Freethought & Rationalism Archive

brighid · 04-05-2002, 09:33 AM

Well, thanks Bluebird! I definitely agree with you that many, many people have a really ignorant view of vegetarianism. Thankfully, I know quite a few vegetarians that have been very informative!

My husband also used to manage a GNC, we are both pretty active and we are both really interested in healthy eating and quality of life, so we are interested in this kind of stuff. I am currently experimenting with my diet in regards to my endometriosis. The birth control helps me the most, but I have to stop taking it because I have had some other crappy side-effects – like 15 lbs of weight gain (fat that is) even when working out 6 times a week (3 days of weights, 3 days of aerobics) AND a very healthy diet! Not only that but the last round of pills made me depressed. So, it has been a while since I have had to actually monitor my diet to help my endometriosis. So, time will tell

The reason for eating chicken (or animal protein) for endometriosis is for the Lysine contained in it ... Animal proteins contain all 8 essential amino acids and therefore, alone are considered complete proteins (at least from my recollections of my studies in my personal training days). There are 12 amino acids the body manufacturers (nonessential but don't let the term fool you) and the rest most be obtained from food sources. I don’t remember the exact reason why Lysine helps endometriosis… sorry! SOmething about amino acids and hormone production and horomone production directly affecting the production of the freak endometrial tissue in parts of the body it shouldn't be - usually inflamed during menustration.

Vegetables usually contain about 6 of the essential amino acids and need to be properly combined to achieve complete protein status – although I have read some commentary to the contrary. I need to brush up on the latest nutritional findings. Here is an article a short article about proteins that is supportive of a balanced vegetarian diet: <a href="http://www.react.ie/Health/Nutrition/Protein.htm" target="_blank">http://www.react.ie/Health/Nutrition/Protein.htm</a>

Here is a chart about vegetable protein sources – combining from each column will provide you with “complete” proteins: (soy, I believe is considered a complete protein)

Grains Legumes Seeds & Nuts
Barley Beans Sesame Seeds
Corn Meal Lentils Sunflower
Oats Peas Walnuts
Rice Soy Products Cashews
Breads Other Nuts

Pastas, rice and breads need to be Whole Grain to provide the amino acid benefits - as well as the fiber!

Vegetables
Green Leafy
Broccoli

I definitely think people, vegetarian or not, can lead very healthy lives if they are learn about proper nutrition. I know TOO many people who know squat about the types of food they put in their mouths and how those foods affect their bodies. Admittedly, it can be a bit confusing and there is A LOT of information out there to read through and digest (no pun intended

)

I think people should consult a doctor before any exercise or diet program but the average doctors knows very little about proper nutrition. I know more then my doctor does, so my personal recommendation would be to get clearance from your doctor about any health issues related to exercise and see a nutritionist for your dietary needs!

Brighid

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]

Pensee · 04-06-2002, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KJELLMUSIC:
I kind of figured you would pick up on the "when there are options" part. But isn't that just an adjustable morality that wouldn't really hold much water...kind of like it's bad to sin but if you do sin then you can confess to a priest it goes away.
And why would intellect level be a deciding factor between species?

Aren't all morals adjustable? When I gave up Xianity, I quit believing in absolute truth. In my Xian eyes, a sin is a sin is a sin. There was no gray area. But now, I admit and embrace situational ethics. Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't steal. However, if I had to steal in order to feed my family, I'd do it. Same concept with eating meat.

I'm not sure if intellect level is a factor, but I do know that I hold humans higher than animals. I value human life over animal life. If it's down to my life or a pig's life, the pig's gonna die. In American culture, we are programmed to vaule dogs and cats over cows and pigs. I'm not sure why, but I'm a product of that culture. I admit I hold dogs and cats over farm animals. I know I can't back it up via reason, but that's how I feel.

On a side note, I think I have vegetarian cats. If I do try to give them meat, they'll just sniff it, take a bite or two, then go eat their cat food. Weird, huh?

shamon · 04-06-2002, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bill Snedden:
Once more into the breach, dear friends...

It has been alleged, by spin, punkersluta, and others, that meat eating is immoral.

In this thread, I would ask any vegetarians who agree with this basic premise to outline the system of morality that leads to this conclusion.

I ask this because I have yet to see, despite three threads on this topic, a description of the foundational principles or values that underly an ethical system that would support the contention that meat-eating is immoral. I realize that some of the previous participants may be under the assumption that they have already done so, so let me clarify using an example.

