[Closed] Please explain Veganism to me . . .

The assumption I suppose hinges on whether not eating meat really is the more moral choice or whether it's subjective opinion. Is moral superiority being implied or inferred here?

Both.

Personally, by and large I reckon veganism is morally superior to eating meat. Vegetarianism I'm not entirely convinced about and tend towards thinking it's more an emotional decision than a moral/logical one.

Is moral superiority being implied or inferred here?

I think there could be some implied there too, if I do something you think immoral (or barbaric) then I suspect you consider yourself above me in some way even if only in a minor/subconscious way that you would never vocalise.

(and if I've got implied/inferred the right way round there I'll be happy)

Vegetarianism I'm not entirely convinced about and tend towards thinking it's more an emotional decision than a moral/logical one.

An immediate and undeniable moral reason is the manner in which meat is typically produced, as it relates to the animals themselves. Factory-farmed animals are treated pretty badly. If you accept the animals are sentient – One could argue that eating meat is immoral given how the meat is produced. This would make vegetarianism a moral stance.

EDIT: I've just read that back, and although it sounds preachy, I'm just trying to give and example of a moral reasoning.

As above I know veges who eat a lot of eggs and have never considered how many chickens die to produce those eggs. But it seems pointing out stuff like that is deemed as borderline bullying or something.

Chances are that,

a) they already know,

b) they will have put considerably more effort into researching a vegetarian diet than your average meat eater,

c) you will be the seven hundred and thirty-ninth person to helpfully mansplain it to them and,

d) they've made a decision what to eat or avoid based on their own personal view as to what they can cheerfully live without eating from a nutritional and satisfaction point of view. Ultimately, most people don't want to be martyrs, spending their lives being bloody miserable for the sake of a boiled egg.

That last point may sound hypocritical but (again) that's because you're assuming it's an all-or-nothing decision. It's a balancing act. You'd like to be vegetarian but couldn't give up bacon? Fine, be vegetarian except for bacon (just please don't tell everyone you're veggie as it confuses people and provides ammo for shitwits).

We all love analogies, right? Say I'd like to reduce my carbon footprint so decide to cycle to work every day instead of driving. At the weekend I get the shopping in, so take the car. Should I be lambasted for that? I could do it on the bike, but it'd take hours and multiple trips, so whilst technically possible it's not really practical and probably not sustainable long-term. Should I give up riding completely just because I need to drive at weekends? Or should I be sensible and do what I can when I can without it impacting unacceptably severely on my life?

I think meat eaters can care and they can make it nicer/better with more ethical choices but the basic sticking point,for some, is is it good or bad to kill animals for food ?

Well.

My Father in Law, in Wisconsin, likes to deer hunt. There are too many deer in Wisconsin because people have killed most of the apex predators. This means that the deer will eventually ruin the environment for all the other lovely fluffy cute critters. So they would have to be culled, for the greater good, if there weren't so many trigger happy Americans (joking) looking for something at which to shoot. To my knowledge, this is always eaten - if not by the hunter then it's given away to friends, relatives or even food banks.

I can't come up with a reason for this being unethical, except for the historical actions of settlers killing all the bears, wolves, coyotes and lions.

An immediate and undeniable moral reason is the manner in which meat is typically produced, as it relates to the animals themselves. Factory-farmed animals are treated pretty badly. If you accept the animals are sentient – One could argue that eating meat is immoral given how the meat is produced.

I think eating industrially produced meat is pretty clearly morally indefensible. I still do it sometimes but I have signicantly cut down and am trying to cut it out altogether.

However, I'm reasonably confident that eg eating a bit of game now and then is probably ethically superior to regularly eating mass-produced (even free-range) eggs. I'm not sure about dairy.

And cougar you either misunderstand or are misrepresenting me. I've already said I'm not of the opinion that people have to be ethically pure or shouldn't even try. What I'm questioning is the assumption that not eating meat is actually the best way of making a difference to animal welfare. I'm not saying this to have a go at vegetarians but I think people should at least consider these things a bit more. Some people have and accept that there are compromises and that's fine, but some people are adopting an emotional stance that is more about making themselves feel better than anything else, IMO. That's human nature to some extent but I think it's always worth examining these things.

If you accept the animals are sentient – One could argue that eating meat is immoral given how the meat is produced. This would make vegetarianism a moral stance.

It's pretty debateable how much sentience a chicken or a trout has, though. I don't want either to suffer, but at the same time I find it very hard to get upset about them dying.

