Rob_86

I was away to make that very same comment - the veggie/vegan thread before was pretty thorough and went over all the vegan stuff. The old university vegan and vegetarian group made a compassionate guide to Aberdeen (which was mainly places to go and eat for vegans) which I think is found here: Aberdeen Vegan and Vegetarian Society I don't think Aberdeen is particularly on the forefront of veganism though...mainly due to the views expressed prior to this message!

<I'm suggesting that they have greater rights because thay are humans.> This would be great if you could justify why this is a reason. If it isn't right to dicriminate on physical or intellectual terms in cases of race or sex, then neither is it in the other physical or intellectual boundaries. You are sort of proving the point that we give humans the correct rights (mostly) but deny other creatures our moral respect on irrelevant grounds. It is completely arbitrary to keep saying 'because they are human', as the right to life relates to life, not being human. Dead humans aren't granted a right to life lol. So long as there is a moral difference between a dead and living humans, then it is life that matters and not the physical categorisation of it. <Argh! Species does not sit in those categories in the slightest. It is a massive jump to say because we treat humans equally regardless of their charcteristics that we should trreat other species in this way.> I don't think we should treat animals and humans equally, I think we should treat inidividuals with equal claims to rights equally in those rights. That's a pretty logical way to look at it I would say. You're the one claiming that rights are given to humans 'just because' they are human. We don't lick lollipops just because they are lollipops, we lick them as they taste good (yes, that is a weird analogy). Similarly, we don't give humans rights as they are human, we give them rights as they are each individuals deserving of rights. <I still don't understand this basic point; if we are simply animals then surely we shouldn't feel morally obliged to not kill other animals? If we are simply the dominant species then it is in our nature to eat any other animal if it serves our interests. I don't think there has been any valid argument as to why this is even a moral issue in that respect.> This point has been answered a couple of times. Firstly, what is the exact argument you're trying to put across? We've already said that something being natural doesn't make it right, or a thing to be continued. We have also said that there are many humans who can not respect our rights, and that they still deserve rights - so it isn't about being able to act morally which grants a creature moral respect. So if you take these two points out of your paragraph, I don't think there is a lot left. It is appealing to have this idea of humans being top of a food chain, and it being natural to eat other creatures - but under scrutiny this argument does not hold up particularly well given what we know about moral logic, and what we know about animal life.

I shall not be baited

I considered writing a paragraph with no full stops in to fulfill this condition, but the 'don't be a twat' voice in my head over came that particular whim My summation of the topic would be this for general health remarks: Top Ten Food Choice Myths - Busted | Zerocarbonista And this for the ethics/moral argument: Culture & Animals Foundation If someone comes up with any decent points that aren't covered (/aren't satisfactorily answered) in those short pages, then here after would be a good place to discuss it, I suggest?

I use the example of racism sometimes, as although it isn't the same, the relevant points are the same to show some issues. Simple analogy methods. If the problem is who decides the rights for the animal you interact with, then there is a problem also with the rights of new born and young children as well. We don't just give babies rights so as not to upset their parents, we do it as regardless of their ability to claim their right to life, or to decide they want it - they still are equal to it by virtue of their ability to experience it. Rights are only related to that one characteristic the right refers to. <I believe in animal welfare, but I don't believe that animals should have any inherent 'rights'. Again, that is a wholly human concept that we are trying to apply to animals.> This doesn't actually make any sense. If a superior race of beings came to earth, we would have to grant them rights, so it makes no sense to say rights are a 'human' concept - this example shows that if another species other than humans deserved them then we would have to grant them. However this also shows that we would grant superior beings the right, but not 'lower' beings. But if in their ability to experience their life the lower beings are equal (they too strive to stay alive, and to fulfil their desitres), it becomes a fairly untenable position to say they still do not deserve rights. You can't judge who has a right to life by appeal to someone's inteligence, their appearance, their physical abilities - and species sits in those categories. The difference you're pointing out, I think, is that we are used to giving humans and no other animals rights, and that this is what we currently do. There is no particularly strong argument for continuing doing it though. <So, I'm allowed to prefer humans? Ace. Well what if an animal has to suffer for the benefit of a human; say to test new cancer drugs or so someone without the luxury of a Western diet can eat and stay alive? Is that permissible?> I would agree that it can be. If someone HAS to kill and eat another animal, or even another human, there is no moral issue - at all. So the case, for me, is no different with the other methods needed for survival. I would bring up a few issues (which are probably a bit inappropriate for this thread) - if all species are equal in their ability to live, then one individual probably should not be torturing a second individual for the benefit of a third party unless there is some pretty strong moral justification (the path of human preference could be explored there). Secondly, humans can give fairly informed consent for medical studies, whereas no other animal can. <Animals obviously can't voice their opinion on the topic, so presumably we have to decide for them. So... Peter Singer decides? I decide? You decide?> Peter Singer shouldn't be allowed to decide anything. The mans an attention seeking nut case

