their food choices. Sure, with me, the cow dies and a whole lot of field mice etc, but with you, a lot of field mice still get killed. If you wanted to, you could eliminate this, by farming yourself, by hand, or hydroponically, but you don't. The point being, you still kill animals, just less of them. It really all boils down to convenience. I am not willing to accept the hardship of not eating meat, you are not willing to accept the hardship of farming more carefully, we are really, a lot more similar than you would like to think.

[bfat]

some people do eat dogs...and cute fluffy bunnies.

Fish, shrimp, turtles, lobster etc are off the vegetarian menu yet aren't affectionate et all.  

imo, you are either concerned about harming other living things (in which you should be a frutarian) or you are simply reacting to a cultural gut feeling about only certain types of living things.

This is reductive.  The issue is not black and white, where you either care about living things or you don't.  It is possible (and natural, I think) to value certain living things over others.  Most vegetarians don't say "I won't kill or eat any living thing," because this doesn't make a lot of sense.  As members of the food chain, all animals must eat other living things to survive, since we can't make food out of sunlight like plants.  It's either me or the plant, so I'll eat the plant and be thankful for it.  I respect all living things, but I understand that some sacrifice is necessary for survival.  But animals with awareness (even ones that don't show affection) are not necessary in our diets for survival.  I don't need to sacrifice them in order to live, so I don't.  Biological hierarchy exists with clearly defined lines, and it seems logical to draw the line of what you will or won't eat based on this.

Most people are totally appalled at the idea of eating dogs (though some cultures do).  But pigs, which are smarter and also very affectionate, are fine.  Everyone has some dietary boundaries they place based on how they feel, or what they think about different animals.  It's just a matter of where you draw the line.  One isn't any more right or wrong than another (though there are cultural taboos against eating certain things, like people).  I respect everyone's ability to make their own decisions, I just think that most people don't think about what they eat or why the eat it.  People should be encouraged to make educated decisions about their diet.

What about all the crops and grasses required to feed Babe, Ginger, and Bessie the cow?  Also from this article: "In terms of caloric content, the grain consumed by American livestock could feed 800 million people..."  So what about all the bunnies and mice and voles that Babe and Bessie and Ginger inadvertently kill?  This reasoning seems faulty...

You miss the point. Vegetarians still kill lots of animals by their food choices. Sure, with me, the cow dies and a whole lot of field mice etc, but with you, a lot of field mice still get killed. If you wanted to, you could eliminate this, by farming yourself, by hand, or hydroponically, but you don't. The point being, you still kill animals, just less of them. It really all boils down to convenience. I am not willing to accept the hardship of not eating meat, you are not willing to accept the hardship of farming more carefully, we are really, a lot more similar than you would like to think.

Actually, the point the article was trying to make is that it's somehow more, or at least equally, compassionate to eat cows/pigs/chickens because plant farming kills lots of animals too.  But that's a ridiculous point, because not only do more of the mice and bunnies die to grow more grain for the pigs/cows/chickens, but then the pigs/cows/chickens die too.  Buying locally and organic can reduce a lot of the unnecessary deaths of industrial farming, but I wouldn't imply that it's "laziness" or something on the part of the vegetarian because he/she doesn't want to farm all his/her food by hand (which is extremely impractical, if not impossible, for most people).  It's about doing as much as possible, and making the best decisions that we can, based on our personal ethics.  The accidental deaths of some mice living in a soybean field is a far cry from a cow/pig/chicken raised in captivity and purposefully slaughtered for human consumption.

Some Buddhists remove worms from the dirt they build on, so they won't be killed during construction.  I respect them for this, but holy shit, I can only do so much.  I don't think it's hypocritical, it's just about doing the best I can, given the circumstances.  If I could live in a worm-death-free house, I would.  But I don't really feel responsible for the lives of the wild animals that take up residence in fields that get plowed regularly... maybe future generations of vole/mouse/rabbit will adapt and learn not to build their little houses in a field that gets plowed every year.  But the cow/pig/chicken has no choice.

[SSY]

I fail to see how you address the point I made. You still kill lots of animals, you could reduce this number, but you don't. I kill lots of animals, I could reduce this number, but I don't. Just to clarify, I am not saying my way is any more moral than your way, but I am saying that we are really, very similar. When you say "doing as much as possible", you clearly contradict yourself. You could be doing a lot more, but you don't, you make an effort, but in reality you could be doing a hell of a lot more.

 Also, your last point is surprisingly uncompassionate for a veggie, the cute lil field mice have no clue what on earth is happening to their world when a giant rubmbling death star rolls over their field chewing them up and spitting them out. Trying to say you don't feel responsible because they chose to live there, seems very at odds with your message. They never had an informed choice to make, just like a pig.

[bfat]

I don't kill anything on purpose, ever.  When a road is paved, bugs and probably mice and other little critter things get killed.  So do you think that a "real" compassionate vegetarian should never walk on a road?  Is everyone who drives/walks on that road somehow responsible for the deaths of those animals?  Every product in existence probably has ties in some way to the death of some creature or another.  Saying "surprisingly uncompassionate for a veggie" is really insulting, as if all vegetarians can be generalized in some way, and are expected to have the same feelings on all subjects.  I'm not some radical who wears recycled paper pants and stares at the ground while walking so I don't step on a cockroach.  But, out of respect for their right to live, I don't consume the flesh of other animals.  And its not like vegetable packaging says "453 mice were killed in the harvesting of this crop."  There is no way to know what or if or how many animals die in the production of anything, except meat.

This thread has become completely ridiculous.    

[Typist]

This thread has become completely ridiculous.    

Maybe the cure is to stop talking about morality (what we do or don't do on behalf of animals) and change the focus to self interest?   After all, that's how animals decide what to eat or not eat, eh?

[Typist]

My wife is a squirrel rehabber, and we've raised a couple hundred orphaned baby squirrels over the last few years.   This experience changed my perspective on critters a good bit.

I was surprised to discover that squirrels have individual unique personalities, and experience many human-like emotions such as embarrassment, envy, jealousy, etc.  

When I see wildlife now I don't see a species, but a unique individual, which does kinda change the hunting equation.  

Which reminds me!   Yesterday I was out in the yard, and a couple hundred sandhill cranes flew over at tree top level, honking up a storm.  It was awesome!  

I didn't eat any of them.  

[Whitney]

To be clear, I only pushed the issue because it was said earlier in this thread that there is no reason to eat meat when, in fact, there are real reasons to want to eat meat.  One major reason being convenience.... that in our society it is simply a lot easier to find something to eat on the go if you are omnivorous and most of us were taught how to create a balanced meal using meat.  Take away moral concerns and there is no reason to be vegetarian aside from personal taste preferences because there haven't been enough studies on health...the major studies have been on Seventh Day Adventists who view their bodies as temples and therefore avoid vices and tend to work out regularly to maintain health.  I would also point out that if you have to take supplements in order to survive on a diet that the diet isn't very well rounded.

If someone wants to be vegetarian, vegan or whatever for personal reasons fine but don't pretend to be taking the moral or health high ground over those who see no need to eat in what many view as an extreme, unappealing, and very inconvenient manner.

[Typist]

Whitney, I agree with you that everybody should eat whatever they want to eat.   I also feel that everybody should say whatever they want to say about why they eat whatever they eat.  

in what many view as an extreme, unappealing, and very inconvenient manner.

It's true that many view it that way, agreed.    

It's also true that they are simply wrong.   A vegie diet is not extreme, unappealing or very inconvenient.   No supplements are needed.   No special knowledge or Harvard courses required.  Common sense gets the job done just fine.