Vegetarianism Based On Animal Rights

[jmpet]

This thread has gone way off course and has become an impossible read. I am a vegetarian and at first held off adding my opinion because I am tired of having to defend it, so I will spell it out for you- some of you will learn from it, some of you will agree and others will be silenced by it.

The OP is:

What is your opinion on people becoming vegetarian/vegan because they take an active against animal cruelty? Is it ignorant in your opinion or logical?

And the question at hand is: "Is eating meat cruel/wrong/unethical/immoral?"

And the short answer is YES, EATING MEAT DOES HAVE A NEGATIVE ASPECT.

There is a cost to meat- the cost the animal paid to make itself meat for you to eat. And up until recently the cost was a tradeoff- the animal would live a normal, healthy life then become meat. This is no longer the case.

Today animals have become a cog in the wheel of the food industry- they are plugged in, sucked dry then spit out. Animals no longer know what a hillside or a meadow or a fresh stream of water is- they only know metal cages, industrial feed and pain.

I have been a vegetarian for a long time. And I must admit that if went to live on say, an Indian Reservation, I would eat meat- provided I took part in the hunt and kill and provided I thanked the animal for its life to feed me- then the food cycle would make sense to me.

Or if I was born 200 years ago- I would live on a farm and slaughter my own beef and take pride in the meat, knowing the animal lived a fruitful life until it's time to become meat, but it doesn't work like that anymore.

Simply put- we torture animals from the day their born until the day they die... and we do this to be able to provide 99 cent double cheeseburgers at 3 in the morning and this is why it's your fault.

THE SOLUTION is simple: STOP. Just stop. Just stop eating triple Whoppers and 24 oz. T-Bones seven days a week. Jesus Christ man- look at yourself!

Man was not meant to eat meat three times a day, seven days a week. Ask your grandma- ask her about what she used to cook back then- and what her mom used to cook. Nowhere in human civilization have we eaten as much meat as we're eating today!

EVERYONE'S parents and grandparents and so on lived mostly vegetarian lifestyles- this is why "The Sunday Roast" was such a big deal to them. Never has food been as cheap and readily available as it is today- NEVER!

How many times do I need to smack you all on the heads until you all wake up and realize that MEAT MEAT MEAT MEAT MEAT is not healthy?!!! Sheesh! I guess you all wonder why you're all having massive heart attacks in your early 50's too, right?

 

[S.A.M.]

You mean by eating microorganisms producing B12.

I was responding to Norsefire's opening post in which he said he didn't see any ethical contradiction in supporting "humane" treatment of animals before they are slaughtered and eaten while still supporting slaughtering and eating them.

Usually though the treatment of feed animals is geared to the quality of meat. Excess stress causes release of hormones that increase toughness and affect taste.

I'd say the "humane" treatment of meat animals in factory farms is more due to activism than anything else. These activists are usually vegetarian.

 

[Mrs.Lucysnow]

The Chinese would disagree with you:

The Chinese place great emphasis on freshness of food hence the live skinning of food animals. I spoke to a Chinese colleague who said that the word for "animal" in his native tongue translates as "moving thing" - animals are considered no more sentient than vegetables.

http://www.messybeast.com/eat-cats.htm

The problem with your argument is that a meat eater isn't necessarily want junk food in their diet. A meat eater doesn't necessarily buy their meat from large factories, especially now with all the information concerning antibiotics etc a lot of people have demanded alternatives and I know that in NY for example there are many markets where you can buy meat that doesnt come from the large breeding factories.

I placed the article about cat eating in Asia because I notice that a lot of people try and use sentiment as a means of getting their point across, its either righteous indignation or appealing to emotion but this doesn't necessarily work if one doesn't have an emotional attachment to animals that we eat. Most people do not have an emotional attachment to their food.

The other problem is this idea that meat makes one fat, it doesnt. You can be in very good health with a balanced diet that includes fish, beef, chicken along with fruits, grains and vegetables. I don't see why some of you feel the need to convince other's that to eat meat is wrong. I don't understand why it isn't enough for you that you do not eat meat. I don't care if you eat only eat grains and vegetables. :shrug:

 

[Orleander]

What is your opinion on people becoming vegetarian/vegan because they take an active against animal cruelty? Is it ignorant in your opinion or logical?