Well, rights relate to characteristics, you shouldn't discriminate between individuals on intellectual or physical grounds if the traits to use the right are equal, so hence animals have an equal claim to some rights by virtue of this (at the very least the right to live).

Well yeah, I'm gradually learning but it doesn't mean I know nothing! I just take this position as a badly planned vegan diet can leave you lacking B12, and other obscure things perhaps (which can cause problems, don't get me wrong) - but the heart disease risks (I mean 1 in 3 people die from this) and other growing cancer links, as well as the level of high protein and lack of nutrients in flesh would have me far more worried. That's just opinion that one, but the longer I've been vegan myself, the more I've realised that the problems with a vegan diet are mainly psychologically based (ie, it's a diet most people don't have, hence why the hundreds of myths). To be honest it mainly comes from the fact that I had a bad non-vegan diet, and now have a relatively bad vegan one too - and I feel much healthier, and have noticed a couple of minor health complaints disapear (which was a bonus!). As I say, it's just my personal opinion and feelings on the matter.

No I would agree with that stuff up there ^ even if it is a little sciency to the degree that i yawned when reading lol Was just making the point that we don't need the actual cholesterol in our diet. I realise we need cholesterol to live and that our body makes it from certain things (like you said!) but I don't see any advantage to taking the excess cholesterol itself that the animal has made in it's body, in our diet. And from my understanding it is that which is the most important thing in things like heart disease (hence why it is a well planned vegan diet that reverses it), and not the cholesterol our body makes itself? Sorry my grasp of health and nutrition is developing gradually, hence the simple way of putting things lol. I just can't stop thinking in terms of a badly/non-planned vegan diet is far better than a badly/non-planned animal product included diet (generally) - and so don't find the health discussion that important unless someone has a genuine deficiency or problem with one of the diets.

Lol hmm by the same method I guess we could kill humans and eat the parts of them that do contain vit B12. However we used to get it, or developed a need for it, or do at the moment get it, to me it seems the most sensible option is supplements if you are worried about it, from personal experience with my friends. Both from an ethical or practical point of view. There's nothing particularly evil about creating/growing a particular vitamin to fortify food with due to practical or ethical concerns people may have. is there a health based thread at all? Would be interesting, though I'm not sure how much use I would be in it!

Lol, I was under the impression that even in America with the FDA (which is essentially ruled by the meat industry) they advocate everyone take Vit B12 supplements if they are deficient. If the chance came up tp plug a type of meat they would jump on it, so it strikes me as strange they wouldn't suggest more of a certain type of meat if they were guaranteed to give you it. And also, I was under the impression that we evolved to need vit B12 because we ate a lot of unwashed vegetables hundreds of years ago that had it (or whatever makes us create it) in. Obviously you can't tell people to do this nowadays as they're are worse health risks to doing this than the benefit of B12. Anyways, from the two people I know that suffered this disease, I would suggest supplements or fortified foods if you have problems, as they both are avid meat eaters so it seems you can never be sure.

