What can we eat? Where do we draw the line?

[The6thMessenger]

What can we eat? Where do we draw the line?

Something i hate, and not just the thing about Vegans, is that there are extremes, it's even seen on other movements like Fascism, Religion, and i think even Atheism. Extremism is just there.

I've seen Vegans say that meat is murder. I've seen non-vegans say that "Poor plants, getting massacred by hungry vegans" and stuffs. Now really, how do we decide what to eat and what is not? I understand that consuming meat has other effects, like health effects which i could take and i don't mind. Other people argue that it's for the environment, so if can eliminate the negative environmental effects which may be achieved by future technologies, would eating meat be finally okay?

Now while other arguments can be considered, what i am really interested is the ethical positions of both "belief(s)" (best term i could think). I'm not saying the arguments below are really the ultimate Vegan arguments, but just what i've seen and heard.

- "Because they are alive too." - I've seen one say it, but wouldn't Plants be technically alive too? Why are you eating them? Is an Egg (like chicken eggs) technically alive? Can we eat meat if an organism is killed by another non-human organism?
- ''Because animals can feel pain." - Yes, sure. But if an organism is born without sensation of pain, or any other sensation for that matter, does this mean we can eat them?
- "Because animals are generally conscious, while plants are not." - so basically if they aren't capable of conscious thought, like jellyfish, or eggs (like chicken eggs) that doesn't even have an underdeveloped brain. If it were about self-awareness, so we could test of which animals are self aware and we can just kill them for food right?
- "We don't have the right to oppress or abuse other species because they are intellectually weaker." - There are plant species too, aren't we're not supposed to eat them too because they are intellectually weaker (that they have none. (Assuming that abuse = kill)
- "Conscious, being an organism has the ability to learn, in which it has a change in behavior." - So, if there are organism that don't have the capacity to learn, then they can be eaten? Does that mean we can breed livestocks that have brains in vegetative states, that they literally are incapable of thought, we can finally eat meat?

It may be my fault, that i misunderstand what they say, but whenever a Vegan usually argues for ethics for not eating meat, i could think the same arguments for not eating plants, and i think i can't really eat anything at all, plants are alive, other animals are alive.

Now, really what can we eat? Where do we draw the line?

If it's not obvious, it's on the debates section, so the thread is here for discussing things.

[Jebus]

Please read through Brimstonesalad's posts in this link as it should bring clarification.

https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... f=22&t=821

[The6thMessenger]

Please read through Brimstonesalad's posts in this link as it should bring clarification.

https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... f=22&t=821

I don't know, is the link supposed to refute or support me? I propose that "What can we eat" is a mess that is in need of discussion.

[Jebus]

is the link supposed to refute or support me?

I replied to your questions.

Now, really what can we eat? Where do we draw the line?

If your post was an opinion piece the link would definitely refute your opinion.

[The6thMessenger]

is the link supposed to refute or support me?

I replied to your questions.

Now, really what can we eat? Where do we draw the line?

If your post was an opinion piece the link would definitely refute your opinion.

Wat?

[AlexanderVeganTheist]

I eat plants, because plants don't have nerves and neurons, which we can tell are inextricably connected to being able to sense pain. Most foodstuffs made from plants don't even kill the organism, such as fruits and beans, seeds, etc.

But even if we would somehow establish that plants suffer too, it's a moot point still, because animals eat up to 100 times their own weight in plants before we kill them. So while we humans keep alive 60 billion or so land animals to kill and eat ourselves, we waste tremendous amounts of plant resources (and farmland etc) on them, killing many more plants and animals in the process.

So while there may be some instances where the presence of suffering is debatable (plants, possibly some animal species), there are instances where it is clear we inflict large amounts of unnecessary suffering on those around us, and it's easy to avoid those instances.

With regards to eggs, it's not so much people think the egg itself suffers, but rather the producers, the chickens who are treated just as production machines, without a value of their own, and their male brothers, the cocks, who straight after hatching, are selected out, and killed instantly (1 day old) in a usually brutal fashion because they aren't profitable to raise for meat. That is the suffering involved in the egg industry.

[Jebus]

I don't know, is the link supposed to refute or support me? I propose that "What can we eat" is a mess that is in need of discussion.

What's the point of all this? You posted this less than five minutes after I posted the link so there is no way you read it. Do you want to learn something or do you prefer to remain an idiot your whole life?

[The6thMessenger]

I eat plants, because plants don't have nerves and neurons, which we can tell are inextricably connected to being able to sense pain. Most foodstuffs made from plants don't even kill the organism, such as fruits and beans, seeds, etc.

But even if we would somehow establish that plants suffer too, it's a moot point still, because animals eat up to 100 times their own weight in plants before we kill them. So while we humans keep alive 60 billion or so land animals to kill and eat ourselves, we waste tremendous amounts of plant resources (and farmland etc) on them, killing many more plants and animals in the process.