I've considered it myself, but haven't made a commitment yet.

illogical. Humans aren't herbivores.

 

[parmalee]

Returning to the OP:

What is your opinion on people becoming vegetarian/vegan because they take an active against animal cruelty? Is it ignorant in your opinion or logical?

I've considered it myself, but haven't made a commitment yet.

However, the title of the thread reads: Vegetarianism Based On Animal Rights

Not the same thing.

In response to the post itself: Of course it's logical -- why not? Factory farming is cruel and I'm not sure that anyone has really contested that. To argue that animals of prey would meet a similar fate, and perhaps at an earlier stage in the wild is irrelevant; moreover, it suggests a profound ignorance of the actual conditions of factory farming. People of hunter-gatherer societies live shorter lives and are prone to certain ailments that cannot be adequately treated or addressed than people of most industrialized societies: is it somehow more cruel to allow them to continue with their hunter/gatherer ways? Ought we compel them to assimilate within our industrialized societies?

What is at stake here, and the reason that the title of the thread does not correlate with the original post, is the consideration of interests -- the question of rights is of a whole different species. I'm not partial to the utilitarian notion of this expression, but to each their own (yeah, one might consider that a utilitarian perspective, but it's not necessarily so); rather, I consider the injurious implications of an act and whether they can be avoided or lessened: ought one willfully exert undue harm to another with the knowledge that it's not absolutely necessary?

Refraining from needlessly injurious behavior does not equate to according "rights" to another or considering their "rights." The question of "animal rights" typically pertains to "legal rights" as opposed to "natural rights," unless one defines "natural rights" in such a way as to imply as sort of "social contract" which I discuss below.

"Natural rights," in one sense, exist irrespective of laws, societal customs, etc. A natural right is essentially the freedom to act for one's own preservation -- freedom from certain things does not factor into this definition. It is essentially impossible to deny one rights in this sense: if I choose to bash your head in and you consequently die as a result, you still have (had) your "natural right," as simply the very fact that you lived attests to your acting in self-preservation -- I did not deny you this right (nor can I), as this right does not give your freedom from anything.

In another sense -- and this approaches "legal rights" -- "natural rights" afford one the freedom to act towards one's own preservation so long as in doing so one does not infringe upon another's freedom to act toward their own preservation. This is dependent upon a sort of "social contract," or agreement of reciprocity, which is dependent upon a mutual acknowledgement of the other's entitlements: the very existence of such rights is wholly relational and fluid. The relationship is one of possessiveness in that those accorded such rights are as "one's own." Obviously, this is gonna require some explanation. From my perspective (or your's or anyone's), only my dog, my family, my friends, my countryfolk, etc. are accorded these rights; accordingly, those who do not recognize and acknowledge my entitlements are not "mine" and do not possess these rights (there are limitiations, as when one says something like "my enemy" or when the being in question is a stranger who bears no ill will, but the rule of "possessiveness" does generally suffice).

So how does this pertain to non-human animals? The same as it does to humans: in certain contexts one accords rights to the other, in others one does not -- and vice versa. Does my dog possess rights? Certainly: she acknowledges my entitlements and I hers -- we have entered a moral relationship in which she respects me enough to not bite me, and I respect her enough to not hit her (although even if I didn't respect her, I wouldn't hit her -- and that pertains to the matter of interests above). Does my neighbor? Yes. Do my mutually respectful countryfolk? Yes. Do horses, camels, and other animals educated in and respectful of one-another's mores? Yes. Likewise for all of the above in reverse -- that is, do I from the perspective of the dog, neighbor, countryfolk, horse, etc.

Alternately: Does a lion have rights from my (our) perspective? Probably not, unless she has been educated in my (our) mores; however, the absence of rights does not negate the value of considering the lion's own interests. Do we have rights from the lion's perspective? Again, probably not. Does the enemy combatant have rights? Not according to the definition two paragraphs up. How about a rapist, murderer, or child molester? No. Does that asshole down the road who harasses me and treats people like shit, either by virtue of cognitive defect or conscious moral defiance? Absolutely NOT. Fuck him. He doesn't acknowledge my rights and I don't acknowledge his.