Fair do's. We can eat healthily on either. It's just we don't need cholesterol in our diet, and the point I would make is that it is dangerous to do so. Much more dangerous to take on cholesterol in our diet than to take on the fats which cause our body to create excess cholesterol (though I would have thought either could cause problems, the first would strike me as more striking). And yeah, don't drink coconut milk all the time

Thank god, back on the ethical issue The animals that animal rights refer to would differ depending on the right. Not all humans are party to 'human' rights (children can not reasonably vote for example - whereas of course there interests should still be considered), so obviously not all animal rights should refer to all animals. The characteristics relevant to the right would determine who does or doesn't have the right. That is the rule of thumb, or at least should be, in all rights-based discussion. You can't attriute rights to creatures (be they human or non-human) that don't have the characteristics to properly utilise it etc. So for a right to life (and a majority of the basic rights like this), the trait required would be the ability to 'consciously experience life' (anything else wouldn't 'consciously experience' any suffering/loss if their life was taken). So obviously most/all plants are ruled out (at least I'm not aware of any scientific suggestions that any plant consciously experiences life as an individual psychological entity), and then many sea dwelling organisms like sponges etc on the same grounds. I guess when it comes to certain insects there will be lines which we don't know where to draw as our science isn't good enough to tell us just yet - perhaps there may be some we can never know about (ie lack of understanding about the creatures nervous system or brain mechanisms or something - are they just automated, or are they experiencing life?). Either way, this doesn't tend to pose a big problem, as the moral answer if you don't know is to be careful. It isn't like we need to go around farming these insects, so let's just not bother doing it. As with every animal (that rights relate to) and human, you don't use them/kill them/cause them suffering if you don't have to - well the same might as well apply if science can't give us a conclusive answer. What science do we use? Well whatever we have. It will never be fully conclusive. I can't for sure tell that you experience life unless I am you (and even then, philosophically the issue is still open!). But we have a good idea that given certain characteristics (things like mammals nervous systems), along with a sign of life, a creature is experiencing life. We know this is true, scientifically speaking, of non-dead humans, dogs, cats, cows, pigs, snakes...you get the idea. And we know this isn't true of oak trees, grass, bacteria, mushrooms..again, you probably get the idea. Which rights - whichever the creature is reasonably in possesion of the traits to demand. The right to live is about protecting a living, experiencing being. We now know this stretches a lot further than just humans, and should extended as such. And all the way down to those organisms that we know don't experience life (the vast majority of the earth is systems like this). If a creature doesn't have the ability to make informed voting decisions, they shouldn't be allowed to vote (hence why children can't and why all animals other than humans shouldn't). In fact there are a lot of rights we should never have to even really think about - most of us don't interact with other creatures very often, so it shouldn't worry us. Of course the problem people normally have with this whole thing is 'what if a bear attackes me, I can't kill it if it has rights' - of course you can! If you kill in self defence, there is nothing wrong with that whatever the individual attacking you. Similarly if you have to eat in desolate conditions to survive, and the only options are other humans or animals, then go for it! Rights are about need. If you don't need to do something which harms someone, the recipient has the right that you don't do it. The other problem is that people will say animals can't respect each others rights, so how can they have rights (ie, a lion will naturally kill a gazelle without it being immoral, so a gazelle can't have a right). But of course rights only relate to moral agents. Attributing a right isn't a way of policing nature (if it was I certainly wouldn't advocate them), it's a way of extending human morality to individuals you may have interactions with (be these interactions direct or indirect). An individual cow has no less claim for you to respect it's right to live than an individual human. We may prefer to 'save' a human first if the opportunity arises (there's nothing wrong with that at all), but it doesn't mean the cow is therefore lesser. She is obviously 'lesser' in ways of human inteligence, and a lot of physical abilities, but this doesn't make her lesser in her ability to experience her own life. You are right this is a confusing issue if it is something you have never breached before. But if you look at it from a different perspective (ie as what rights reasonably speaking should be/are, rather than what amnesty would have you think they are*) then it becomes very simple. It's all rather common sense - that which should have rights does, and that which shouldn't doesn't. *This is not a pop at amnesty by the way, I fully advocate their work and think they do an amazing job - just they don't have a logically sound view of what a right is that's all (we should protect a human not because they are human, but because they will suffer if we don't)

Didn't mean it as an article, just as an informal challenge to the myths (which have been done on here in much more detail, but didn't think people would be arsed reading as it's a million pages long!). Don't really get your points on the issues of clogged arteries and stuff, as this is far more harmful from foods with cholesterol (animal products) than non. There are tons of people who don't 'go over the top' on meat eating and still have serious heart/circulation issues due to the fact that the human body doesn't digest cholesterol in the way that other meat eating animals do. It isn't that similar to vitamin B12, as that is a deficiency which veganism doesn't solve, but one that is very much a problem on a non-vegan diet too. But I would seriously doubt that vegans suffer more with it than non-vegans (though I wait for the balanced studies on that one too). And as for the big mac and chicken fillets comparison, who would know where he's getting his figures from (presumably you can trace that blog back to his last blog which it refers to, and then that one back to the studies which that one refers to!). Anywho, it still goes over a lot of conversations that have been had on here without having to read it all!

