August Spies

Valmorian

I'm sorry you feel I was implying that vegetarians grant the same rights to animals as to humans. I assure you I do not believe this is the case (for most vegetarians).




It is ONE of the reasons, yes. It still says nothing about why vegetarians choose not to eat meat. You're reading too much into the statement if you think I am presuming they believe the opposite.




I don't see that it does. *shrug* Matter of opinion.



If it's not intended, it can hardly be meant as a misrepresentation. In any case, did you ever consider you might be reading a little too much into the statement?

I'm giving one of my justifications for eating meat. I'm not proposing a false dilemma.




False Dilemma. I simply don't care if people think I am immoral or not, if their moral codes differ from mine. However, I do recognize that there are many people out there who DO care.

Again, I'm not really sure why this should surprise you.




And here is the flaw. I need not believe that the food I eat is produced totally without suffering to the animals involved, merely that the amount of suffering inflicted is acceptable to me.

[Upon reflection, I think I may have not read this correctly. Suffice it to say that my point of contention here is that I'm not sure that 'suppression' of 'natural empathy' (whatever THAT is.. as opposed to unnatural empathy?) is necessary.]



The basis of this, of course, is that you've simply assumed it true. You dismiss the possibility that they are offended at the implied accusation of immorality because why, exactly? Personal preference? It suits you?

I would, yes.
It's all down to a matter of opinion, really.

The AntiChris

Valmorian

Thanks for your response.

I guess we've just about done this to death.

Chris

Buddrow_Wilson

Agreed.


Praise be to the EAC

AtlanticCitySlave

I just wanted to make a brief comment...

Many vegetarians (or at least the ones worth taking seriously in a philosophical sense) are so because they feel eating meat, using animals for products, etc., is immoral, not that it reduces weight (or something else). Thus, to expect a vegetarian (such as the member of PETA) to not eat meat but have no problem with others doing so is, quite simply, ridiculous.

Vegetarians feel it is wrong on moral grounds to use non-human animals. Thus, vegetarians have an OBLIGATION to do something about what is happening. We would never say to our friend "I don't want to murder anyone, but it's okay for you to" or "I don't want to rape anyone, but it's okay for you too". For those that do rape and murder, we feel it is immoral to NOT do anything about it, and thus we should expect, and encourage I think, vegetarians to take action since they view it as a moral issue.

This is similiar to many pro-choice people who miss the point of pro-lifers. It's not uncommon to see shirts, bumper stickers, etc., saying something like "If you don't like abortions, don't have one". The pro-choice woman/man in the car may feel like "yeah, i showed them", but in actuality they just "don't get it".

While many of us may not agree that it is immoral to eat animals, many vegetarians do, and they liken it to slavery and other historical injustices. To expect them to sit back and smile (while they don't eat meat and use animal products) is silly.

If anything, many of these vegetarians deserve our admiration. At least they are willing to be arrested, ridiculed, ignored by their families, etc., all for fighting something they view as grossly immoral. It doesn't seem most of us are willing to do the same thing.

Arrowman

Gee, I know I risk stirring the pot again here, but I must respond to AtlanticCitySlave's post:

Agreed. It is also ridiculous to repeatedly refer to the moral dimension of the issue, and then expresse surprise at a vigorous response, while denying that you have cast any aspersions on the morals of omnivores.

Not to mention the suggestion that omnivores respond with some vigour on this subject because they 'must be feeling guilty' or that there is some sort of 'religious' passion about meat eating. This is akin to the 'you must be struggling against God' fallacy promoted by some theists.

And fundamentalist Christians have an obligation to "do something" about premarital sex. That doesn't mean we should avoid vigorous debate on the issue.

I don't think this is a moral issue on the same scale as murder or rape, and neither I am sure do most ethical vegetarians. (Although perhaps some of the more extreme members of PETA might see it that way.) A more appropriate analogy might be "I don't want to have sex before marriage, but it's okay for you to" which is indeed something one might expect a liberal Christian to say.

(Fellow atheists: please don't jump on me saying that a Christian would never say that! I know a Catholic priest who doesn't condemn the morals of his non-Catholic friends. Let's not go there in this thread, eh?)

But this is not something that has come up in this thread - as far as I can recall and to their credit, I haven't seen any vegetarians "proselytising" here (just taking the moral high ground). So the point is moot.

Why would I "encourage" anyone to take action in support of a morality which I do not share?

I don't see your point. The point being made by the bumper sticker is - there is a difference between adopting a personal moral choice, and seeking to impose that morality on all people through legislation.

NB I do NOT for one minute suggest that vegetarians in this thread have proposed such imposition (although, again, I suppose you could find a PETA extremist who might take that view) - I am merely questioning ALS's point about pro-choice bumper stickers.

