Veganism has the unassailable moral high ground. Change my mind.

@QueenOfZaun

[quote]I don’t think humans eating animals is less moral. Because we were designed to eat meat[/quote]

This seems to be a naturalistic fallacy. The fact that humans evolved to eat meat does not make it a moral practice.

I think i did acknowledge the fact that veganism is not universally economically viable.
But for those of us who can...what moral defense is there?

@Pikachu I don’t believe it’s a fallacy in that sense because I don’t think you’re looking at the situation with the complexity it really has. I’m not claiming humans eating meat historically throughout history is “a moral practice” however I am saying that measuring morality based on diet is arbitrary and banal. Are caveman bad people because they ate meat? Were neanderthals bad people because they had to eat meat? Is your grandfather morally reprehensible for probably eating a steak? It just seems a very obtuse way of measuring morality. We live in a world where living things have to eat living things. Like someone else pointed out humane farming is a better solution, improving the farming situation would be better for everyone.

But to answer your question, I guess the difference in our answers is based on opinion. I don’t think people choosing to eat meat over a vegan diet is less moral. I just don’t. So I don’t feel the need to find a moral excuse for people who choose not too. Because my morality doesn’t have a problem with it. We aren’t at a place cultural, socially, technologically, economically where vegan food will “triumph” over meat. I acknowledge that and so does my moral judgment on the matter. So I don’t see the point in having contention with it.

@QueenOfZaun
[quote]Are caveman bad people because they ate meat?
[/quote]

I feel like this is ignoring the point i have made which is that the moral aspect of it comes from our ability to conceptualize suffering [i]and[/i] the means to survive without inflicting it. Or at the very least minimizing it.


[quote] I don’t think people choosing to eat meat over a vegan diet is less moral. I just don’t.[/quote]

Well sure. But i'm asking you to justify it, not just hold the opinion.
If one can live healthily without killing an animal then what moral justification can be made not to do so?

@Pikachu I can’t really answer your questions in the way you would likely want me to because I don’t agree with the premise you’re setting up in your reply. I’m not ignoring the point with the caveman question, I asked the question entirely for the same reason. Caveman, obviously had to inflict suffering to survive. We, in our modern world, for the most part, don’t have to inflict suffering the sane way our ancestors did. That’s something we both understand. But I think the complexity in your opinion that you are missing, is perhaps that our accessibility in vegan, non meat products has only very recently gotten to the point it has. Obviously people are not going to shut down farms, slaughterhouses or meat products over night. Vegan products being readily available to people has only happened in the what, last two decades or so? So for that logical reason, I don’t judge people for still eating meat. Make sense?

And the second question has a more simple answer. I don’t feel the need to have moral justification for doing something that in my opinion, is not less then moral. So I don’t have moral justification for it. I simply believe it isn’t a morally reprehensible act. So how can I have moral justification for something that I don’t think requires it? Moral justification is needed to justify a less then moral act. But like I said, I fundamentally don’t agree with the premise. I don’t believe it is a morally reprehensible act so therefore I don’t require some sort of moral justification to back up my belief . It’s just what I personally believe.

@QueenOfZaun

[quote]So for that logical reason, I don’t judge people for still eating meat. Make sense?
[/quote]

Yeah i get ya. But i think we're getting sidetracked a little here.
This is not about judging an individual for eating meat, it's about as a concept veganism being the morally superior position.


[quote]I simply believe it isn’t a morally reprehensible act[/quote]

So let's talk about that.
Why do you consider it either morally correct or morally neutral to inflict suffering where it is not necessary?

@Pikachu To address the 1st question, yes we got sidetracked. I’ll stick to veganism as a concept.

To answer the 2nd question. When you refer to “inflicting suffering”. We are speaking in the specific context of animals being killed and eaten as food.The notion of animals simply being killed for food doesn’t bother me. Living things eat living things.

@QueenOfZaun

So are you saying that it is morally neutral to inflict suffering on animals when you need not do so on the basis that, that's just nature?

@Pikachu No that’s not what i’m saying. My opinion is a bit more complicated then that. Maybe it would be easier to make my point if I asked you a few questions. Why do you think people don’t need to kill animals? You realize not everyone has access to a vegan diet right? So what exactly makes the suffering meaningless to you?

@QueenOfZaun

I don't think people don't need to kill animals, i [i]know [/i]people don't need to kill animals otherwise there wouldn't be vegans lol.
I do realize that not everyone can realistically and safely eat a vegan diet.

[quote]So what exactly makes the suffering meaningless to you?[/quote]

I'm not sure what you mean by this one though. Can you clarify?

@Pikachu I’m asking you why the suffering inflicted on animals, as a result of most people eating meat is meaningless?

