Vegetarianism and Religion?

[Maia]

The most common religious reason for being vegetarian would be ahimsa, but would there be another religion-related reason for being one? What're the origins behind people suddenly getting the idea of "I think eating meat is wrong"? The thought is intriguing. And the whole "vegetarians are lame" routine has already been done before, so spare us all ...

 

[Greco]

Cant speak for everybody but for me it's the constant bombardment from health advisories about the detrimental effects of cholesterol laden foods.

 

[Michael]

I know a number of vegetarians and dated a vegan for years.
#1) Feel sorry for the killing of animals.
#2) Health concerns – like weight gain or cholesterol, and in countries like Thailand/Brazil the massive hormonal injections in beef have resulted in an androgynous transsexualish meat eating portion of society.
#3) Religious reason – many religions have restrictions on certain meat.
#4) Hard to digest resulting in stomach pains.

The funny thing is many vegetarians don’t count fish as meat (and some not chicken either!) Usually these ones don’t like the killing of animals.

And really, although I wasn’t raised a vegetarian, I really didn’t eat all tht much meat when I was younger. But, I love a good med-rare steak and how could life be lived without lobster sashimi and oysters? But, I can easily go weeks if not months without meat if I didn't count salmone, tuna or raw oysters.

 

[James R]

People who call themselves vegetarians but who nevertheless eat fish and/or chicken are not vegetarians. A vegetarian is a person who does not eat animals.

In my experience, "vegetarians" who eat fish and chicken often say they are vegetarian because they are weight-conscious. Vegetarians who base their vegetarianism on ethical concerns for animals do not distinguish one kind of animal from another; hence they do not exclude chickens or fish from the category of "animal".

 

[Michael]

Vegetarians who base their vegetarianism on ethical concerns for animals do not distinguish one kind of animal from another; hence they do not exclude chickens or fish from the category of "animal".

True, I was thinking of your typical - "its so cute" vegetarian. Like the many Japanese vegeies who tend to eat quite a bit of fish but think eating something "cute" as wrong, like say lamb. I've even had one girl tell me fish wasn't meat: "it's not meat" - too funny

 

[alain]

"The funny thing is many vegetarians don’t count fish as meat (and some not chicken either!) Usually these ones don’t like the killing of animals."
goldfish have a memory span of 8 seconds, other fish probably do too, i dont think a fish brain is as advanced as a sheep's, that might b y

 

[Jenyar]

I posted this in the Ethics and morality forum, but it might be more appropriate under religion:

The ethical question is whether it's the animal's suffering that makes it wrong. Could you breed animals with no sense of pain and bypass the ethical complications? Because once you can justify killing something, isn't the way it's killed is just a matter of preference? You're going to take its life whether it likes it or not. All things considered, you're hardly doing the lobster a favour by killing it softly, so to speak.

On the other hand, if you have respect for it, where does that respect come from? True respect for all life would have you dying a slow death from hunger or living of base minerals and substitutes (which weren't avaliable until recently). So are you just trying to placate your conscience?

At least in that respect, vegeterianism is a quasi-religious expression related to law and compensation, like sacrifice. It's a moral comment on the way nature is ordered and the requirements of life. Even the word "humane" suggests a mode of action that reflects on being human, as opposed to "being natural".

 

[James R]

Jenyar:

The ethical question is whether it's the animal's suffering that makes it wrong. Could you breed animals with no sense of pain and bypass the ethical complications?

It depends on whether you take an "animal rights" or "animal welfare" approach to this question. In the welfare approach, we say that killing animals is acceptable, but that it should be done in a way which minimises distress and suffering. In the rights approach, we regard animals as autonomous entities who have their own interests and a right to be left alone, similar to that of individual human beings. On that view, killing animals at all is ethically problematic. It must be said that human societies in general have not yet progressed to a rights-based approach to animals, although their are organisations which promote such views.

On the other hand, if you have respect for it, where does that respect come from? True respect for all life would have you dying a slow death from hunger or living of base minerals and substitutes (which weren't avaliable until recently). So are you just trying to placate your conscience?

The argument is that greater respect should be accorded to living things which are conscious and able to suffer than to inanimate living things. Nobody argues that all living things should be given equal rights to life.

At least in that respect, vegeterianism is a quasi-religious expression related to law and compensation, like sacrifice. It's a moral comment on the way nature is ordered and the requirements of life. Even the word "humane" suggests a mode of action that reflects on being human, as opposed to "being natural".

Correct. The welfare approach, which is the primary way most people think about this issue at present, is human-centric in that it puts the desires of humans above any possible desires of other animals, even to the point of putting a human desire for tasty meat ahead of an animal's right to life. In fact, no such right is even recognised.

We have a long way to go in developing a consistent set of ethical principles relating to animals.

 

[jps]

I think that a belief in reincarnation is one motivation for vegetarianism. If you believe that any given animal may have been or become a person and that you may have been or may become an animal it would motivate you to respect them as you would a person. That would go beyond just being vegetarian though, I attended a service at a Buddhist dharma center once, and there was a fly buzzing around the woman leading the meditation which would occasionally land on her face, and she would hold perfectly still so as not to disturb it when it did so.

 

[rainbow__princess_4]

Yeah to the first half of your post I agree actually, jps. To the part about the Buddhist Dharma Centre, they believe that an insect means that that person was a real real real shithead in their past life and so they do not deserve to be respected. Meanwhile, I think, if its important to respect animals as our ancestors then why don't we kill every predator? Why let our ancestors eat our other ancestors? Does it work?

 

[jps]

No, it doesnt' really work. I'm not a vegetarian and I don't believe in reincarnation, but I have heard people use it as a justification for vegetarianism.
I may well have gotten the reasoning behind her not disturbing the fly wrong. It was a very long time ago.