I just found and had a read through this environmental page (they advocate vegan diets as an environmental step that's why it's there in case any one wondered!) Top Ten Food Choice Myths - Busted | Zerocarbonista It goes through a lot of the non-philosophical points/discussions that have been had on here, if anyone can't be arsed reading through the whole thread!

Vitamin B12 is present in animals that create it, or have eaten the correct things to allow their bodies to create it. I have no references for studies that have been done either way (if there have been any?). However if you want to guarantee you get it, the only way is supplements (as I say the only two people I know who suffered it are avid meat eaters - not that this is scientific proof!). Anyways, whether your a meat eater or vegan worried about it, I would guess it makes more ethical sense to buy a man-made supplement than taking it from an animal. Well yes practical problems are relevant, however the one's relating to others are not at this moment, and first the ethics have to be sorted out - if it is moral to eat meat then there is no point considering the practical implications of not doing so! And then the whole discussion stays much simpler too lol As for the farming point, yes there are plenty of ways to fertilise crops without using animal dung. If the choice was between encaging you and using your faeces, or using alternate sources/chemicals etc, it would have to be chemicals as I would never do that to you! Same for the animals, unless you could find a way to collect their dung in the wild...I don't know, practical issues again! And yes, I agree humans do not begin/continue eating meat based on the moral arguments alone. However the same could be said for any immoral acts of the past (like slavery for instance), but if no-one was to step out and follow morality over tradition, these things would never have stopped. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that people aren't evil, they don't do things they know to be wrong (regularly, anyway!), there are many other factors. But this is simply all the more reason for those who can step out of this circle to do so - like with every social change of the past and (hopefully!) every one of the future to get started it depends on people starting it. Finally, yes thanks for the wikipeda reference I didn't say there weren't any criticisms against animal rights, just that there are none that hold up (or at least that's what I meant to say if I didn't lol). I haven't checked the wikipedia link, but from memory I would imagine Roger Scruton, Carl Cohen etc are on there. They are the most famous names against animal rights, mainly as there have to be famous names against animal rights in philosophy else there would be nothing to teach. If you actually look into the argument for them (which I admit isn't easy at work ), they are mainly based around contractualist arguments, which is essentially the same as those arguments on here which said 'animals can't be nice to me, so I won't be to them' - which obviously excludes many humans from the realms of ethics too. And their defences to this are about as strong as those which came on here too, sort of wishy washy points like, 'humans aren't animals' which fail to penetrate the actual reason on the matter or be able to defend/back up the proposition they are making or the proposition they originally made. (sorry if this bit sounds harsh, spent a couple of years at uni studying ideas like those of Roger 'Scrotum' trying to find a way to justify my meat eating beliefs and found nothing at all- hence the veganism!). Basically they all fall down on similar points to what I made in the last paragraph of my last post - in trying to justify a prejudice with the reason the prejudice exists, rather than showing why it should continue to exist. Anyways this discussion has been conducted at a very decent level so far, long may it continue!

