Philosophical Vegan Forum
https://831048.arinterhk.tech/
What makes you think ethics is subjective? Or why at 'this' level? Is it because vegans are a minority?LogicIsNotRelative wrote:Ethics at this level are subjective. the only thing i've learned is that being atheist doesn't make you totally rational, I for one will enjoy a nice steak for dinner tonight.. have fun eating lettuce guys.
So are you going to address the points miniboes and I made or no?LogicIsNotRelative wrote:Ethics at this level are subjective. the only thing i've learned is that being atheist doesn't make you totally rational, I for one will enjoy a nice steak for dinner tonight.. have fun eating lettuce guys.
So you still haven't addressed any of my points about ethics and how they compare/contrast with your views on ethics. EquALLity is right. The whole "morality is highly subjective" excuse is such a cop-out. You've been polite to me so far; I was really hoping you would address some of my points. Clearly my time here has been wasted. I shouldn't have bothered to make such a long first response. Oh well, at least I can use it in the future with other meat-eaters.LogicIsNotRelative wrote:Ethics at this level are subjective.
Sadly I learned that a long time ago...LogicIsNotRelative wrote:The only thing I've learned is that being atheist doesn't make you totally rational.
I have no problems with your rationale, you seem like a sound person, you may disagree with me it doesn't make you right or wrong. I can respect proper logic in a person, you don't have to agree with me to make you a logical person. I think we could both argue and have good valid points it doesn't mean we'll come to an agreement. I'm also not claiming to be perfect, I could very well be wrong.ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:So you still haven't addressed any of my points about ethics and how they compare/contrast with your views on ethics. EquALLity is right. The whole "morality is highly subjective" excuse is such a cop-out. You've been polite to me so far; I was really hoping you would address some of my points. Clearly my time here has been wasted. I shouldn't have bothered to make such a long first response. Oh well, at least I can use it in the future with other meat-eaters.LogicIsNotRelative wrote:Ethics at this level are subjective.
Sadly I learned that a long time ago...LogicIsNotRelative wrote:The only thing I've learned is that being atheist doesn't make you totally rational.
I agree, yet it is aid that sponges have no brain. lobsters are also debated on being sentient or not, they obviously are, but supposedly aren't look it up I forget the details. I don't think that would make it ok for a vegan to eat, but by some vegan logic it should be if you beleive some the sciientific arguments on them. (Yet somebody here argued a being sentient requires a brain, you argue that sponges are sentient. (I agree with you on sponges)ArmouredAbolitionist wrote:Welcome to the forum, LogicIsNotRelative.
"I do think animals should be treated with respect and dignity but such is life."
I'm pleased to hear that you have some moral concern for the well-being of animals. You seem to be curious about why anyone would choose to be a vegan. You claim not to be very open-minded about veganism, but I don't believe that, seeing as how you chose to post on this forum, and ask questions about veganism. Anyways, regardless of whether or not you agree with the rationale behind veganism, I would like you to understand why some people refrain from harming animals and using them as resources. There are 3 primary reasons: moral/ethical, environmental, and health.
Contrary to popular assumptions, most vegans don't have "different" morals than nonvegans, but rather we extend the same concern that nonvegans have for some animals, to all animals. Vegans acknowledge that the vast majority of animals (with a few exceptions, such as sponges, and maybe also jellyfish and bivalves) are sentient. A sentient living being is one that has subjective awareness, meaning that it is a thinking/feeling individual with the ability to perceive and experience the world around them. As sentience is an evolutionary adaptation that allows animals to seek out resources and situations that benefit their well-being (i.e. food, water, shelter, mates, etc.), while avoiding danger (i.e. pain, hunger, predators, etc.); it seems obvious that animals have a desire to continue living, as well as a desire to avoid suffering.
I'm sure they do suffer no argument there, I also beleive microorganisms feel pain, despite what "TheVegainAtheist" says on his youtube videos, they do have a means to sense things despite how simple their biology is.
Just about everyone seems to acknowledge that humans, as well as at least some animals, have these two desires. The reason why most people refrain from hurting other humans, as well as certain animals (especially companion animals), is because we view unnecessary violence and killing to be immoral. Rightly so, because not being killed, tortured, or otherwise harmed are the most basic and fundamental desires of sentient beings (both humans and nonhumans). The only way that most of us would consider such harm to be "good" or "excusable" is if there is some compelling need to inflict that harm.