@QueenOfZaun

Oh i don't think it's meaningless...

@Pikachu Then i’m really confused about what your exact position is because a few replies ago you were criticizing my argument by talking about the needless suffering inflicted on animals by a meat diet and the fact that I was more or less morally neutral about it in your opinion. Repeatedly you postulated that a vegan diet is morally superior to a meat eating one because animals won’t needlessly suffer or die because we now have alternatives to meat. Is the reduction of needlessly suffering animals not the basis of your argument? So did I get something wrong here? Because it seems like we are talking in circles at this point.

@QueenOfZaun

No all of that is correct.
I was saying that i don't think the suffering of animals inflicted by people who need to eat them is meaningless.
I don't consider it immoral in the same way i do for people who have a legitimate choice but i don't consider that unavoidable suffering meaningless.

Does that help?

@Pikachu So you think it’s less moral for someone to choose a meat diet when they have access to a vegan one, correct?

@QueenOfZaun

Yes. That's my position.

@Pikachu And why do you feel that way?

@QueenOfZaun

Well generally speaking i think it's bad to take life and cause suffering and i don't think that is a controversial moral stance lol.
Therefore if it is possible to avoid taking life and causing suffering, that is the moral choice to make.

So if the choice to eat meat results in more death and suffering it seems unambiguously to be the less moral choice.

@Pikachu See this is where your language is seemingly getting contradictory. First you described the suffering inflicted on animals as needless in your criticism of my opinion, then unavoidable in your response to my criticism, now you’re condemning it because it’s not necessary in a world where people don’t have to eat meat.

To make a counterpoint. I don’t think it’s wrong to take life for the purpose of food and then use that food to prolong the life of another. As you said previously, the suffering is unavoidable. So purely logically speaking, how can you judge someone for directly or indirectly taking part in unavoidable naturalistic suffering?

@QueenOfZaun

For people who have the means and the opportunity to eat vegan, any suffering or death inflicted on an animal for food is needless and therefore immoral.

For people who do [i]not[/i] have the means and the opportunity to eat vegan, any suffering or death inflicted on an animal is regrettable but unavoidable.


I hope that clears up under what i mean by unnecessary and unavoidable.

In the case where taking and animal's life is [i]unnecessary [/i]for you to prolong y our life, why wouldn't you consider [i]choosing [/i]to take life to be an immoral choice?

@Pikachu But you just contradicted what you said previously. I asked you “ why the suffering inflicted on animals, as a result of most people eating meat is meaningless?”

You responded with “Oh i don't think it's meaningless...”

But now you’re operating on the premise that people who choose to eat meat over a vegan diet cause needless suffering. It’s interesting that you didn’t specify that originally when I asked you the original question of ““ why the suffering inflicted on animals, as a result of most people eating meat is meaningless?”

You responded pretty bluntly and solidly that it wasn’t meaningless. Whether you’re doing intentionally or not, the parameters of your argument change somewhat under scrutiny..

And I don’t agree with the “unavoidable” definition in your argument. As you’ve said in your rebuttal, it becomes unavoidable when people have no alternatives to meat. People can be in situations where they must unavoidably eat meat, yes, because they lack alternatives. However the general overall suffering of animals is itself, unavoidable. I don’t think an individuals choice suddenly makes it avoidable. As you’ve said. It doesn’t matter how many people adopt a vegan diet, we will always kill and eat animals to some degree.

To focus on this specific part of your reply.

“For people who have the means and the opportunity to eat vegan, any suffering or death inflicted on an animal for food is needless and therefore immoral.”

The “people” in this scenario are still eating the meat that is coming from the killed animal. So how is this needless? An animal was killed for food, the people ate the food. So it’s not needless or immoral in my opinion. A needless killing of an animal would constitute someone killing an animal for the enjoyment of it, not because they actually use the meat. Were also assuming the people in this hypothetical are choosing to eat meat over a vegan diet instead of needing to. Well, shouldn’t people be able to not choose a vegan diet if they don’t want to without some sort of “guilty by association” complex? The butchers are the ones killing the animals after all and if these people choose to not eat the meat, someone else who eats meat would have regardless. If I walk into a grocery store and choose to not buy a steak. The meat doesn’t sit there until it rots, it gets bought by someone else.


To look at this part of your reply.

“For people who do not have the means and the opportunity to eat vegan, any suffering or death inflicted on an animal is regrettable but unavoidable.”

I don’t understand why you’re more willing to morally excuse this. An animal is being killed. An animal is killed. The same exact process you condemned in the above reply is happening with the only exception being the people are more or less doing it without the available option of a vegan diet. The outcome is the same. The only differing variable in your moral judgment is choice. And mind you, it’s a choice that people can’t control. Since we’re assuming the people in this specific scenario are limited from eating vegan.

