Ethical basis for Veganism or Vegetarianism?

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.  [Emphasis added]

The emphasized point would seem to undercut your moral argument. Nature has no interest in morality.  That we apply it to each other is gracious.  To apply it to food sources, however, is stretching it.  Essential survival, it seems to me, is beyond the ken of morality; and to argue that killing animals is particularly immoral is silly.

After all, every acre of land put under the plough to supply a vegetarian diet not only kills or displaces hundreds if not thousands of animals (counting insects), it renders that land uninhabitable for most large fauna; reducing their living space, and separating their breeding populations has been shown to greatly speed up the extinction of species.  In this sense, agriculture can be said to be a tool of genocide, in the same sense that, say, the Warsaw Ghetto was in 1943 and '44.  What's more, these are wild gene-pools being eliminated, not domesticated, meaning that the species' genome is done proportionately done greater harm.

If you insist on overextending morality, do so on an equitable basis.  All life, in the end, relies upon the death of another.  Wringing one's hands about it may be noble, but I don't see the utility of it.

[Lermontov]

I'm a vegetarian and a moral nihilist. The real question for me is what we find acceptable morally as an individual. any discussion in ethics is inherently flawed without first accepting this premise: That any value judgement - 'right' or 'wrong', 'good' 'bad' what-have-you - exist only as subsequent impositions on the action.

I choose not to eat meat becuase I impose a value on life. Whether this value proceeds from my experience of the world - the fact I have a dog perhaps, and would not eat him - or from something else does not change the fact that it will never be 'wrong' to eat meat per se, but nor will it be 'right'. It will only ever be 'wrong' or 'right' in a certain context, and with respect to a certain subject - in this case myself.

I would add however that living as we do, in organised and industrialised agricultural society, the consistency of contextual conditions of life, allows what seems to me to be a consistency in subjective perspective: We can all survive without eating meat; survival is thus no longer a fair justification for its consumption. We are all aware of the principle of 'life' ; that is, we know what seperates a living thing from a dead one. We understand animals fantastically well (at least the ones in question here  - those that would-be slaughtered); that they feel pain and emotion etc etc. From here, I think, its a short step to an undeniable conviction.

Rich.

[Sophus]

I choose not to eat meat becuase I impose a value on life.

I do too, but by imposing that view on all life much life (carnivores) would not be able to live. And if they don't exist the whole circle of life is thrown out of balance. We're animals just as much as the meat we consume, and we have evolved to be omnivores. Besides, plants are also a form of life.  

We can all survive without eating meat

In the western world perhaps. Not in less developed countries.

[Lermontov]

I choose not to eat meat becuase I impose a value on life.

I do too, but by imposing that view on all life much life (carnivores) would not be able to live. And if they don't exist the whole circle of life is thrown out of balance. We're animals just as much as the meat we consume, and we have evolved to be omnivores. Besides, plants are also a form of life.  

We can all survive without eating meat

In the western world perhaps. Not in less developed countries.

Ok, by Value I don't mean something quantative. I agree you may very well impose a value on life; I'm certiantly not claiming that all meat-eaters consider life valueless. That Value that we impose though is relative to our subjectivity yes? And so I come to the conclusion that eating meat is wrong becuase of X, Y, and Z and you come to the conclusion that it is acceptable, perhaps also too becuase of X, Y and Z.

I think I should say it is by no means the Principle of life that prevents me from indulging my desire for meat. I agree, thats ridiculous but its fair to say that it is my subjective assesment of life with respect to its individual properties (receptivity to pain, development of its cognitive faculites etc etc) - my imposed Value, if you like.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I value life.  The value I place on it, however, has limits.  And yes, that applies to my own life, as well.  I can conceive of situations where I would regard living as useless.

[The Magic Pudding]

I do too, but by imposing that view on all life much life (carnivores) would not be able to live. And if they don't exist the whole circle of life is thrown out of balance. We're animals just as much as the meat we consume, and we have evolved to be omnivores. Besides, plants are also a form of life.  

I don't think anyone has suggested all carnivores become vegetarian.
The circle of life will be increasingly thrown out of balance as populations become more affluent and aspire to a meaty western diet.
You can sing Hakuna Matata and have others kill your meat for you I suppose.
I don't see evolution as relevant, it's how we got here, it doesn't supply a code of ethics or morals.

We can all survive without eating meat

In the western world perhaps. Not in less developed countries.

I think you're on shaky ground using developing countries to defend meat consumption.

Chicken thigh fillets are on the menu tonight, best argument I can find for eating them is I want to.

[Whitney]

If I have a choice between eating an animal or a plant and they both are not self aware and a humane methods are used to the best of our ability I don't see how ethics would even come into play with my decision.   Animals and plants are both alive.  Animals and plants both move throughout the day (yes, plants move, watch a time laspe video of them following the sun).  This Article claims research has shown many plants can see, hear, and smell too.

[Ihateyoumike]

If I have a choice between eating an animal or a plant and they both are not self aware and a humane methods are used to the best of our ability I don't see how ethics would even come into play with my decision.   Animals and plants are both alive.  Animals and plants both move throughout the day (yes, plants move, watch a time laspe video of them following the sun).  This Article claims research has shown many plants can see, hear, and smell too.

Hell, some plants even eat meat.

[Asmodean]

Hell, some plants even eat meat.

Indeed they do. However, everyone knows they are immoral plants and are of the Devil, so "Hell" is right.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

And of course, bacteria will eat us all at the end of the day.

[ablprop]

This is an interesting debate I have with a vegetarian, and atheist, friend of mine. He chooses not to eat meat out of compassion for animals who feel pain. I argue that pain is an evolutionary adaptation. An animal that doesn't feel pain is quickly a dead animal. Why elevate one evolutionary adaptation - the ability to feel pain - over another, say, the ability to transform sunlight into food?

Yes, there are plants that produce particular parts of their bodies with the express purpose of having animals eat those parts, there are also clearly plants that defend themselves against being eaten (cacti are a great example). Plants are in it for themselves, just as all other living things ultimately must be.

I'm not saying "don't eat plants." I am saying that the accident of an evolutionary adaptation in the direction of feeling pain is no reason to elevate one life form over another.

However, there are some animals (dolphins, the great apes) that I believe deserve some level of protection based on the complexity of their mental lives. This is an accident, too, but because we understand how precious consciousness is I think we should err on the side of caution and offer some measure of protection to those beings who may share at least some level of our consciousness.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, but I refuse to feel guilt over a good steak.  I had no input on evolution; I should not be held liable for its upshot, namely, the medium rare top round I just finished.

[Ultima22689]

*finishes 1/2 lb burger*

mmm, murder, tasty, tasty murder. I've met my share of folks who tell me what i'm doing is wrong, eating animals and all. When the rest of the other animals that eat meat stop doing so then i'll stop too. We aren't special, we're all filthy animals, I hate this stupid distinction people seem to be making. I shit, sleep and eat, just like any other animal.

[Cite134]

*finishes 1/2 lb burger*

mmm, murder, tasty, tasty murder. I've met my share of folks who tell me what i'm doing is wrong, eating animals and all. When the rest of the other animals that eat meat stop doing so then i'll stop too. We aren't special, we're all filthy animals, I hate this stupid distinction people seem to be making. I shit, sleep and eat, just like any other animal.

^This.

*Yet I just finished a roast beef sandwhich.  

[Ihateyoumike]

I get hungry every time there's a new post on this thread.