We did go over the speciesism being different thing, but there was never any reason for such a difference justifying the non-attribution of basic rights. If basic rights apply onto one species only, on basis of characteristics irrelevant to the actual rights, then we are preaching a right which has no reasonable basis - and hence no moral justification. As for the natural point, yes there are natural behaviours of all sorts, just as natural as meat eating, that we disregard as immoral. Hence why natural isn't an argument to do something. (On a side note, we have canines in name only, not in nature) As for the supplementation thing, this is a huge myth. I know a fair few vegans (some have been so their whole lives), and none that take any supplements. You are 'advised' to take supplements of everything you do not get - were it the other way around those deviating from a vegan diet would be advised to take supplements too I'm sure (probably because, as you point out, the supplement industry has big clout). There is nothing reasonably speaking found in dairy or meat that provides nutrients not found in many plant based sources. The Vitamin B12 thing was the only thing, and people are sharply starting to release that meat eaters are suffering from this just as much - if you're worried about the intake of this particular vitamin, supplements/fortified products are the only guaranteed option. As for the morality points, it seems most of that you put across it practical based, ie, can people afford to stop eating meat etc/should we do it when others can't. Obviously these are points that sit on the side of veganism too, as it is a much more efficient method of farming for sure, so in the long run prices would drop dramatically - as well as the fact that more people can be fed on such a plant based diet. But no of course you shouldn't force families in the short term to do what will make their members suffer. If it was the other way around too, and in some bizarre twist of events it was humans who were being milked/slaughtered/used like this, the notion of rights would demand we stop using the humans. However it wouldn't mean that people should suffer in the long run. After all rights are about need, it isn't wrong to kill another human if you need to in order to survive - similarly it is the case with animals. But it wouldn't mean that in either situation that short term logistical issues should outweigh the great moral arguments either. You do put across decent practical issues to be considered, but these don't show any argument against any theory of rights - simply something to be considered should we get to a stage when we can dictate morality to people (which when you and I are running the government will be relevant, but we can probably leave for now ) The real point I think, is that we might well prefer one individual from an intellectually exactly similar other one, on the basis of physical differences (from which previous examples show species could be). This isn't wrong per se, but in terms of racist behaviour we can see that this 'preference' can be used to immoral ends in order to justify mistreatment to the detriment of others. With species it is no different. You can't use the same boundaries (it's not speciesist to give a human the job over a dog...), so you have to use science to figure out where the boundaries are. Animals other than humans don't require a right to vote, or to education or the such, but they do deserve a right to live - as after all no-one has shown they can not live and experience their lives. This is the point that has always been the central one in the philosophical debate for years, and the reason why no great argument against animal rights has ever been put forward. At the end of the day, without the prejudice of physical boundaries, there is no justification for using another who you don't need to use.

I have to agree with Kimy on this. If this was pre-racism era (and I know racism and speciesism aren't the same thing) then it would be pretty bad to look back on people's comments and see things written like 'I'm a racist remember, if that is wrong so be it'! The point of moral/ethical debate is to figure out what is wrong. If you think you have a reason that speciesism is okay in some instances, then the idea would be to say it. However if you resort to defending a personal preference against morality, then you're position becomes a little intenable. I think what you really mean (correct me if I'm wrong.) is that you prefer humans, and do so unashamedly -and if THAT is wrong, then so be it. But of course that isn't wrong, at all (unless you take one of those odd Peter Singer utilitarian views!). However this isn't you acting speciesist, it's just having a preference. However, if you were to deny other animal their rights, purely on the basis of them being physically and mentally different to you, that is what is speciesist.

This debate has taken some strange turns over the weekend! I can't really understand how the decent points supporting the ideas of animal rights have been disregarded without being answered. The idea of speciesism, whilst it was deconstructed to show what it was, still poses a huge problem to meat eaters. It is very similar to ageism, in that it is isn't ageist to stop a young child having a right to vote, and neither is it speciesist to stop an animal having one - for obvious reasons on both counts. However due to the fact that we do not kill and eat young children or the mentally disabled, regardless of how much pain we could stop them suffering from doing so, there is a rather large discrepancy. I mean even if this kind of canibalism didn't pose health threats, we would still oppose it morally wouldn't we? So we should try to do the same with animals. The reasons put forward for this discrepancy so far, as a defence of 'meat-eating' are as follows - 1) It's natural to eat meat, and not so to eat those mentally disabled individuals. However of course, naturality is not a reason to do something (shown by the fact that a lot of 'natural' human behaviours have been outlawed over the years.). 2) Animal use is okay if it is painless. However, as shown by the examples, we wouldn't kill and eat an orphaned, unattached mentally disabled child, exactly intellectually equal to a pig, which makes this point mute. 3) We are dictating ethics to other nations which would make them feel inferior (or some such!). This makes very, very little sense as an argument. If we can afford to live in more environmentally friendly ways, should we shun this in favour of replicating the behaviour of the worlds poorest people, those who are struggling to feed themselves?! Of course not! Morality, especially animal rights, is about granting individuals the rights which they should reasonably be granted - this shouldn't be halted just because others don't do it! These points do not stand up, for the reasons given - so how on earth have we been able to disregard animal rights so easily! The point is that an animal, if it does live and experience it's own life, must have that life respected. After all, rights relate to characteristics, it isn't right to pick and choose which individuals have and do not have each right on factors other than these characteritics. It is perfectly 'natural' to want your own family, or your own friends to be happy and to care about them more than others - but this 'genetic' reasoning pattern of 'I'm human, so I am justified in protecting all my own over other species' doesn't make a lot of sense. The genetic reasoning gives us reason why we did develop doing things, but it doesn't give us reason to keep doing things (unless it is assumed there is some grand plans for humans written into our genetics, and that we stray from the path if we ignore them!). And anyway, you can have all the personal preference for humans that you like, it doesn't give reason to ignore at least basic animal rights - it isn't helping out other humans to ignore animal rights, in fact in terms of environmental and efficiency factors, it is doing the complete opposite. The point in this discussion is that the strong argument for animal rights gives us reason to buy things other than meat or dairy when we are shopping. To this point, I haven't seen much argument against. Except for 'it's my choice', which with all due respect doesn't need to be posted on a discussion board

