Rob_86

I can categorically say that this is correct. Though if there was another interesting thread I can also say that this wouldn't be the case.

They are still recommending dairy as a source of calcium? I had no idea, that's shocking. I'm not big on science, but I have a pretty good understanding (vegan or non-vegan) that dairy isn't a useful source of calcium for humans - and that green veggies store calcium in much higher concentrates.

Yeah this is a very good point, and of course we have to be very careful on scientific issues. When it comes to dairy and bone health (to pick at a single issue) I think it's more accepted now that dairy isn't particularly useful (is this not what the WHO calls the calcium paradox - something in dairy, acidity or phosphorousness or something like that, which counteracts the use humans get from the calcium.). But yeah, the problem is someone is always trying to prove something when it comes to nutritional science it seems - as I say, I prefer ethics as everyone can understand it, science is harder!

Yeah I think we are agreeing to a point. Speciesism could be taken onto irrational conclusions (like ageism can incidentally), in ways that it's hard to do with the other ism's (racism or sexism). And I can see how this would irritate you guilt by association, as the two are different on these grounds. I guess speciesism shares the same qualities with ageism than racism really, as it is flexible in similar ways (except we don't use ageism as a reason to farm, kill and eat people - though older arguments opposing animal rights used to claim this in a roundabout sort of way!). But that kind of shows that species difference being used to justify death is no better than the equivolent of using very young age to determine such. On the '"animals and humans are equal in the ability to consciously experience their own life", again I think we're agreeing in a way. I don't mean that animals and humans experience their life in the same manner, I simply mean that it is of the same kind (ie, that life fares experientially better or worse for the one whos' life it is - and to eahc individual their life is everything). We do definetely possess useful characteristics that allow us to experience life in a richer way (in my opinon). But on a similar scale, one might also think they experience the joys of mozart and formal logic and that this makes their experience of life richer than those who enjoy big brother and action novels. This isn't a relevant difference in a 'right' to live your life though, as the analogy shows.

That's the point, soy milk is no worse than dairy when it comes to oestrogen levels and those hormones, and in fact all vegetables have these instances of that kinda stuff in them. It's all sensationalised. The myths about soya products are, sadly, still accepted even by government authorities in some countries, while the problems with dairy are yet to be accepted even slightly. Agree with your second point. Feeding food like soya to cows is completely counter productive regardless of the moral arguments, however whilst the demand is so high it's going to be neccessary.

Well that'a strange argument then, because sex and race is a difference - there is flexibility, and there is flexibility between humans. Kids aren't allowed to vote etc. Species divides have relevant differences, which provides relevant moral differences - whereas it has relevant similarities also. What you're trying to do is to say either animals are humans or are nothing like them, whereas morally speaking it's perfectly okay to give an individual the rights their characteristics demand, whilst wiholding the one's that they can't use. For instance, as I said, children don't have a right to vote, but have a right to live. What you have hoped to prove, if you think have proved, would have also proved that children have no right to live - which doesn't make sense, as they have the relevant characteristics to deserve this right. I don't think there is anything anthropomorphic about animal rights at all. The idea of speciesism, as I've said before isn't as strong as the case for animal rights - but it does put across a good single point. If you don't allow a creature, or a 6 month old child for that matter, a right to vote, then there is nothing wrong with that - you're not being ageist or speciesist - you're picking out a relevant difference. However animals and humans are equal in the ability to consiously experience their own life, so it would be speciesist to begin eating one whilst protectng the other with laws against murder. You can argue species preference as to which one you would save in a house fire etc (species preference is as good as familiarity preference or any other type), but that gives no strength at all to allow the killing and eating of one when you don't need to.

Well now we are on a different ethical theory altogether - what is the value that desires there be as many species (man-made and naturalloy evolved) as possible? For my own, and other humans' aesthetic pleasure, it is nice to see as many different types of animals running around as possible, I think a more important concern is individuals and their rights. Shown by the fact that I would never sacrifice a human or animal life, or confine either and force it to reproduce so as i can see more of that species or race. The whole nature of desire to protect 'species' rather than 'individuals' is bizarrely formed to say the least, in my opinion.