Obviously, there's a lot of grey area: infants, the severely retarded, humans and non-humans who had or have the potential to acknowledge such things. Some might argue that they have rights by virtue of potential, others might suggest they lack rights but nevertheless warrant consideration of their interests.

"Legal rights" are the legislative extension of the latter definition of "natural rights" (which originated with Hobbes, I believe). I'm ambivalent about the whole notion of legal rights as I consider the State to be the construct and product of the most wretched, idiotic, and worthless individuals in the history of the world. Consequently, I have little to offer regarding "legal rights."

Anyhooooo, I just figured this topic needed a proper discussion of what exactly rights are and I don't profess to be an authority on rights.

 

[Enmos]

illogical. Humans aren't herbivores.

They are sooner herbivores than carnivores though.

 

[Norsefire]

They are sooner herbivores than carnivores though.

And we are sooner nudists than clothes-wearers.


There's no good argument that eating meat is immoral; if your argument is "it's unnecessary", well then....


Paper is unnecessary. Wooden desks are unnecessary. Animal experimentation is all unnecessary.

By making paper, we disrupt environments, and thus harm animals; and since it's unnecessary, and we can live without it, making paper is based on nothing more than an egotistical desire, and it's wrong.

Making clothes from wool is also wrong; so is making anything with wood, because it's unnecessary and we're disrupting environments by doing so.

Having anything but cramped homes is wrong, because it's unnecessary and we're taking up space that animals might need

 

[Enmos]

and we're taking up space that animals might need

Why would you say that ?

 

[Norsefire]

Why would you say that ?

What do you mean? I'm not a vegetarian; I'm a self-proclaimed human supremacist. Humans come first. Why? Not because a god said so or because of magic, just because we say so and we can enforce our positions.

 

[Enmos]

What do you mean? I'm not a vegetarian; I'm a self-proclaimed human supremacist. Humans come first. Why? Not because a god said so or because of magic, just because we say so and we can enforce our positions.

Then why are you pretending to care about the fact that we take up space animals need ?

 

[Norsefire]

Then why are you pretending to care about the fact that we take up space animals need ?

I'm not! I'm saying they're being inconsistent and illogical if they say "it's unnecessary so it's wrong", because then they have to disagree with almost everything humans do.

 

[Enmos]

I'm not! I'm saying they're being inconsistent and illogical if they say "it's unnecessary so it's wrong", because then they have to disagree with almost everything humans do.

Who says that if something is unnecessary then it must, by definition, be wrong ?
Who says that ??

 

[Norsefire]

Who says that if something is unnecessary then it must, by definition, be wrong ?
Who says that ??

James R, although I won't put words into his mouth; he says "if it is unnecessary and also harms a sentient being then it is wrong"

From this perspective, making paper is wrong because:

1, and most importantly, it's unnecessary
2: by making paper, we disrupt environments and arguably harm creatures

 

[parmalee]

James R, although I won't put words into his mouth; he says "if it is unnecessary and also harms a sentient being then it is wrong"

Whether or not something is wrong has little to do with the discussion of rights (which this topic is ostensibly about -- I'm deducing that from the title).

Dammit. I'm not gonna get into that -- I already did 10 posts up!

 

[Norsefire]

Then there is no debate: eating meat is not illegal.

 

[parmalee]

Then there is no debate: eating meat is not illegal.

Are you one of those L.E.O. infiltrators who goes on forums just to make certain that the law is adhered to?

 

[Enmos]

James R, although I won't put words into his mouth; he says "if it is unnecessary and also harms a sentient being then it is wrong"

From this perspective, making paper is wrong because:

1, and most importantly, it's unnecessary
2: by making paper, we disrupt environments and arguably harm creatures

If you knowingly do something that harms a creature, that's wrong. Unless there is absolutely no other way and you'd jeopardize your own life, or someone else's (and this is the tricky part), by not doing it.

 

[Norsefire]

Then making paper is wrong; come to think of it, there's plenty of unnecessary stuff that we do that disrupts the environment or harms creatures.

Besides, then eating meat is fine, if the killing is painless.

 

[Enmos]

Then making paper is wrong; come to think of it, there's plenty of unnecessary stuff that we do that disrupts the environment or harms creatures.

Besides, then eating meat is fine, if the killing is painless.

Humanity is wrong.

 

[Norsefire]

Humanity is wrong.

???