Tom and others, a couple of thoughts:

I'm veggie. My initial reasons were moral ones. And these moral reasons apply to me. Just me, not you, not anyone else. I couldn't give a flying whatsit what you eat, or think about eating. I'm really not judging anyone except myself and I'm not comparing myself to anyone else. (I'm a complete dick in many ways, so if I did, I'd cancel myself out anyway.)

Secondly, those moral reasons aren't black and white. There's no logic, no absolutes. I'd just quite like it if, as I see it, I had less negative impact on the world. It's a sliding scale. Yes, I'd eat meat on a desert island. Yes, I'm pro-choice. I drink beer. My shoes are leather. I eat eggs (although, after reading this thread and doing some googling, I kind of don't want to). If I think I'm doing enough of what I see as the 'right' thing (in any situation), then I'm happy.

So, my 'moral' reasons apply to me alone, they're not logical and for me, and many other veggies, there are no absolutes. Can you accept that and move on - maybe back to the OP?

I can't come up with a reason for this being unethical, except for the historical actions of settlers killing all the bears, wolves, coyotes and lions.

I think you've answered your own question there. Maybe the ethical thing to do would be to reintroduce those apex predators. (They'd probably be hungry, I think apexes are extinct.) Though arguably we've replaced those predators with ourselves.

I do broadly agree; I can't see much that's unethical about the situation you describe. I suppose you could argue that he's still exploiting animals for his own gain (you said yourself, he [i]likes [/i]to hunt, rather than does it out of necessity) but it's a pretty weak argument.

I think eating industrially produced meat is pretty clearly morally indefensible

Agreed, and like grum I buy it as ethically as I can, but I transgress sometimes. Generally when I am travelling, because not many restaurants offer ethically sourced meat.

I'd be interested in how many others would have a moral objection to eating the Wisconsin venison?

you said yourself, he likes to hunt, rather than does it out of necessity

Well yes - wanting to hunt when you don't have to is, on the face of it, morally unpleasant. However given the pretty significant mitigating circumstances in this case, it's a much greyer area. He *does* enjoy it, but is it the pleasure of killing, the skill of the hunt, or the satisfaction of catching your own food?

Incidentally, deer hunting generates a decent amount of revenue for the state directly, because hunting licenses (strictly limited and carefully calculated numbers of animals allowed to be taken) are quite expensive; and on top of that a lot of people travel into or around the state, spending money in local businesses and so on.

And cougar you either misunderstand or are misrepresenting me.

The former. That makes much more sense.

Brown > very well said. That's broadly how I feel too, reasonings aside.

[i]However, I'm reasonably confident that eg eating a bit of game now and then is probably ethically superior to regularly eating mass-produced[/i]

Yep. Agreed. However, given meat scares in the past (horse being passed off as beef) , and the difficulty for the average consumer of being sure of provenance, then not eating meat at all (the same logic you've applied)...is the better option still?

[i]It's pretty debateable how much sentience a chicken or a trout has, though[/i]

Probably. Although why not just err on the side of caution, and presume they have?

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2024133,00.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/vegetarian-or-omnivore-the-environmental-implications-of-diet/2014/03/10/648fdbe8-a495-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

There was a journal entry by stanford which calculated how an omnivore diet could be greener than a vegetarian/vegan diet, can't seem to find it right now though.

No amount of bean-eating or Prius-driving will compensate for reproducing, and it’s the childless, not the vegetarians, who are more likely to save the planet.

Hands up who has kids? 😆 You disgusting, immoral planet destroying barbarous apes.

Molly, how do you feel if your Wisconsin hunter is replaced with folk riding horses following deer with dogs?

Is that not the same argument?

given meat scares in the past (horse being passed off as beef)

Oh, that's an interesting one. How / why is that scary?

We don't generally eat horse for, as far as I know, purely cultural reasons. Popular in France I believe. Koreans famously eat dog, and other countries eat all manner of horrors.

Extrapolating from that, we eat the meats we eat (and avoid the ones we don't) because we always have. Is that really good reasoning? What's inherently wrong with Shergar and chips for tea?

nickc - Member

Molly, how do you feel if your Wisconsin hunter is replaced with folk riding horses following deer with dogs?

Is that not the same argument?

hunting deer with a rifle: all's quiet, BANG! deer is dead.

at least, that's the intention of the hunter.

hunting animals with dogs: if it was as quick and simple and clean as using a rifle, they wouldn't bother.