To explain what I mean by this, take a moment to consider the famous athlete Michael Vick's hobby of forcing dogs to mutilate and kill each other for his own amusement. Is pleasure a good justification for harm? No. The dogs' desire to not experience such intense suffering trumps Michael Vick's mere sadistic pleasure. How about convenience? Is that a good reason to hurt an animal who desires not to suffer? No. If I kick a dog in front of me rather than walking around it, nobody would consider my excuse to be a sufficient justification.
Now let's consider harm being inflicted upon farmed animals (cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, etc.). Anyone who is well informed about what happens (as a matter of standard procedure) to animals raised for food, in both factory farms and "humane/happy" farms, knows that they undergo a great deal of suffering during their short lives. Watch Earthlings* if you don't know what I'm talking about. What's the justification for this? What's the justification for any suffering or death inflicted upon these animals? These animals are sentient, just like humans and our companion animals. They too value their lives and desire not to suffer. It follows then that we need reasons better than just pleasure and convenience to justify any suffering and/or death that we impose upon them.
No argument there.
Reading this, you might now feel compelled to tell me that humans have a nutritional requirement to consume the flesh and/or bodily secretions of animals. We don't. Let me now be VERY clear about this: the human body has ZERO nutritional requirement to consume any substances derived from the bodies of animals. It is the position** of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitions of Canada that, "Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence." The American Heart Association and Mayo Clinic also have similar stances on vegetarian (and fully vegan) diets. Many modern health professionals, such as Neal Bernard (of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine) and Dr. T. Colin Campbell (author of The China Study), are constantly espousing the benefits of a whole-foods, plant-based vegan diet. If you'd like to educate yourself further on nutrition, I recommend watching Dr. Michael Gregor's YouTube channel: nutritionfacts.org***.
Didn't you say sponges are sentient? Last I read they had no brains, I dont know of any current findings.
Now back to the morality of harming animals: I have provided an explanation of why many people feel that harming an animal requires reasons better than just pleasure and convenience. Once again, what's the justification? Pleasure and convenience? Those don't count. Nutritional requirement? You can't truthfully say that we NEED any food derived from animals, so that excuse is illogical. You might say that "humans are omnivores", but this is only true in the sense that humans CAN eat animals, but not in the sense that we NEED to eat animals. If, according to YOUR morality, you view suffering and death inflicted upon animals as something that requires a justification, then as far as I can tell you don't have one.
Lastly I would like to address your claims regarding "plant sentience." Based upon everything known about the requirements for sentience, sentience requires a brain and sensory organs connected with a central nervous system. There is no scientific evidence that plants have any sort of mind that prefers, or desires, or wants anything. In the absence of a central nervous system, plants simply reacting to environmental stimuli is not sufficient evidence of sentience. Sunflowers turn towards the sun, but will they still do so if I position a knife where they will be if they keep moving, thus threatening them with danger? Yes. Plants react to stimuli, but they make no conscious decisions. There is no cognition going on within a plant.
[/quote]Finally I'd like you to think about this. Let's pretend for the moment that all plants are definitely sentient, proven beyond a reasonable doubt. With that said, what sort of lifestyle would inflict the least possible amount of suffering upon sentient beings (both plants and animals)? The answer is a vegan lifestyle. Animal agriculture is inefficient. About 55% of crops grown worldwide are fed to farm animals, and in the U.S. this number is 72%. I got these numbers from one of last year's National Geographics; feel free to do your own research though. This style of agriculture requires massive areas of land dedicated to growing crops that are eventually killed and fed to animals, who in turn are killed and fed to humans. Since it takes many pounds of plant matter to produce just one pound of animal flesh, it is far more efficient to grow plants directly for human consumption. Therefore plant-based agriculture would feed more people with far less land usage, and far less plants would be killed by humans. Do you truly care about the well-being of those sentient plants? If so, and you want to minimize the quantity of plants that you hurt and kill to sustain your body, then go vegan.
Thanks for reading. If you'd like advice on how to go vegan and maintain a healthy and satisfying diet, the members of this forum would be more than happy to oblige. If veganism still seems weird to you, feel free to investigate TVA's YouTube channel and this forum further. I'm an atheist too, and I chose to become vegan for ethical reasons based upon careful rational thinking. Not dogma. I hope you will apply your skepticism to matters beyond religion, including nutrition and animal ethics.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydgxje2sC9o
** http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12778049
*** https://www.youtube.com/user/NutritionFactsOrg
But don't worry, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you - it's obvious that nothing will make you change your way.LogicIsNotRelative wrote:I for one will enjoy a nice steak for dinner tonight.. have fun eating lettuce guys.