When asked to provide informatin regarding the foundation of his/her moral system, spin offered the following:

However, it should be obvious that this statement cannot actually be foundational as it is the result of prior value judgements. Clearly, "sentience" would seem to be the primary value driving this statement. Therefore, this statement (and apparently spin's moral system) would appear to be based on the value of sentience. But why sentience? Why not conscious self-awareness or moral agency? Of course, I could be wrong in my assessment; perhaps sentience is not the primary value. But, if not, what is? Some further clarification is needed.

Additionally, it was implied that this moral system is objective in nature, however there doesn't appear to be anything self-evidently objective about it. How is the genetic fallacy overcome by merely asserting "sentience" as a primary value?

I'm using spin's contributions as an example because he/she has been the only "ethical vegetarian" that I have seen provide this much information, but I'd welcome thoughts or comments from anyone who would answer the thread title in the affirmative.

Finally, just so everyone is aware, the general level of discourse around this topic has been everything but civil. This thread will be heavily moderated to ensure that it does not degenerate into the same mud-slinging morass as the other two.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

What is the dilemma? Does anyone on the entire board feel that it is moral (for them) to kill something if it is unneeded? Meaning, if you don�t need horse in your diet, is it moral for you to kill it? Isn�t the answer obvious and the same for ALL humans?

It�s a lot simpler than people make it to be.

tronvillain · 04-06-2002, 09:13 AM

While one may not need horse in one's diet, it's not clear that it's "immoral" for one to eat it. One simply weighs the various factors and often eating meat comes out on top.

It's a lot simpler that people make it out to be.

(Spelling)

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]

shamon · 04-06-2002, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tronvillain:
While one may not need horse in one's diet, it's not clear that it's "immoral" for one to eat it. One simply weighs the various factors and often eating meat comes out on top.

It's a lot simpler that peoploe make it out to be.

There aren�t various factors that I�m aware of. If you don�t need horses in your diet and you kill one and eat it you are committing murder.

What are these various factors? Do they negate the above statement?

Pomp · 04-06-2002, 12:10 PM

shamon,

There aren�t various factors that I�m aware of. If you don�t need horses in your diet and you kill one and eat it you are committing murder.

What are these various factors? Do they negate the above statement?

The first relevant factor is that most people don't consider the killing of an animal that is not capable of abstract thought, such as a horse, to be murder. I understand that you do, but you haven't presented any argument to indicate that the rest of us should.

You might skim through the entire thread. A number of arguments have been presented by both sides. It's a bit more complex than "Meat is murder!"

MeBeMe · 04-06-2002, 12:59 PM

Whether or not a being is capable of abstract thought should have little input on whether or not it is justifiable to eat them, particularly when there are other options easily available. While it may end up being a factor in a moral situation involving one on a boat with only a dog and a grand-parent to eat, in contemporary society(ies) overall it is not necessary to eat any animal.
An argument of this sort is generally weak, since the majority of people view eating retarded people, young children, people in coma's, dead people, etc., as morally unacceptable, yet all of these people lack abstract thought.
I also find the standard utilitarian approach to not eating meat rather weak. It's not okay to eat a cow if we have bread to eat, but it is okay to eat a cow if it helps with your cancer. I doubt such people would consider the eating of a child as morally acceptable if it would help alleviate symptoms of one sort of another in themselves. (Ignoring the obvious fact that a utilitarian approach is generally hard to put into practice since there are so many factors one would have to consider.)
I take a Singer approach to the underlying basis of why one should not eat animals. Animals have interests primarly, with pain, pleasure, etc., falling under that umbrella, and to deny these interests (as well as eat them) is to treat them in a manner that is largely biased against them as a species.
While Singer's overall philosophy has problems, I believe he is well on the right track (at least compared with others) of his arguing for the foundations of morality (as Bill asks us to supply). I would answer, in very short form, that the fact a being does have interests is the basis for why we should give them moral consideration. Many vegetarians focus on pain as being the reason we shouldn't eat meat, but this to me is a weak argument, since those same people wouldn't say it's suddenly okay to kill a cow if we did so in a way that wasn't painful (i.e. we took a shotgun and blew the little fuckers head off).
Love,
MBM

[ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: MeBeMe ]

Pomp · 04-06-2002, 01:51 PM

MeBeMe,

Quick resposne to a few of your points:

An argument of this sort is generally weak, since the majority of people view eating retarded people, young children, people in coma's, dead people, etc., as morally unacceptable, yet all of these people lack abstract thought.