Haha, someone should probably let you know that dairy comes from female cows, whilst pregnant/just afterwards. Do you know how many hormones female mammals have pumping through them when lactating? Oh and also, most farm animals are fed soya products too - so you are eating it, just filtered through another creatures system. Other than that, I love your argument!

This argument doesn't stop us from treating animals as the individuals they are. No matter how much we argue 'cows aren't humans' it doesn't change the fact that they share the relevant characteristics that make them desire to live thier lives like you or I would. The idea that species boudaries make it okay is bizarre, and presumably crops up as most of us don't have to consider this moral thought as we look the animal we are about to kill in the eye - we paid for it to be killed in an automatic proceess instead to take this away. Basically, we stopped seeing race as important as it was irrelevant in the ideas of all 'human rights'. Well now we know that species is irrelevant in the idea of some rights - to life and not to be tortured etc. Species IS relevant when it comes to other rights, and is why animals have no claim to many of our higher rights, but there is no sense in which a physical or intellectual difference justifies a difference in the basic rights - especially those which the animal has direct claim to (by virtue of being a conscious individual, or by inherently valuing not being in pain). Animals are different to humans in many ways, but not in these ways, so shouldn't be in these rights.

It's not really speciesist at all, there wouldn't be any farmed animals to deny of food if we didn't breed them, hence not causng a problem. And on the contrary the example of the aliens proves that rights aren't related merely to humans, but to individual characteristics (regardless of how fictional the example is). It is exactly designed to test our moral boudaries, and subject them to reason rather than habit.

Not really, I don't think that's particularly likely. All vegans don't get in their diet is dead flesh (with very few nutritional qualities) dairy (which has a couple, but still relatively few) and eggs (barely any again). The few things that you do find in these things, are found in an abundance on vegan diets - in many different types of food. If something like soya were to be disastrously wiped out, there wouldn't be a great deal of difference. The key to addressning your concerns, I guess, would be not to plant too much of one thing wouldn't it? Soya is in a lot of vegan products, because people like it, but it isn't necesary.

No I do understand this, and would agree - you can always get on better etc with your own species (except many Aberdonian farmers I'm lead to believe) I think that's a very valid point. But still doesn't make us any less obliged to respect the lives of these non-human animals. I mean you are meant to get on better with your own flesh and blood too, and have more feelings for protecting them, doesn't give you reason to go out and eat those other members of the human race. You don't have to 'love' all creatures like you 'love' you're family, but I think there is a moral case for respecting them and not doing anything to put them at harm which you don't need to do.

I don't think that'ds a particularly strong view, as show by the 'aliens' thought experiment (not the movie). If aliens discovered Earth and had the same abilities as us, but slightly better, they would be party to most of the 'human' rights we grant. Hence showing that these rights aren't 'human' rights at all, they are just rights. Just as skin colour should have no bearing on an individuals right to live, neither should number of legs, wooliness of fur, or intellectual abilities (after all, the less mentally able a human is, the mroe we protect them). The suggestion and case of 'speciesism', though not as techinical and compelte as the rest of the animal rights argument, is just as strong as the reasons against racism. As for the economic viability, that's another practical issue. But given the efficiency of vegan diets (animals take many times their use as food, in feed, not to mention far more water than crops, and the harm on the environment which is just becoming publicised) then I would imagine society would flourish in the long run. And I'm no expert on the hunger issue, but given the inefficiency of animal products, isn't the figure of people who could be fed on them (or at least the recommended US diet with them in anyway) something like half the world. Food for the rich much? Even if we could solve the logistical problem of feeding the world, it's impossible without drastically cutting the idea that people need animal products.

