I was a philosophy major, and at one point was very good at philosophy, and took a class that dealt a lot with this problem. I forgot almost everything, but for some reason I feel inclined to talk about it. I learned almost nothing in the class, but this is what I ended up thinking.

My impression of all the things I read were that they very much followed the model of Peter Singer. Peter Singer argued very clearly and persuasively that if we are going to be consistent in our rational moral values we must extend rights to animals. This is basically the same thing that's being argued in this thread.

It usually goes something like this. You can start by asking yourself why it is that humans deserve rights. Then you make a list of them. If you take this list, you can notice one of two things. One thing is that the list probably contains a lot of characteristics that many other animals have in common with is. Other animals bond, feel pain, avoid suffering, etc. The other thing you'll notice is that even if certain humans don't have those characteristics, we usually still grant the rights to those humans. This is true even if that human has less of those characteristics than, say, a dog. Often people with brain damage or babies are given as examples of humans that don't necessarily have those characteristics, but we nevertheless grant rights to. Because of this, it's obvious that our morals are inconsistent. Whoever is writing will then go on to show that granting rights to animals will make our ethical standards more consistent.

This is all well and good, and it's very much in the vein of traditional western philosophy. You could imagine Kant drawing up similar ethical arguments, just not involving animals thanks to the period he lives in.

The problem, I think, is that rational moral values are an illusion. Even as stated above, we start out with assumptions about ethics. We say that humans have rights, based on no rationality whatsoever. Once we start thinking about this problem, then we make a list of reasons why humans have rights. Well, we didn't think of the list before we started, and yet we still thought it was wrong to kill humans. Obviously, the list has nothing to do with why we don't kill humans--otherwise our thought process would be moving in the opposite direction. So, why should we be basing whether or not we kill animals on this clearly artificial list?

I can't remember the name of the philosopher right now, but it's someone strongly influenced by the pragmatists. He basically said that ethical words are just ways to pass on cultural values just like any other words. When we say, "Eating animals is wrong," what we're really saying is "I don't think you should kill animals. I don't like when animals die." It's the same way that "Stealing is wrong" really just means "I don't want you to steal. I was taught as a child not to steal, and you could get and trouble and all that. I don't like stealing. You'll disgrace our family! (etc)"

You can build up rational arguments for your ethics, but at the end of the day I don't think it has anything to do with what is actually 'right' or 'wrong.' There's no way to determine whether an ethical argument is correct, or if it's better than another ethical argument that says the opposite thing. There is only rhetoric. Of course, you can make arguments that perfectly follow logic for both sides of the debate, but it will never mean anything because on both sides certain people will reject the premises. Even logical arguments come down to, "I don't think you should kill animals. I don't like when animals die." It's nothing more than that.

We can try to sound objective and be rational, but I don't think that's really what's going on. It's just tricks with language.

We may actually be correct, but anytime we claim morality is on the side of our opinion, or resort to gaining converts by playing on the emotions of those too lazy to reason, we have lost the argument. That is why the vegan movement has gained some passionate followers, but really hasn't been taken seriously by a majority of the people (or even a respectable minority).

I think the best argument for veganism is on environmental grounds. Raising animals for food is just massively inefficient. You need to provide food/water for the animals, provide them with shelter, area to graze, manage their health/hygiene, hire people kill the animals, cut the meat and so on. Meat goes off quickly so you need to pay more for refrigeration. The are the health risks associated with animal born disease. Livestock release huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere, cause soil degredation. There are problems of over-fishing, poaching, extinctions etc etc. As standards of living go up around the world, who's going to want to work in the slaughter houses? prices will go up. If the world goes vegetarian, it will be because of economic reasons.
Do we need meat for health reasons?
I don't know, but elephants and gorillas seem to grow to a decent size without meat.

nadiatims Wrote:I think...

Good argument

I saw an interesting VOD cast on TED Talks recently. The guy said that vegetarians should quit trying to get everyone to give up meat entirely and just ask them to eat it sparingly. Go vego during the week and enjoy your meat on the weekend. Much more likely than turning everyone into full-time plant eaters.

Some personal anecdotes. I go to an all guy's school, with about 1500 students, and I'd say 5 are vegan/vegetarian. For lots of classes, we are required to watch Super Size Me and read Fast Food Nation, showing how unhealthy fast food is, and sometimes the gross stuff put into fast food like rats. We all believe it's true, yet most of us still eat McDonalds. We also do presentations on animal rights. Everyone does the presentations, there are graphic images, yet no one turns vegan. It's akin to realizing that you're buying clothes from sweat shops: yes, you know it's bad, but in the end you forget about it and don't change at all. So, in my mind, the philosophical integrated with graphic imagery doesn't really work.