No, I just argue for consistency as I have said before. I draw the same assumption as the rest of society that morality is important - which is a reasonable enough thing to assume (and in all debates you have to draw assumptions somewhere). This is where I draw the assumptions in this particluar issue, we could go further back and doubt we even exist and how we could ever know we do, but I prefer to draw the line at the acceptance of morality as important (for various reasons, but mainly as I have no reason to doubt this factor). My reason for arguing for the acceptance of animals as having rights, is that it is a reasonable extension given what rights are and how the world is by our best science. Hence there is good reason for changing this view (just like there was with countless other moral changes over the century). The reason I reject Christianity on many grounds, is that it is paradoxical by it's own terms (paradox after paradox appears in the bible). However it did get some things right, it was written with values which were already in society after all - there is no reason to reject things like morality without good reason. Anyway, this is waaay of topic now.

Haha oh how times have changed - my boss has to be THE authority on ice cream, and she chose Swedish Glace just for the taste (it wasn't some strange ice cream competition btw, was just while she was shopping). It is odd that something not made of 'cream' can taste 'creamier' than something that is...I'm sure that's some sort of conceptual paradox... But yeah, research it is.

Haha tell me about it! Yeah diet is important, but the point is that we can probably survive on either and so the ethics is the key. You're not likely to be party to anymore diseases as a vegan than you were as a meat eater as there is no nutrient that doesn't appear on one but does on the other, simple as that. The Osteporosis thing I have no idea as to the intracacies, but the China Study put it pretty well for me. Either way, if you're getting a vegan diet with enough calcium(of which there are many sources higher than dairy) then there shouldn't be an issue should there? If you are worried about your health, and actually considering veganism, then Swedish Glace is better for you than Ben and Jerrys, that's the only real nutritional difference we need on the matter

I know, wasn't using this as a reason to go vegan was just saying that both diets aren't hugely different in terms of sustaining human health. The only big issue that I draw between the two is that of heart disease - that's the one thing that if all the ethical issues were somehow negated would keep me from eating animal products. There is cholesterol in all animal products, and a third of the country die from it. But more over no matter how much you eat, you're always gonna have some swimming about in your arteris, which is mank. And I mean how hard is it to get used to eating a different texture of food to avoid this? I mean I grew up on a farm eating bugger all but meat, and my only problem going vegan was the worry beforehand. Anyway, I feel the health issue takes this thread a bit far from it's original source doesn't it?

A fine example of propogandha! Well done!

Well yeah, the truth is both vegans and carnists (I believe someone coined this phrase quite recently!) both survive to oldish ages generally (statsiticaly vegans a bit longer I think). The vegan propagandha is useful to counter-act the carnist propogandha (which is often more inherent in society), but neither side is a substitute for good science. At the end of the day it comes down to ethics, and in my years of readings/discussions and research, I have yet to come up with an argument which levels the one for animal rights.

Haha, that would totally get me actually