Philosophical Vegan Forum

I understand your respect for animals is based on how much the animals are like us, if I misunderstand I'm sorry. I am very opposed to this notion that morality should be based on how much something is like us, because it is simply not morally relevant. I know you don't like these comparisons, but the whites that colonized Africa saw the black people as inferior because they were different, I think you would agree that skin color is not morally relevant at all. However, by the standard you proposed you should see black people as inferior to yourself, although slightly, because there is a difference between them and yourself. Just that the difference between a cow and a white man is greater than the difference between a black man and a white man does not make it more morally relevant.

I also have a problem with using intelligence to decide whether a race or species should be included in our moral circle. It is a trait that we cherry picked because we happened to have more of it than any other species, that does not make it morally relevant. If we were going by intelligence, we should be totally okay with using mentally handicapped people to test drugs. After all, one might argue some mentally handicapped people are less intelligent than some highly intelligent non-human species like dolphins.

I think that hunting and meat consumption satisfy a deeply ingrained evolutionary desire and people tend to differ on how much they are willing give in to it.

Although this might be true, the same can be said for rape. It's a primal lust that we see in our close relatives (by which I mean primates). Just that something is natural does not make it good. I don't think you were making this point, I just wanted to clarify.

You have, and I mean this earnestly, admirable self control/quote]

Thank you, but I truly don't. Being a vegan is much easier than you might think, your taste buds adapt after a while to not need as much fat, sugar or salt. Vegan food is also simply delicious. The self control thing comes very natural as after a while you start to develop a disgust for meat products. For example, whenever I see an egg I think something like "hen period, 25,000 cigarettes." (the Harvard Nurses health study found that one egg appears to reduce a woman's lifespan as much as 25,000 cigarettes.)

The people depicted in the movie are utter sociopaths.

It's good that you admit this, and that you realize that paying for these practices is just as bad. You are way ahead of most people

@Ceelos213
It is the ability to suffer and the interest to avoid suffering that really matters in the discussion about the well-being of animals in the animal-exploiting industries. How much they look like us is a totally irrelevant criterion for the reasons miniboes already gave. You are still stuck in the anthropocentric thinking that is sadly enough not only innate in us humans, but also pretty mainstream. You have to examine the specifics of what it is that makes humans special, followed by a honest discussion about the context in which you can apply this knowledge. When you reject the notion that humans are special just because they belong to the species homo sapiens, it's only logical to giving equal consideration to the same interests in an ethical discussion. And when we would actually zoom in into the capabilities of non-human animals to feel pain (which I argue is morally relevant in this discussion), you will see that humans actually aren't all that different from the animals that are now raised for food.

That being said, most of us here would agree with you that the moral status of humans does transcend that of other animals in specific—if not most—contexts. This is mostly the case with ethical questions in which highly-developed self-awareness* are of highly importance. But we also recognize that in those instances we should be consistent and have to downscale the consideration we give humans that don't have a highly-developed self-awareness as well as upscaling the consideration we give to highly self-aware non-human animals like dolphins, elephants and other primates (again individually). Of course it is more complicated because there could be relatives involved that also have interests in the well-being of people that, say, has the cognitive capabilities of an average chicken, but the intrinsic moral weight isn't transcending that of the average chicken.

*intelligence is pretty much always irrelevant

Hi Ceelos213, and welcome!

I think it's great that you're phasing out industrially produced animal products.

As to equalists: I don't think anybody here is one. Only crazy people think flies and elephants' lives have equal value.

It's a teeny tiny bit wrong to kill an insect, more wrong to kill a fish, still more wrong to kill a mammal, and more wrong still to kill a human (most humans, anyway).

Doing any of these things with some significant element of true necessity (rather than just for amusement, or because we like the taste) could be considered justified. Such as for survival, or self defense. But, eating them isn't necessary anymore in the first world. Which is why we try not to do it.

It's the same basic reason why harming other humans is wrong, but perhaps to a smaller degree. Usually the comparisons are dealing with similarity of nature, but not so much asserting identical wrongness. It would probably be a good idea for these movies to make that point more clear.

There are some gray areas though, like invasive species, where they aren't just being killed for selfish reasons, but to protect the environment and local fauna.

Killing: Wrong
Protecting the environment: Right

It's hard to say which is stronger, and how it turns out in the end, but it's not as clear an issue as completely selfish killing for taste.

Your best human analogy might be killing soldiers of an invading army. The meat being a byproduct of an arguably just killing that would otherwise go to waste, is it wrong to eat it? Maybe not.

I find it can be important to examine exceptions to understand a concept in a non-dogmatic way.

I can say one thing for sure: I will never consume another industrially produced animal product in my life.

Wow. Overnight kinda-vegan?
Awesome!

the practices of religion, the infliction of
pain, control and power over other humans has appalled me for years.

but now i have seen this. just a glimps of the pain and mental torment inflicted on innocent sentient beings.
it has caused me to weep as i never have before.

i was considering going at least vegetarian once i had successfully quit smoking.
but now i am once again. reconcidering my world view.
now is the time.

oh humanity what have we fallen to?
i still weep and i think it will be some time before the sorrow in my heart goes away. if ever it will.

dwindley wrote: i still weep and i think it will be some time before the sorrow in my heart goes away. if ever it will.

Sometimes it's the sorrow which can keep us honest, and drive us to be good people. If it goes away, what does that say about us?

but now i am once again. reconcidering my world view.
now is the time.

Wow, amazing (and amazing post altogether).
Your introduction post says that you aren't a vegan or a vegetarian.
But now, your profile says you are a vegetarian. So you've just changed today? Wow.
If you're contemplating veganism, we have a guide for that: http://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewto ... 8&start=10

for now i am just going to stick with a vegetarian diet as i have recently quit smoking and i don't want to overload myself with new lifestyle choices.

but yes. i signed up and found the video. after having watched the documentary i feel no longer able to passively add to the problem.

it will difficult im sure but having witnessed such pain and mental torment in other beings my difficulties are nought in comparison.
it is the video that convinced me. without it im sure i would still be a meat eater.

Alright, great.