Philosophical Vegan Forum

This is purely an observation, and I'd love to hear your thoughts. But before I begin I want to clearify that this does not hold true to all meat eaters, but most. To prove my point, I'd like to propose a thought experiment:
Take a meat eating atheist, and a creationist.

Ask the atheist why he doesn't believe in God, he'll say that there's not enough evidence to support a creator, therefore they do not see a reason to believe in one. Follow up with a second question: "Who said there's not enough evidence? The bible's full of proof". They'll usually reply explaining that science exists for a reason, and that it's our collective knowledge as a species. They'll tell you that they're blind to subjectivity and "gut feelings", and will only go wherever the science leads them.

Now, there's nothing wrong about being blind to subjectivity and opinions, and listening to reason and science. But I don't think a lot of atheists actually do their research. When you explain that the advantages of a vegan diet (environmental & health benefits), they'll lash out at you. If you share scientific studies with them, they won't even look at them. They deny scientific facts because it directly contradicts their faith based beliefs. Just like Creationists.

Sometimes, they'll try to defend their beliefs by saying that that specific scientific study has been debunked, and either direct you to a blog post about the topic at hand, or some other scientific study that's biased or misleading. Just like when creationists can prove you wrong because one scientist said something about God. They'll try to rationalize their slaughter by comparing humans to other animals and will claim that humans are superior to all other living beings, the ultimate apex predator. Just like creationists who will claim that God put everything on earth for us to eat and destroy.

Another striking similarity, is meat eater arguments like "we have sharp canine teeth, made for ripping flesh off other beings". But when you explain that not only are these canine teeth horrible at their jobs, but that there are plenty of animals (such as fruit bats, Gelada baboons and hippos) with canine teeth that are herbivores and frugivores. Meat eaters like to pretend these animals don't exist, because just like dinosaur fossils to Creationists, they inconveniently blow their faith out of the water.

So, to sum up, meat eaters (and especially atheist meat eaters) will often act irrationally when it suits their beliefs. Just like Creationists.
I'd love to hear thoughts and counter-arguments

Definitely. This is the hallmark of rationalization, which is a human tendency -- one that atheists are not exempt from (although many think they are).

Rationalization is strongest when it challenges personal identity through contradiction, for carnists that is the contradiction between their belief "I'm a good person" and their action of eating meat (which is clearly demonstrated to be harmful), while for Christians it's the "I'm Christian", which makes assertions again in conflict with with the evidence.

I'd like to agree because I've seen tons of meat-eaters (atheist or not) choose stupid arguments and devolve irrationality simply because they are loosing arguments. But that's not the majority at least I don't think so. Since we argue and exchange opinions on the internet it easy to see only the worst of a certain community or of a certain type of opinion holders. Simply because they scream the loudest. The less you have to say the louder you scream.

So, there are some pretty intelligent and rational meat-eaters atheist able to state their arguments and defend them, it's just that they make themselves scarce. Sometimes because they know they can't win (but that does apply to any type of belief or thought holding group.)

Monolith wrote:I'd like to agree because I've seen tons of meat-eaters (atheist or not) choose stupid arguments and devolve irrationality simply because they are loosing arguments. But that's not the majority at least I don't think so. Since we argue and exchange opinions on the internet it easy to see only the worst of a certain community or of a certain type of opinion holders. Simply because they scream the loudest. The less you have to say the louder you scream.

So, there are some pretty intelligent and rational meat-eaters atheist able to state their arguments and defend them, it's just that they make themselves scarce. Sometimes because they know they can't win (but that does apply to any type of belief or thought holding group.)

I know, if you look closely, I stated in my first post that "it does not apply to all meat eaters". But regardless, I've yet to hear a really well-thought reason to eat meat. Maybe you can share some?

Monolith wrote: So, there are some pretty intelligent and rational meat-eaters atheist able to state their arguments and defend them, it's just that they make themselves scarce. Sometimes because they know they can't win (but that does apply to any type of belief or thought holding group.)

If you hold an opinion you know you can't come out of a rational discussion standing with, then you are not being rational.

All a carnist has to do to 'win' is successfully defend the rationality of his or her choices. If the choices are rational, then this could be done. If the choices are irrational, then they 'can't win'.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Monolith wrote: So, there are some pretty intelligent and rational meat-eaters atheist able to state their arguments and defend them, it's just that they make themselves scarce. Sometimes because they know they can't win (but that does apply to any type of belief or thought holding group.)

If you hold an opinion you know you can't come out of a rational discussion standing with, then you are not being rational.

All a carnist has to do to 'win' is successfully defend the rationality of his or her choices. If the choices are rational, then this could be done. If the choices are irrational, then they 'can't win'.

But not everybody is a perfect rational machine that can think of ideas as pristine immuable facts. Sometimes the people being right can't defend their opinions correctly because they're not educated enough about the subject or lack the prose skill or the writing skills to explain fully their point of view.

There are no perfectly rational choices either. You can't prove your mind is without any flaws therefore you can't prove that any rational choice you make is entirely rational. People talking generally just arbitrarily agree to an unspoken agreement that we are all quite good thinking machines so that we can exchange ideas in a fluid manner.

But yes I need to change my statement:

So, there are some pretty intelligent and rational meat-eaters atheist able to state their arguments and defend them, it's just that they make themselves scarce. Sometimes because they know they can't fully defend properly their arguments on certain (or all) occasions due to reasons beside pure cognitive reasoning

Monolith wrote: But not everybody is a perfect rational machine that can think of ideas as pristine immuable facts. Sometimes the people being right can't defend their opinions correctly because they're not educated enough about the subject or lack the prose skill or the writing skills to explain fully their point of view.