I don't think sentience is a measure of wether or not it's ethical. It's to do with the emotional complexity of a creature, for me. There's a sliding scale. It's probably ok to swat a fly. Eating a fish, fine for me. Sheep - well, we're getting close. Dogs and cats - tricky. Apes - definitely not.

There was a journal entry by stanford which calculated how an omnivore diet could be greener than a vegetarian/vegan diet

I mentioned this earlier.

From that Time link:

I was a vegetarian from 18 to 24 years old, and I gave up meat partly because I had misgivings about the cruelty to animals. But I began eating meat again when I moved to the [English] countryside and started keeping goats. I had to do something with the male goats. They wouldn't produce milk or offspring, so I started eating them.

Interesting.

Cougar, good point, it really isn't scary is it?

I think I'm guilty of using lazy "Headline" speak.

hunting deer with a rifle: all's quiet, BANG! deer is dead.

Assuming a proficient hunter who never misses a kill shot, of course. How many end up wounded and bleeding for hours, I wonder? Not something I know a great deal about, the only deer I've ever shot have been pictures on a field archery target (and it's harder than it looks).

On this point:

c) you will be the seven hundred and thirty-ninth person to helpfully mansplain it to them

Both the vegetarians I've mentioned this too had no idea and had broadly assumed that free-range eggs meant 'no animals were harmed/killed in the production of these eggs'. They were shocked to realise that all the male chicks are killed and that all the females are killed once they get past peak productivity. Also that conditions in some free range farms are not exactly the image of hens clucking away in a field.

How many end up wounded and bleeding for hours, I wonder?

Quite a few.

Cougar, good point, it really isn't scary is it?

Wrong word perhaps. But I don't really see how it's any different to ordering shepherd's pie and getting cottage pie by mistake (assuming you're not a Hindu, at any rate). At worst it's merely [i]passing off,[/i] you're not getting what you thought you were getting. Beyond that, why does it matter?

Another complication - it says 2kg of feed goes to making 1kg of chicken. Where does the other 1kg go? Most of it is poo I'd guess. Which then gets used as fertiliser to grow all those vegetables. Better than using crude oil for this, no?

I have enjoyed a horse steak in France a few times and see no problem eating it. I think the media hysteria was a bit ridiculous but the main real issue was about provenance/traceability. Go to a decent butcher and he can tell you which local farm the meat came from. You could probably go and have a look round of you really wanted to.

Both the vegetarians I've mentioned this too had no idea

Ah, fair comment, I stand corrected.

Could you elaborate then on what you meant by: [i]"But it seems pointing out stuff like that is deemed as borderline bullying or something."[/i] Who's deeming this? The people you told? I'd have thought that in the cases you describe they'd have been grateful?

Hands up who has kids?

So as well as abortions, having kids is also not compatible with vegetarianism? Aside from the fact that those two positions would seem to be contradictory, it's funny that the vegetarians are accused of being the abnormal extremists.

I think the media hysteria was a bit ridiculous but the main real issue was about provenance/traceability.

That makes perfect sense, though I thought the main issue was "oh my gods I've just eaten horse!!1!" from the populace. Hard for me to tell given that I was busy feeling all morally superior about not being affected at the time. (-:

Does the rat, poisoned because it’s a threat to the grain stores, count for less than the pig, raised and slaughtered with care?

I love a complex issue, I do.

Hands up who has kids?

Me, but only two....

Hands up who has kids?

I'm idly wondering what trolls feed on. Perhaps they'd be a little less argumentative if they ate less red meat. (-:

Cougar - Moderator

How does pouring gravy on food make someone a "nutter" ?

Would you eat a burger I'd urinated on? That's exactly how it feels to me when someone tips meat juices all over my food.

I've had people pour gravy on my food too, but never felt the need to refer to them as "nutters".
And being coeliac, I don't eat gravy as it's likely to contain wheat flour and therefore gluten.
So I've got a fair understanding of restricted diets.
And first hand experience of the problems involved when it goes wrong.
But I still can't see how it's the same as whipping your todger out and pissing on someone's food.

What's inherently wrong with Shergar and chips for tea?

I've had people pour gravy on my food too, but never felt the need to refer to them as "nutters".

Serious? If I walked over and poured bread sauce on your plate knowing you were coeliac you'd think that was reasonable?

