Ethical basis for Veganism or Vegetarianism?

[Asmodean]

To say that meat eating is in our biology is pure crap; we started off as vegetarians.

The point is invalid.

To the best of our knowledge, all life on Earth started as something other than carnivorous because that first cell had nothing living to eat. Humans have evolved to be omnivorous from a specie primarilly herbivorous. Not unlike pigs - we can eat roots and leaves and fruits and veggies, but why pass the opportunity for some animal proteins..?

We have evolved to be omnivorous and, as of today, have not evolved past it in either direction.

To say that meat eating is cultural, so was slavery at one point, that doesn't make it right.

In your current culture, maybe. Doesn't make slavery wrong on a larger scale though. Slavery, however, has little to do with our primary biological needs, so bad example.

As humans, we do not need to eat meat, it is purely a choice.

But we do have to eat and being omnivorous, chosing meat is a good and valid option, as stated many times before

Meat is bad for the environment and health of humans.

Not really. Humans are bad for the environment and health of humans. If you were trying to make some point though, please clarify it more. Preferably with links or ISBNs to peer-reviewed research articles that demonstrate it. (I wouldn't normally ask for this, but what you are saying is counter-intuitive)

If you are refering to too many cows, the problem is that we breed like rabbits and so we have to have larger herds to support ourselves.

Vegans and vegetarians have such a far less colon cancer rate than those who eat meat.

And the rate of that in general population is what..? 1:25000? Even if it's one in five thousand, it's still a drop in the ocean. You have greater chance of ending up in a serious MVC.

[Sophus]

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.

Actually the nutrients you get from meat are essential and that's why it's important to have a variety in one's diet. It's much more difficult to have a balanced diet as a vegetarian. It can be done if one is careful enough, but it's too much work for me. Besides, I didn't climb to the top of the food chain to eat lettuce.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

Humans, too, are animals.

Yes -- so?

Your division between animal morality and human morality appears by dint of this to be artificial.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Nonsense.  Our entire evolutionary history is part of our biology.  Also, what do you mean by "we"?  H. Sapiens?  H. Habilis?  A. afarensis?  ?  How far back are you going to find this pure vegetarian forebear?  Because there is strong evidence that two of the the other three species listed were meat eaters, either killing by their own hands or scavenging the kills of others.  There is evidence that many primitive hominids ate at least some meat:

Many theories of human origins invoke a switch to a meat-rich diet to explain the sudden swelling of brain power in our own genus, Homo; the new data raise the possibility that meat-eating is not the exclusive province of Homo but a strategy adopted by more primitive species too.

Also, see here, here, and here:

Thursday April 22 3:09 PM ET

Meat-Eating Missing Link Fossil Found In Africa    top
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new species of human ancestor, which looked like something halfway between the famed "Lucy" and true pre-humans, has been found in Ethiopia, scientists said Thursday.

More surprisingly, they found nearby evidence that the creature, named Australopithecus garhi, butchered and ate meat 2.5 million years ago.

The international team of researchers, led by Berhane Asfaw of Ethiopia's Rift Valley Research Service and Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, scrabbled their specimen together from bits of bone and teeth found in the hard-baked rock of Ethiopia's Middle Awash region.

The area, a hard two-day drive northeast of Addis Ababa, is known for its fossil remains of pre-humans, known as hominids.

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.

I haven't argued that it's cultural, but -- sure, it's a choice.  However, as you yourself noted in your first point, it is not a choice with a moral dimension.  "Amoral" does not equal "immoral."

Meat is bad for the environment and health of humans.

Not in moderation.

Vegans and vegetarians have such a far less colon cancer rate than those who eat meat.

Post hoc fallacy.  The lower rate amongst vegetarians may not be the result of avoiding meat, but of having a diet heavier in roughage.  Meat eaters who ate as much roughage as vegetarians might well show different results.