So essentially the variable in your moral judgment of these situations is a choice, that is a product of the availability of vegan food. And that’s something people can’t control. Sounds a little shallow when I put it that way, because you’re judging people on the availability of a choice that they have no control over.

And that I believe is the flaw in your argument. On top of thinking that people who choose to eat meat but don’t have to results in a needless act of violence or death. It doesn’t.

@QueenOfZaun

[quote]Whether you’re doing intentionally or not, the parameters of your argument change somewhat under scrutiny..[/quote]

lol well it's definitely unintentional because whether i've accurately communicated it or not, my position and argument has not changed since the beginning of this thread.
Honestly i'm really not understanding the source of contention

[quote]However the general overall suffering of animals is itself, unavoidable[/quote]

Sure, agreed. But when i said unavoidable/avoidable i'm speaking on an individual basis, not a global one.

[quote]So how is this needless?[/quote]

Because the life was taken when that person need not have taken it in order to feed themselves.

[quote]The outcome is the same. The only differing variable in your moral judgment is choice. A[/quote]

Yes, agreed.
In the same way that the outcome is the same if you kill in anger or out of self defense but i think you'd agree that those are not morally equivalent reasons to kill.

[quote]you’re judging people on the availability of a choice that they have no control over.[/quote]

But i'm really not. I don't think i can be more clear on that.

@Pikachu [quote] lol well it's definitely unintentional because whether i've accurately communicated it or not, my position and argument has not changed since the beginning of this thread.
Honestly i'm really not understanding the source of contention [/quote]

It’s hard to tell on the internet. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. You’re using those words in a way I would not. So it caused some confusion in how you were communicating your point.

[quote] Sure, agreed. But when i said unavoidable/avoidable i'm speaking on an individual basis, not a global one.
[/quote]

Fair enough.

[quote] Because the life was taken when that person need not have taken it in order to feed themselves.[/quote]

I disagree. If someone wants to kill an animal and eat meat. Choosing meat over a vegan diet. That animal did not die for nothing. It died to be eaten. It was not needless. Needless would be killing it and not using the meat at all.

[quote] Yes, agreed.
In the same way that the outcome is the same if you kill in anger or out of self defense but i think you'd agree that those are not morally equivalent reasons to kill.[/quote]

I agree that those are not morally equivalent reasons to kill. But I don’t agree with the comparison to this situation. And I honestly think it’s a little ridiculous and overdramatic comparison. In both situations, people eat meat. The only variable being the option of choice. One person ignored a vegan diet and ate the meat. The other just simply ate the meat.

I believe people can have the freedom to choose meat over a vegan diet without a, shall we say, moral dilemma. I don’t think choosing meat over a vegan diet is more morally reprehensible then eating it and not having the option. That’s our two differing opinions clashing. I think needless slaughter of an animal would constitute killing it out of enjoyment or killing it and NOT eating the meat. That to me is a waste of life. Eating the meat ensures the animal did not die for nothing.


[quote]
But i'm really not. I don't think i can be more clear on[/quote]

But to some extent you are though. You’re making a judgment about someone’s dietary choices depending on the availability of alternatives.The complexity of that involves cultural reasons, religious reasons, location, economic availability.

People’s diets can be an essential part of their identity and equally people can’t choose whether they have availability to vegan options or not. You’re drawing a line in the sand on a spot where people don’t necessarily have the most personal control over. You draw a line when someone has alternatives but chooses not to take them. But that comes with the presupposition of ;why can’t someone choose to eat meat over the alternative? As I said before. In the modern world, if I don’t eat a steak. I’m not exactly saving animals lives nor am I making it meaningless (by my definition not yours). If I choose not to buy a steak, someone else will come along and eat it anyway.

@QueenOfZaun

[quote]That animal did not die for nothing. [/quote]

But i haven't said it died for nothing, i'm saying it died when it need not have died because that person did not [i]need[/i] to eat that animal, they [i]chose[/i] to eat that animal

[quote]You’re drawing a line in the sand on a spot where people don’t necessarily have the most personal control over.[/quote]

Yes but i'm also very explicitly not passing judgement on people who have no control over it.

[quote] I don’t think choosing meat over a vegan diet is more morally reprehensible then eating it and not having the option[/quote]

Well i think that's really the long and the short of it lol. We disagree.
I think we've probably reached the end of this conversation.
That said, if you'd like to write a final response then please do.

@Pikachu Nah. I’m good. I was getting pretty bored tbh

@QueenOfZaun

lol fair enough.
Thanks for the discussion though.
I always like to talk to someone with whom i can disagree and not have it devolve into a mud slinging match.🙂✌️