As above I know veges who eat a lot of eggs and have never considered how many chickens die to produce those eggs. But it seems pointing out stuff like that is deemed as borderline bullying or something.

Facts like this exist so that vegans can be realy really smug

We then getting on to talking about how many males calves die for milk

Monsters these veggies

I can't come up with a reason for this being unethical, except for the historical actions of settlers killing all the bears, wolves, coyotes and lions.

I don't want either to suffer, but at the same time I find it very hard to get upset about them dying.

I don't think sentience is a measure of wether or not it's ethical. It's to do with the emotional complexity of a creature,

'loum it was used colloquially as i am sure you know insert arsehole. inconsiderate oaf, ****er whatever you deem fit for a person who deliberately pours meat gravy on a vegetarian dish

Mtrs JY is a coeliac imagine the joys of trying to get vegan and gluten free when eating out

I've had people pour gravy on my food too, but never felt the need to refer to them as "nutters".

It's all about intent; I doubt - or at least, I'd hope - that someone didn't intentionally spike your food knowing that it could make you ill. "Nutter" is probably the wrong word (it wasn't one I chose) but intentionally spoiling someone's food isn't a very nice thing to do.

But I still can't see how it's the same as whipping your todger out and pissing on someone's food.

I didn't say it was the same, I was trying to explain how it feels to me to have my food contaminated by people who think that rolling veggieburgers around in meat juices is the height of sophisticated hillarity, by using an example that might provoke the same response in people who aren't me.

And I'm not suggesting whipping my todger out in public, do you think I'm some sort of animal? I carry a pre-filled bottle around for such purposes instead.

If I walked over and poured bread sauce on your plate knowing you were coeliac

I'm idly wondering what trolls feed on

IMO nothing but if you're lying about what type of animal it is what else are you lying about (is it actually fit for consumption?)

Granted, that's a very good point.

Cougar - Moderator

Assuming a proficient hunter who never misses a kill shot, of course. How many end up wounded and bleeding for hours, I wonder?

when i was a kid, my friends dead was into his hunting, he took us with him a few times. A single 'shot' could take hours of prep and waiting (bit boring for a 12yr old if i'm honest). After a clean shot, i've seen the animal simply fall over. They aim for the chest, not head (the life-stopping regions of a deer's head are relatively small, so easy to miss).

looking back, for 'Dad' it was little more than deer-watching with a telescope that just happened to have a rifle bolted underneath.

things might be different now, deer are a lot more common (and a bit more of a pest tbh) But back then, care was taken not to shoot deer that were young/healthy/of breeding age/unknown. my friend's dad nearly knew 'his' deer by name.

what happened when they missed? i don't know, i never saw it happen (only went out a few times). but i saw lots of care being taken to reduce the chances.

(not close enough? - no shot. animal seems flighty? likely to move suddenly? - no shot. not standing side-on? - no shot. etc.)

for me, kfc comes with waaay more emotional baggage than hunted venison.

and it’s the childless, not the vegetarians, who are more likely to save the planet.

Hands up who has kids?

where on earth does that say

So as well as abortions, having kids is also not compatible with vegetarianism?

Not that I'm condoning any such behaviour but Coeliac is an illness whilst veganism/vegetarianism is a choice.

... you assume. Regardless, what difference does it make? Is it the behaviour of a 'nutter' to spike someone's food with something they can't eat, but perfectly acceptable to do it to someone who's merely made a choice not to?

Maybe I should pop round to my Asian neighbours with a home-made curry later, and not tell them it's pork dansak. I'm sure they'd all sit round and have a good laugh about it afterwards. It's only a choice, it's not like they're allergic to it or anything.

Well you noticed the unethical point without my help. Reintroduce the prey or live with the consequences

The (arguably) unethical actions were hundreds of years ago. So you can't include that in the debate as to what happens this hunting season. Unless you consider it unethical that no humans have been killed by wolves in Wisconsin this year.

We are where we are. It's your actions now that are important.

back then, care was taken not to shoot deer that were young/healthy/of breeding age/unknown. my friend's dad nearly knew 'his' deer by name.

Cool. I wonder how typical that was / still is? I suppose there's a world of difference between a trained, experienced hunter and some redneck in the US wilderness with crate of Bud and a shotgun collection.

you assume. Regardless,

don't think you can choose to have coeliac's lol

Hush, adults are talking.

you can claim to have it and it not be true though

You might want to look at the medical rates of it and the claimed rates. it seems popular almost like a fad diet these days