My environmental science teacher is different in that he's partially vegetarian (I saw him get a slice of pepperoni pizza once). His reason for it is that you get less energy eating meat than you do eating plants, so it's simply trophic efficiency. For me, I'd choose that reason to become vegetarian, not any philosophical reasons. However, I doubt that much of the American populace would become vegetarian for trophic efficiency.

And, once again, regarding the eating of humans: A Modest Proposal, by Jonathan Swift. It's kind of scary how, well, logical it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_Buddhism

According to that article it seems that not being vegetarian is wrong in buddhism though it looks like many have overlooked that principle in the past.

"The typical vegan I met was antisocial, bitter, elitist and incapable of relating to other humans on anything other than a superficial level."

All the vegans I met tended to look fairly unhealthy. They also seemed to hate all the non-vegans and non-vegetarians.

thecite Wrote:

masaman Wrote:What is the definition of "self"?

I would say that 'self' only applies to a sentient being, in which case you only need to understand the meaning of 'sentient', which I've already stated.

So according to you,
"sentience as the consciousness of pain" is the difference between "sentient beings" and "beings with no perception that it is the "self" who is in pain."

Then, "sentience" is the difference between "beings with sentience" and "beings without perception of the self"

Therefore, sentience = perception of self.

Now when asked what "self" is, you said it's "sentient being". You are basically just making a big circle here. "self is sentient being is self is sentient being is self is sentient being…" So let's put these 2 together in a pair of parenthesis like (self=sentient being).

You don't think it is "logical" to eat anything that has (self=sentient being). Cool. But you can't really explain to me what (self=sentient being) is. You "feel" cows have (self=sentient being) and vegetables don't. That's totally OK. But it's just not "logic". It's called your "feelings".

You said you don't want me to eat you even if you become vegetable. Sure, you are entitled to "feel" that way. What kind of freaky idiot am I to think I can eat you if you are vegetable and not sentient anymore? Likewise, you don't want people to eat whales. That's totally fine. It's just not logic. It's your feelings.

Everybody knows those Whale War guys love whales and they just don't want people to eat them, logical or illogical. That's fine but they are using all the kinds of what they call "logics" and "exaggerations for the good cause." to self justify their "War", like you are trying to "educate the ignorants". I don't know about your cause, but at least those Sea Shepherd guys are not gaining any support from Japanese people to have them stop eating whales. Only thing they are doing is pissing people off and making a lot of money for Animal Planet.

There is a vegetarian Indian restraint near my place and I go there like once a week, just because their food is good. The chef there is doing 10,000 times better job making people eat less meat than any of these people "fighting the war" on TV.

masaman Wrote:There is a vegetarian Indian restraint near my place and I go there like once a week, just because their food is good. The chef there is doing 10,000 times better job making people eat less meat than any of these people "fighting the war" on TV.

This actually isn't a bad idea: get people to become vegetarian/vegan because the food is good, better than meat.

Eikyu Wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_Buddhism

According to that article it seems that not being vegetarian is wrong in Buddhism though it looks like many have overlooked that principle in the past.

Good wiki page.
Tibetan Buddhists have until recently eaten meat because, isolated in the Tibetan plateau, farming was almost impossible. Great care was taken to minimize the pain of death with ceremonies often performed for a positive rebirth.
The refugee monks that scattered throughout the world (especially India) continued to eat meat though it was no longer necessary. Every Tibetan I talked to over the years about vegetarianism in Buddhism told me this was wrong and should change (they themselves were not vegetarian). I was happy back in 2007 when I read meat was no longer eaten at the major monasteries.

smartazjb0y Wrote:

masaman Wrote:There is a vegetarian Indian restraint near my place and I go there like once a week, just because their food is good. The chef there is doing 10,000 times better job making people eat less meat than any of these people "fighting the war" on TV.

This actually isn't a bad idea: get people to become vegetarian/vegan because the food is good, better than meat.

I can't find anything here in Japan, but vegetarian alternatives to meat really are good. I love the veggie BBQ pork ribs and chicken tenders. Tofurky, phoney baloney and fakin bacon are good too

I've never understood why many who don't eat meat for moral reasons still consume imitation meat. If you really want to enjoy the moral highground should you really be enjoying a simulation of what you believe is a global atrocity?

Rape feels good for the rapist I'm sure, yet rape simulations are despicable (rapelay) in the eyes of the majority (I'm not the first person in this thread to use rape as an analogue of meat consumption).

IceCream Wrote:masaman 論理者ですか？完璧です！＾＿＾

ありがとう。It's somewhat like a mix of 論理 and 禅 I believe? To me and to many Japanese people it is not a critical difference whether the life you are taking is a sentient being or a non sentient being, although it's not like I like them to suffer. Humans and plants are essentially equal life forms. I believe Buddha himself ate meat from time to time. Like Jenini1 said, even veggies may not be happy to be eaten.