[madness]

Eating meat is morally justifiable.  I am a vegetarian.  I don't see a contradiction!   :hissyfit:

[Sophus]

Eating meat is morally justifiable.  I am a vegetarian.  I don't see a contradiction!   :hissyfit:

How easy can it be? It runs health risks if I don't do it right.

[madness]

Eating meat is morally justifiable.  I am a vegetarian.  I don't see a contradiction!   :hissyfit:

How easy can it be? It runs health risks if I don't do it right.

Eating a diet with meat also runs health risks if you don't do it right.

[_7654_]

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 practised 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.

Well psychopaths and serial killers, there are a few other examples, that society did not deplore. here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106246/  and in a bit more detail
http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/A ... AMU%29.asp

Again, not to be understood as approval by any means, it does seem that dire survival would suffice as a justification.

[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.

Well psychopats and serial killers, there are a few other examples, that society did not deplore. here http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106246/  and in a bit more detail
http://www.super70s.com/Super70s/Tech/A ... AMU%29.asp

Again, not to be understood as approval by any means, it does seem that dire survival would suffice as a justification.

Indeed. Given the scenario though, psychological or environmental, humans do and can practice it.

[Thumpalumpacus]

iirc, Aztecs and other Central American tribes are suspected of practicing it, due to poor protein availability in their region.

[Whitney]

Isn't it also natural for a man to want cheat on his partner? And rape innocent people? And murder people he disagrees with? I would define those things as wrong, in most cases.

It is?  I wouldn't want to meet the person who had a natural inclination to break important promises (cheating on partner), rape, and murder.

Anyway, if the animal is intelligent enough (ie sentient) to know that it is being raised for food and is just living waiting to die then it would be immoral to raise that animal for food (but morally justifiable to eat it if it were already dead and one were hungry).  For animals that are not sentient I see no way to separate them morally from plants nor can I think of why it would be morally wrong (from a humanist/environmental take on morality) to incorporate these 'lower' creatures into our diets.

In short, humans have to eat and almost everything that can nourish us is alive in some way...the best we can do is avoid causing needless suffering when procuring our foods.

[LegendarySandwich]

Your division between animal morality and human morality appears by dint of this to be artificial.

Can you explain why in more detail?

[The Magic Pudding]

Anyway, if the animal is intelligent enough (ie sentient) to know that it is being raised for food and is just living waiting to die then it would be immoral to raise that animal for food (but morally justifiable to eat it if it were already dead and one were hungry).  

I could raise humans for food as long as they don't know what I'm up to then?
If I eat them young, they're less likely to realise their fate.
Eating factory farm meat propagates the system, even if the animal is dead when you eat it.

For animals that are not sentient I see no way to separate them morally from plants nor can I think of why it would be morally wrong (from a humanist/environmental take on morality) to incorporate these 'lower' creatures into our diets.

I suppose a humanist by definition is concerned about humans, I would separate plants from animals by their ability to suffer.
Some plants seem to have evolved to be eaten for seed propagation.

In short, humans have to eat and almost everything that can nourish us is alive in some way...the best we can do is avoid causing needless suffering when procuring our foods.

The best we can do, or the least we should do?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Your division between animal morality and human morality appears by dint of this to be artificial.

Can you explain why in more detail?

If humans are animals, human morality is animal morality, of a sort.

Also, there are some indications that other animals practice moral behavior.  Chimpanzees, for instance, have been observed to deceive each other, which presupposes an unspoken moral rule of not deceiving being the norm.

[LegendarySandwich]

Your division between animal morality and human morality appears by dint of this to be artificial.

Can you explain why in more detail?

If humans are animals, human morality is animal morality, of a sort.

Also, there are some indications that other animals practice moral behavior.  Chimpanzees, for instance, have been observed to deceive each other, which presupposes an unspoken moral rule of not deceiving being the norm.

Yes, but, as far as I know, we have a far greater moral sense and capacity. We separate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom by our morality, among other things. The fact that we can even think about whether eating meat is right or wrong when it's what we were evolved to do proves this, I think. We should hold ourselves to higher standards than other animals, because we can.