Prose or writing skill is irrelevant. Even a very basic grasp on English allows one to construct logical arguments.

The bolded point contradicts your claim. If people are ignorant, then they are wrong. They are wrong to believe what they believe, even if they're accidentally right, because they do not believe it for rational reasons. You don't get points for guessing -- that's something very important to understand.

If I said there's a civilization of mole people living underground, I am wrong to say that, and I'm wrong to believe it -- it is irrational of me to do so.
It may actually be true, coincidentally, and there may be a civilization of mole people underground. But I'm still wrong to say and believe that. Why? Because I don't know that. I don't have evidence, or a rational train of thought leading to that conclusion.

If you can not adequately defend your beliefs with reason, then you are wrong to hold them, even if you are accidentally right.

Understand?

So no, there is no case in this world where somebody is right to believe something, yet can not defend it rationally.
If they can not defend it rationally, it is an irrational belief, and they are wrong to hold it.

Monolith wrote: There are no perfectly rational choices either. You can't prove your mind is without any flaws therefore you can't prove that any rational choice you make is entirely rational.

If you can't use reason, then attack reason itself as unreliable. This is a common ploy of the irrational.

Thought itself may not be perfect, but it's all we have. If you're not going to retreat into the domain of hard solipsism, and completely give up on all philosophy, discussion, and thinking in general, you have no choice but to follow logic as the most reliable tool available.

Monolith wrote: they know they can't fully defend properly their arguments on certain (or all) occasions due to reasons beside pure cognitive reasoning

Reasons? Like what?

This is just some weak cop-out for people to use to avoid argument, and the inevitable failure of that argument because it is not based on reason.

If you believe something, then support it with reason. Otherwise, just stop believing it until you can do so, and act accordingly.

I would agree with the op very much but the reason for me eating meat isn't for that reason.

I became and atheist on a whim there is simply no evidence for it so I can't support it or the logic behind it.

Me eating meat on the other hand is a somewhat different matter I agree a vegan diet is healthier I agree meat eating leads to animal suffering .(Although whether I believe all animals we eat have the mental capacity to understand fear and want to live beyond natural instinct)
My response to it being healthier I agree a vegan diet is healthier but I prefer the taste of meat I'm sorry but just because something is better for you does not mean that we will always do it.
Now the animal suffering such as cows chickens pigs and such I completely accept,but eating meat isn't something I can quit at a whim like religion meat is enjoyable its something I enjoy and while I would very much like to stop eating meat its just something that is hard to do.

So in all I agree with pretty much all of vegans points and the evidence they bring its just much harder to quit eating meat at least for me than to leave religion was.For me its akin to people who know they are overweight but its extremely hard for them change there eating habits.

TheDarkendStar wrote:Although whether I believe all animals we eat have the mental capacity to understand fear and want to live beyond natural instinct

Oysters probably do not. If you want to eat oysters, you would have some rational argument by which to do so.

Cows, chickens, and pigs all have brains and are relatively highly intelligent creatures; pigs far more so than dogs and young children. Even fish are intelligent creatures who learn, have wants and fears, and a concept of future.

See bivalvegan: http://sentientist.org/tag/bivalvegan/

Note, I don't agree with everything in that article, but you'd have a much stronger case than for eating vertebrates.

TheDarkendStar wrote:My response to it being healthier I agree a vegan diet is healthier but I prefer the taste of meat I'm sorry but just because something is better for you does not mean that we will always do it.

False. You do not prefer the taste of meat.

Right now you prefer fatty umami tastes, which is not exclusive to meat; there are vegan foods that could satisfy this taste preference. With the right spices, most rabid meat eaters can not tell vegetable meat alternatives from animal-based meats.

But see how I began that sentence? "Right now" Taste can and does change. People who don't like vegetables can learn to love them, people who once liked meat can grow out of it.

It would take a few months, but your tastes change. Quitting meat for health reasons is much like quitting smoking for health reasons. You crave it for a little while, and then it goes away over time until you don't really want it anymore.

You just have to jump in and work at it. If you stumble, pick yourself up and keep trying.

Like nicotine gum/patches, there are vegan meats which fill the same needs. These are temporary fixes, of course, because the healthiest diet is probably more whole plant based with less fat (these vegan meats tend to be oily, and salty, etc.), but they can get you through the tough times.

TheDarkendStar wrote: Now the animal suffering such as cows chickens pigs and such I completely accept,but eating meat isn't something I can quit at a whim like religion meat is enjoyable its something I enjoy and while I would very much like to stop eating meat its just something that is hard to do.

Very few things worth doing are easy. The important first step is to realize it's wrong, which you have, and that you want to do it. Now you just need to know how to do it.

There are many resources online, and we're glad to help you here too. Dan started a guide thread here: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=88

It may be difficult, but you can do it, and it's very much worth doing in all respects.

TheDarkendStar wrote:eating meat isn't something I can quit at a whim like religion.

I could argue that losing your religion is much much harder for a lot of people. People who grew up in a community of like-minded individuals of a certain religion can sometimes disown and excommunicate members who are no longer believers. So, it really depends on the person.

As for your meat addiction, brimstoneSalad said everything there was to be said. You like the taste, not the meat itself. Taste changes over time and mock meats are always available. Next time you eat anything that was part of an animal, try to think about what you're eating.

The image below talks about milk, but it sums up how I felt while transitioning.