So while there may be some instances where the presence of suffering is debatable (plants, possibly some animal species), there are instances where it is clear we inflict large amounts of unnecessary suffering on those around us, and it's easy to avoid those instances.

With regards to eggs, it's not so much people think the egg itself suffers, but rather the producers, the chickens who are treated just as production machines, without a value of their own, and their male brothers, the cocks, who straight after hatching, are selected out, and killed instantly (1 day old) in a usually brutal fashion because they aren't profitable to raise for meat. That is the suffering involved in the egg industry.

So... we can eat something if it results in less suffering?

But wait, in the same sense don't we value those fruits/bean producers like egg producers who are just treated as production machines?

How can you say suffering is necessary and unnecessary. Can something alive be killed without suffering, i mean there were those deaths that don't hurt. So if we can kill them without suffering, is it finally okay to eat meat?

I don't know, is the link supposed to refute or support me? I propose that "What can we eat" is a mess that is in need of discussion.

What's the point of all this? You posted this less than five minutes after I posted the link so there is no way you read it. Do you want to learn something or do you prefer to remain an idiot your whole life?

Oh, i'm reading it, but we're not having a discussion, precisely why this thread is on the debate. And that link only covers what is sentient. It only answers one of the question, but not the main one.

Other people might have other criteria of what is edible, and they may disregard "sentience" as a limiting factor.

[Anon0045]

So... we can eat something if it results in less suffering?

When there is no good reason to cause suffering, and there are alternatives, you should avoid causing suffering.

But wait, in the same sense don't we value those fruits/bean producers like egg producers who are just treated as production machines?

Do you mean that the human who produce beans and fruit suffer, or do you think the fruits and beans suffer?

How can you say suffering is necessary and unnecessary. Can something alive be killed without suffering, i mean there were those deaths that don't hurt. So if we can kill them without suffering, is it finally okay to eat meat?

For me, the golden rule is what drives me not to want to kill or cause suffering to other sentient beings.

"Don't do onto others that you wouldn't want have done to you. "

It's a good rule of thumb, perhaps not perfect, but if everyone lived by it, the world would be a much better place for everyone. If plants were sentient, I would not only try to reduce suffering and death of animals, but also some plants. But then I would need more information about the plants, like how much sentient they are. It would be more difficult to be vegan then, with more dilemmas. It's good that we don't live in that world.

Oh, i'm reading it, but we're not having a discussion, precisely why this thread is on the debate. And that link only covers what is sentient. It only answers one of the question, but not the main one.

What was the main question? Is it "Where do we draw the line?" Sentience is my line, which I would define as an ability to feel. Something that doesn't have sentience have no will to live, no will at all, it's just a bunch of cells grouped up together.
While thinking about why we care about humans in the first place, sentience is what I have concluded is what really matters. Just accepting what culture teaches (mainly originated from religions), that the human race is somehow more important than others species is not enough.

[The6thMessenger]

So... we can eat something if it results in less suffering?

When there is no good reason to cause suffering, and there are alternatives, you should avoid causing suffering.

But wait, in the same sense don't we value those fruits/bean producers like egg producers who are just treated as production machines?

Do you mean that the human who produce beans and fruit suffer, or do you think the fruits and beans suffer?

How can you say suffering is necessary and unnecessary. Can something alive be killed without suffering, i mean there were those deaths that don't hurt. So if we can kill them without suffering, is it finally okay to eat meat?

For me, the golden rule is what drives me not to want to kill or cause suffering to other sentient beings.

"Don't do onto others that you wouldn't want have done to you. "

It's a good rule of thumb, perhaps not perfect, but if everyone lived by it, the world would be a much better place for everyone. If plants were sentient, I would not only try to reduce suffering and death of animals, but also some plants. But then I would need more information about the plants, like how much sentient they are. It would be more difficult to be vegan then, with more dilemmas. It's good that we don't live in that world.

Oh, i'm reading it, but we're not having a discussion, precisely why this thread is on the debate. And that link only covers what is sentient. It only answers one of the question, but not the main one.

What was the main question? Is it "Where do we draw the line?" Sentience is my line, which I would define as an ability to feel. Something that doesn't have sentience have no will to live, no will at all, it's just a bunch of cells grouped up together.
While thinking about why we care about humans in the first place, sentience is what I have concluded is what really matters. Just accepting what culture teaches (mainly originated from religions), that the human race is somehow more important than others species is not enough.

- No good reason to cause suffering, okay can i just point out farmers and any other worker for that matter suffers anyways for good money. So they musn't suffer working or work a hard and suffering job for money? Okay i think you mean suffer in a sense of pain and kill.

- Yes, bean producers and other workers also suffer due to their work needing to manually forage beans and things. But i guess the "suffer" you mean is different.

- So if we can breed non-sentient livestocks, like those unable to feel or learn -- like i said "Vegetable" organisms, then we can finally eat meat?

Can we eat this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_meat