I respect people's rights to their beliefs. I will not shy away from critiquing beliefs that I do not share, or even ridiculing those that I think are baseless and silly.* I certainly do not feel obliged to "admire" someone just because they hold a belief strongly. I don't "admire" people for getting arrested in the course of committing a crime. Beliefs are not immune from critique just because they are strongly held and defended.

Well, if I had a moral belief that was at odds with my society, and I was subject to ridicule because of it, I hope I'd stand up for it. Fortunately for me, I suppose, I don't. That's just my bad luck I suppose, when it comes to virtuousness, but I don't prostrate myself in admiration in front of people who do, just because they do. The measure of the merit of a belief is not in whether you are prepared to be arrested for it.

* Edited to clarify: I am not saying here "I think ethical vegetarianism is baseless and silly"; I am just making a broader point about beliefs in general. For me, ethical vegetarianism is in the "critiquing beliefs I do not share" category.

LordSnooty

I openly admit to casting aspersions on the morals of omnivores. Meat eating is immoral, and those that eat meat are committing an immoral act. In my opinion, naturally.

But that's not the same as saying meat eaters are immoral. To say that someone is immoral suggests they lack a strong social conscience. Most people commit immoral acts, but far less are immoral people.

If meat eaters don't like it that I think they're doing something immoral, then that's their problem.

It's like with slavery. You don't say 'Slavery's bad. I won't have any part of it, but you can if you like'. You want to stop slavery altogether. Now, meat eating isn't as bad as slavery. But it's still pretty terrible. There's nothing I can do to stop it, and I won't try and convert people (because most people don't care) - but don't expect me to like it, or make dishonest statements about meat eating being acceptable for others.
Nobody claimed there was a 'religious passion' about meat eating (this may be a misunderstanding of something I said).

But meat eating is accepted (and, I believe, defended) for some of the same reasons as religious belief, such as parental influence and communal reenforcement. If everyone around you tells you something is OK from the moment you're able to understand, you're likely to believe that it is.
Difference being that religiously motivated 'morality' isn't truly morality. It's just following instructions.

Paul

Feather

Jesus Tapdancing Christ, LordSnooty, could you be any more hypocritical and shamefully represent vegetarians?

Your concept of what is moral and what is not is meaningless. Meat eaters are neither moral nor immoral. This applies to everybody, in fact.

That you invoke the "meat eaters justify by the same means religious people do" argument, while presenting an argument religions from the beginning have perfected is just tacky.

Might it also be simply that meat is just fucking fantastic tasting (when cooked properly)? I can't stand that I can no longer eat meat. The very smell of it cooking nauseates me for the most part, now (though occasionally I'll get that mouthwatering craving).

But I never considered that animals should be tortured when I ate meat. I just considered that, like every other living thing, food animals must give up their life so other things might live. It wasn't the result of parental conditioning or a religious belief. I just liked the flavor. My mother hated meat and we only had it when my father insisted (which was often, to be honest, but not in the quantities he'd have liked).

I imagine most meat eaters feel similarly. It's not a question of morality. It simply is.

And you, sir, give vegetarians a bad name when you go around proselytising the Religion of the Moral Vegan.

[EDIT Requested by The Other Michael, originally contained a derogatory remark without much substance; I will now make a substanceless remark that isn't so derogatory]

My opinion is that your "morality" is in fact mere pseudo-morality and is based entirely on emotion and not at all on reason with little or no applicability to the real world.

[EDIT Complete]

And, meat eaters, indulge in a lil extra slab of cooked dead animal flesh for me if you will. Gods what I wouldn't do for a nice juicy slab of grilled beef.

LordSnooty

That's exactly what I said.
Which argument do you suppose I have been presenting? I really can't imagine.
Oh. Like rape. After all, if someone feels that rape is normal to him, why should he not indulge himself? He probably thinks it feels fantastic. And if it feels good, why not? The weak should submit to the strong. Morals don't enter into it. It's not a question of morality... (etc, etc, etc).

You see, it never is a question of morality, when people are criticising something you enjoy.
I'm not any sort of vegan, and nor am I 'proselytising'. I am stating my opinion. I do not speak for anyone else.

(edited by moderator to delete quote of text that was removed by original poster)

Incidentally, a morality that doesn't consider emotion is a very sorry morality indeed. Without emotion, any moral position is untenable without reference to evolutionary imperatives.

Paul

Feather

Strawmen are fun, aren't they?

Oh, now I get it. This is kind of like Judge Moore and the 10 Commandments Monument. It's okay because Moore isn't really speaking for the government, right? Just like when you claim "vegetarians are moal whereas meat eaters aren't."

Sure, it's a personal opinion, but consider the wider context that a lot of other vegetarians tend to express similar "personal opinions" and cast their own aspersions on meat eaters. No man is an island, and all that.


Assertions are almost as fun as strawmen.

I have found that when somebody begins to use the word "moral" in support of his own position it is often done from some need to feel superior to his opponent.

That's okay, though. To each his own. Perhaps you might consider that very statement.