When you simulate rape, there is a harmful emotion of violent lust that is made stronger. The fantasy makes it more likely that you will want to experience the real thing one day. No one who eats imitation meat or dairy products for reasons of compassion wants to act out and eat meat as a result.

I always wondered about the symbolism that was at play with the
Buddha eating meat and why he chose to die from eating pork. (Most everything about the Buddha's life I take as a symbolic fable teaching some lesson about behavior)

Assuming that you accept rape sims as a precursor to real rape, wouldn't the same be true of fake meat? A person who would go on to real rape would do so because he wants to experience the real thing, as the sim isn't quite 100%. Fake meats don't have 100% of the taste and texture of the real thing...

If the would be rapist is using the sim to reduce his desire to rape, as a vegetarian is eating fake meat to avoid eating real meat, it is a better situation than the alternative but I wouldn't consider it to be particularly moral.

Note: I'm just arguing for the sake of following the logic of moral vegetarians to its conclusion. I don't actually think that meat, fake meat, or even rape sims are immoral.

I'm not really a very devoted Buddhist, but I thought there were several documents on Buddha's last year? It may be just that, it really happened. After all he was really old by then. Or may be it has some meanings. I dunno...

The thing about vegetarian meals though, is that they tend to be really fatty or else they aren't fulfilling, taste wise. If I eat that Indian food everyday, I'll gain 30 pounds in a month. Greenpeace should invest on fat free fat research.

thecite Wrote:The only reason for denying these creatures rights is because they are not human, and that is not a moral argument, it is discrimination. This type of discrimination is commonly referred to as 'Speciesism.'

Treating animals differently than humans is discrimination, but discrimination is not bad in itself until you make an argument that it's bad. That would require showing that animals ought to have the same rights as humans. That's a moral argument. (And this assumes humans have rights, which in turn comes down to moral argument, as Tzadeck mentions.) I suspect this is why more people can relate to the animal welfare approach rather than the animals rights approach.

btw, that rape analogy isn't worth repeating, imo. It's a poor analogy and an example of inflammatory nonsense or cheap emotional manipulation that can stop folks from listening. Why not try to come up with own analogy? (if you are convinced that an all-or-nothing approach is the only way)

[some food for thought: Do you believe a man who keep hens to feed eggs to his family is as morally culpable as a man who rapes? Are the motives and benefits to himself and others the same? Don't you think exploiting the complex human emotions surrounding a sexual crime is a tacky strategy? Even the use of a human analogy for animals is problematic (more circular reasoning.) It's not even an apt legal analogy for an all-or-nothing argument: the law recognizes degrees of assault. His analogy leads to sexual assault as a philosophical no-no (on par with the objectification of hens.) It's ridiculous.]

I do want to add that I can hardly believe TheCite and gyuujuice (others?) are in highschool. You guys are impressive! There is hope for our wacky world. ;-)

TheCite, IceCream's practical advice about considering what's in it for the other guy seems good. Idealism has a certain charm, but realistic incentives are more likely to effect change than guilt trips.

I reused the rape argument intentionally because I think it's so ridiculous and overdramatic to compare the two. Usually when I debate I tend to adopt and extend the other's argument from another POV instead of countering with an entirely different one. If I accept the supposition that meat is like rape then there are conclusions one can draw that may not support what the person intended.

I'm not quite sure if vegans actually consider them to be of similar severity though.

Jarvik7 Wrote:I reused the rape argument intentionally because I think it's so ridiculous to compare the two. I'm not quite sure if vegans consider them to be of similar severity.

In all honesty, a lot of them probably think eating meat is worse than rape. There's a lot of misanthropes in the vegan crowd.

Jarvik7 Wrote:I reused the rape argument intentionally because I think it's so ridiculous and overdramatic to compare the two.

My "not worth repeating" was actually directed at thecite, not you. After 3 years, J7, I'm finally cottoning on to your subversive wit and general mischievousness (unfortunately, I still take the bait on occasion...)

mcjon101 Wrote:There's a lot of misanthropes in the vegan crowd.