I'd argue that all of the above except the comatose and the dead do, indeed, posses the capability for abstract thought. I don't personally have a moral problem with eating the dead. Ay any rate, this isn't particularly relevant. I never said that possessing the capability for rational thought was the only criterion that could cause us to regard a particular being as off-limits to eating. It's simply the most telling division between humans and horses.

I would answer, in very short form, that the fact a being does have interests is the basis for why we should give them moral consideration.

I go one step further and require that a being not only have interests but also be capable of recognizing that I have interests and agreeing to respect my interests in exchange for my respecting its interests. This (I'll respect you if you respect me) is, in essence, the social contract that acts as the foundation for my conception of ethics.

Now, your foundation is different from mine, obviously, so we'll arrive at different answers to ethical questions. As a short answer to the meta-ethical question "Which foundation is superior?" I offer the observation that my foundation has a built-in reason for an agent to abide by it (I get respect in return for giving it), while yours does not seem to have such a reason.

tronvillain · 04-06-2002, 02:07 PM

shamon:

Quote:

There aren’t various factors that I’m aware of. If you don’t need horses in your diet and you kill one and eat it you are committing murder.

Well, you can call it murder if you like, but it strips the word of a lot of its meaning.

Quote:

What are these various factors? Do they negate the above statement?

I generally simplify the factors to the empathy one feels for the horse versus the enjoyment one derives from eating the horse. There are potentially other factors as well, but those are the primary ones that I weigh against each other.

The AntiChris · 04-07-2002, 04:52 AM

Pompous Bastard

Quote:

MeBeMe: I would answer, in very short form, that the fact a being does have interests is the basis for why we should give them moral consideration.

Pompous Bastard: I go one step further and require that a being not only have interests but also be capable of recognizing that I have interests and agreeing to respect my interests in exchange for my respecting its interests. This (I'll respect you if you respect me) is, in essence, the social contract that acts as the foundation for my conception of ethics.

You appear to be saying that you would not give any non-human animal moral consideration.

This presumably means, that for you, animal cruelty is not a moral issue.

Can you explain to me then, bearing in mind that the almost universal empathy we have for animals (intersubjective value?) results in laws protecting animals from malicious cruelty, what animal cruelty is if it's not a moral issue?

Apologies for the assumptions, but I'm sure you'll put me right.

Chris

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: The AntiChris ]

04-05-2002, 09:33 AM	#81
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Well, thanks Bluebird! I definitely agree with you that many, many people have a really ignorant view of vegetarianism. Thankfully, I know quite a few vegetarians that have been very informative! My husband also used to manage a GNC, we are both pretty active and we are both really interested in healthy eating and quality of life, so we are interested in this kind of stuff. I am currently experimenting with my diet in regards to my endometriosis. The birth control helps me the most, but I have to stop taking it because I have had some other crappy side-effects – like 15 lbs of weight gain (fat that is) even when working out 6 times a week (3 days of weights, 3 days of aerobics) AND a very healthy diet! Not only that but the last round of pills made me depressed. So, it has been a while since I have had to actually monitor my diet to help my endometriosis. So, time will tell The reason for eating chicken (or animal protein) for endometriosis is for the Lysine contained in it ... Animal proteins contain all 8 essential amino acids and therefore, alone are considered complete proteins (at least from my recollections of my studies in my personal training days). There are 12 amino acids the body manufacturers (nonessential but don't let the term fool you) and the rest most be obtained from food sources. I don’t remember the exact reason why Lysine helps endometriosis… sorry! SOmething about amino acids and hormone production and horomone production directly affecting the production of the freak endometrial tissue in parts of the body it shouldn't be - usually inflamed during menustration. Vegetables usually contain about 6 of the essential amino acids and need to be properly combined to achieve complete protein status – although I have read some commentary to the contrary. I need to brush up on the latest nutritional findings. Here is an article a short article about proteins that is supportive of a balanced vegetarian diet: <a href="http://www.react.ie/Health/Nutrition/Protein.htm" target="_blank">http://www.react.ie/Health/Nutrition/Protein.htm</a> Here is a chart about vegetable protein sources – combining from each column will provide you with “complete” proteins: (soy, I believe is considered a complete protein) Grains Legumes Seeds & Nuts Barley Beans Sesame Seeds Corn Meal Lentils Sunflower Oats Peas Walnuts Rice Soy Products Cashews Breads Other Nuts Pastas, rice and breads need to be Whole Grain to provide the amino acid benefits - as well as the fiber! Vegetables Green Leafy Broccoli I definitely think people, vegetarian or not, can lead very healthy lives if they are learn about proper nutrition. I know TOO many people who know squat about the types of food they put in their mouths and how those foods affect their bodies. Admittedly, it can be a bit confusing and there is A LOT of information out there to read through and digest (no pun intended ) I think people should consult a doctor before any exercise or diet program but the average doctors knows very little about proper nutrition. I know more then my doctor does, so my personal recommendation would be to get clearance from your doctor about any health issues related to exercise and see a nutritionist for your dietary needs! Brighid [ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