Speaking of wit, I've been meaning to thank mcjon01 for his. I always enjoy his subtlety twisted brain. And now he's hit on a solution: misanthropic vegan cannibals

My spiel on this whole debate:

I do agree that meat eating is based on pleasure. There really is no true reason to eat meat, except that it tastes good. I love steak, hamburger, etc, all because they taste good. At the same time, however, pleasure or desire can be a strong driving force. I think that pleasure is so strong, that even showing graphic images or talking about how it's bad, will get people to change. I said before about how almost everyone in my school knows the nasty stuff in fast food, and the cruel ways they treat animals to be used for food, yet no one changes. Sure, we all feel bad for a few days, but we forget and move on. For me, this is kind of akin to smoking or alcohol or drugs. Not smokers who keep smoking but know it's bad for them, that's chemical addiction and that's another story. I'm talking about people who start smoking/drinking despite the fact that they know it will lead to addiction and illnesses like cancer, and even financial problems. They know the risks, they know the problems, yet they start anyways. Pleasure, as I said, is a strong force, and it's not simple for people to change.

If you do want people to change, however, I don't think the philosophical/graphic image/holier-than-thou arguments will work, in particular the attitude. This is kind of like a literal holier-than-thou situation: imagine a religious man trying to convert atheists by proclaiming "I will go to heaven but you won't because you're atheist." This won't work to convert anyone, but instead will illicit the "You're a big prick" response. In the same vein, saying "Eating and killing animals is cruel, and as a vegetarian, I am respecting animal rights while you, as a meat eater, are not" won't really work to convert people.

On the other hand, however, the environmental reasons won't work either. Sure, eating meat is less efficient in a trophic sense, it's bad for the environment and land, it's unsustainable, etc. However, the general populace just doesn't care, again going back to "pleasure is a strong force." People will feel bad for a few days, then forget and move on. Sure, they may support the environment in other aspects, but how much of an impact does that really make on their lives? Driving hybrids is better for the environment, but it doesn't necessarily affect their driving or their ability to drive in a car. Using solar panels helps, but it doesn't prevent them from getting electricity. On the other hand, not eating meat will be a total change, and people won't give that up even to help the environment.

In the end, I do believe that we have to focus on the "pleasure" aspect of eating meat. If people eat meat because it tastes good, get people to become vegetarian because it tastes good. If there's no reason to really eat meat, because vegetarian food tastes the same, than maybe the philosophical or environmental reasons will have a bigger impact.

masaman Wrote:

thecite Wrote:

masaman Wrote:What is the definition of "self"?

I would say that 'self' only applies to a sentient being, in which case you only need to understand the meaning of 'sentient', which I've already stated.

So according to you,
"sentience as the consciousness of pain" is the difference between "sentient beings" and "beings with no perception that it is the "self" who is in pain."

Then, "sentience" is the difference between "beings with sentience" and "beings without perception of the self"

Therefore, sentience = perception of self.

I miss interpreted your question. I gave you the definition of sentience, you've just complicated it by questioning a relatively simple term, 'self'. 'Self' simply refers to the being in question, whether it be a dog or a cat or a human or a fish. Obviously you wouldn't refer to a rock or piece of wood as 'self', as they're inanimate objects.

In simple terms, the definition is saying that a sentient creature is one that experiences pain and knows it is in pain, not just a reflex action. An example: if you grab an insect's leg, it will squirm in what seems to be pain. However, if the leg is removed, it will hobble away calmly as if it is not in pain. This seems to indicate that the 'pain' was nothing more than a reflex action, not a conscious response. The insects sentience debate goes far deeper than that, but that's just an example. On the other hand, there is no question that when you injure a dog, or a cow or a pig, they are fully aware they are being injured.

For your convenience, I'll repaste the technical definition of sentient I provided, one more time:

"My definition of sentience as the consciousness of pain would distinguish sentient beings from beings that have nothing more than nociceptive neural reactions in whom tissue damage may cause reflex actions but where there is no perception that it is the "self" who is in pain."

By this definition, and most other definitions of sentience, it may be difficult to work out whether insects or oysters are sentient, but there can be no scientific doubt that the majority of animals certainly are sentient.

IceCream Wrote:thecite: one thing to remember is that people have different levels of ability for empathy. It's really important to be able to work out what kind of a person you're talking to and be able to adapt to that.

What level of 'empathy' a person has is completely personal, and has no moral relevance. If an act is morally wrong and therefore restricted in our society, all members of our society must adapt to it, no matter how empathetic they are. Atrocities occur when those who lack empathy do as they please.

masaman Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:masaman 論理者ですか？完璧です！＾＿＾

ありがとう。It's somewhat like a mix of 論理 and 禅 I believe? To me and to many Japanese people it is not a critical difference whether the life you are taking is a sentient being or a non sentient being, although it's not like I like them to suffer. Humans and plants are essentially equal life forms. I believe Buddha himself ate meat from time to time. Like Jenini1 said, even veggies may not be happy to be eaten.

So by that 'logic', it should be perfectly acceptable to kill and consume fellow humans.
If not, then what exactly is the magical ingredient that humans possess which grants us moral superiority over all other sentient beings?