04-06-2002, 09:13 AM	#84
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	While one may not need horse in one's diet, it's not clear that it's "immoral" for one to eat it. One simply weighs the various factors and often eating meat comes out on top. It's a lot simpler that people make it out to be. (Spelling) [ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

04-06-2002, 12:59 PM	#87
MeBeMe Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: . Posts: 35	Whether or not a being is capable of abstract thought should have little input on whether or not it is justifiable to eat them, particularly when there are other options easily available. While it may end up being a factor in a moral situation involving one on a boat with only a dog and a grand-parent to eat, in contemporary society(ies) overall it is not necessary to eat any animal. An argument of this sort is generally weak, since the majority of people view eating retarded people, young children, people in coma's, dead people, etc., as morally unacceptable, yet all of these people lack abstract thought. I also find the standard utilitarian approach to not eating meat rather weak. It's not okay to eat a cow if we have bread to eat, but it is okay to eat a cow if it helps with your cancer. I doubt such people would consider the eating of a child as morally acceptable if it would help alleviate symptoms of one sort of another in themselves. (Ignoring the obvious fact that a utilitarian approach is generally hard to put into practice since there are so many factors one would have to consider.) I take a Singer approach to the underlying basis of why one should not eat animals. Animals have interests primarly, with pain, pleasure, etc., falling under that umbrella, and to deny these interests (as well as eat them) is to treat them in a manner that is largely biased against them as a species. While Singer's overall philosophy has problems, I believe he is well on the right track (at least compared with others) of his arguing for the foundations of morality (as Bill asks us to supply). I would answer, in very short form, that the fact a being does have interests is the basis for why we should give them moral consideration. Many vegetarians focus on pain as being the reason we shouldn't eat meat, but this to me is a weak argument, since those same people wouldn't say it's suddenly okay to kill a cow if we did so in a way that wasn't painful (i.e. we took a shotgun and blew the little fuckers head off). Love, MBM [ April 06, 2002: Message edited by: MeBeMe ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-06-2002, 12:10 PM	#86
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	shamon, There aren�t various factors that I�m aware of. If you don�t need horses in your diet and you kill one and eat it you are committing murder. What are these various factors? Do they negate the above statement? The first relevant factor is that most people don't consider the killing of an animal that is not capable of abstract thought, such as a horse, to be murder. I understand that you do, but you haven't presented any argument to indicate that the rest of us should. You might skim through the entire thread. A number of arguments have been presented by both sides. It's a bit more complex than "Meat is murder!"

04-06-2002, 01:51 PM	#88
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	MeBeMe, Quick resposne to a few of your points: An argument of this sort is generally weak, since the majority of people view eating retarded people, young children, people in coma's, dead people, etc., as morally unacceptable, yet all of these people lack abstract thought. I'd argue that all of the above except the comatose and the dead do, indeed, posses the capability for abstract thought. I don't personally have a moral problem with eating the dead. Ay any rate, this isn't particularly relevant. I never said that possessing the capability for rational thought was the only criterion that could cause us to regard a particular being as off-limits to eating. It's simply the most telling division between humans and horses. I would answer, in very short form, that the fact a being does have interests is the basis for why we should give them moral consideration. I go one step further and require that a being not only have interests but also be capable of recognizing that I have interests and agreeing to respect my interests in exchange for my respecting its interests. This (I'll respect you if you respect me) is, in essence, the social contract that acts as the foundation for my conception of ethics. Now, your foundation is different from mine, obviously, so we'll arrive at different answers to ethical questions. As a short answer to the meta-ethical question "Which foundation is superior?" I offer the observation that my foundation has a built-in reason for an agent to abide by it (I get respect in return for giving it), while yours does not seem to have such a reason.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.