That's kind of the point - you're still seeing it as 'if a human has the mental abilities of a cow, there still better than a cow', whereas the point is that it's not about being better than. In the right to experience these abilities, they are equal. Whatever your personal preferences are, the technical points are the same. There's nothing wrong with prefering a human life, but it doesn't give reason to go 'right humans are more important, protect all humans, and do what we like with the rest'. Hence why we vegans also advocate human rights and stuff (well, most of us) it's about life and respect, not animals being better.

Touche! Your right our wants to do 'what's right' probably originated from religion, but I think they stretch deeper than that. Either way I haven't ever met anyone who disagrees with the idea that doing 'what's right' is a good idea. However when it comes to taking the other ideas that Christianity gave us, the vast majority seem foundation-less. Especially this idea of humans as heaven granted rulers of the planet, especially as science suggests we were once animals without our current characteristics, so making us moral animals rather than heavenly suppported rulers. That's all I was getting at really. I don't agree with this. Because if a young or impaired human wasn't going to develop into a fully fledged , functioning human being, then I would still respect their right to live equally - if not more. Hence if you would also agree with this, then the idea that this development matters is rendered unimportant on this particular issue. As for the obligation to eat other animals, what is this meant to mean? Yes we are animals, but animals with morality! If we had no capacity for morality, there would be no obligation to act morally! Being animal doesn't give us reason to ignore our morality, it simply gives us reason to respect the other animals that share the traits of suffering with us. We are similar to other animals in suffering and being alive, but different in forms of morality - so can't act in ways that are relevant on each issue. And the 'eye for an eye' theory doesn't make sense in relation to animals anyway. 'They would kill me, so I can kill them'. That's fine if we disregard determinism and use it as a way to kill serial killers, but animals don't think morally - they can't be held to moral obligations as they don't have the capacity for morality. Either way the theory for animal rights seems to come out on top. This is an odd debate to be involved in for me - I keep hearing all the same arguments that I used to use, it's a little eerie.

What, this is just made up. If you go back and check the posts, it is not all mentally impaired people who I am saying have the intellectual abilities of a cat or dog - just the one's that do, and there are people that do. Well if you eat meat and don't think it is immoral that is what makes this discussion pointful, because the great moral arguments of our time seem to suggest otherwise. Hence why it's an interesting debate. Don't go getting all offended, it's just a debate, I'm not going to organise a mob to run you out of the city.

What? I haven't had a pop at anyone, I've simply used analogous thought experiments, which if you think are insults to those involved, then you aren't getting them! Except for the Christian thing...yeah you have a point there, my bad. But there are far bigger problems with Christianity which are reasons we don't include Christianity in our moral decisions anymore!

personally I wouldn't eat a mentally disabled person, not because of their social labels of being black or male, or of their physical labels of being human. I wouldn't eat them because I don't need to, and they have a right to live purely by virtue of being individually alive. That is how interactions take place (whether you kill the person yourself, or pay some one else to do it). So in the case of similar individuals who aren't human, the case is still the same and the exact same moral problem is present. You can't morally hide behind the labels of race or sex, so you shouldn't be able (in situations where the creature are mentally similar) to hide behind the labels of species - it doesn't make any logical sense.

This debate has got me thinking about some of the philosophical literature I have read on the subject. Especially on the sense of superiority we feel over other animals, and sense of complete uncomparability between us that we feel we want to attribute. This obviously comes from our development from a society which used to be Christian in base (and still probably is) and other such pre-evolutionary ideas. A lot of arguments on here haven't just seeked to point out the moral capacity difference between humans and other animals, but has also clutched at other differences that we more than anything want to be there, or want to be relevant. Well evolution, i think, shows there are a lot of similarities between us and other animals, and the only significant difference is the ability to conceptualise, and the capacity for morality. However the ability to conceptualise doesn't give a being greater rights, and the capacty for morality is pretty worthless unless it is used to a reasoned conclusion (not ignoring the ideas of speciesism - ie, not attributing an individual lesser rights purely based on physical boudaries - regardless of whether they can protest it or not). And either way, neither allow us to believe we suffer more, in fact some would say quite the opposite. I would just like to say, at my peril, that I think a lot of our emotion to reject humans and animals being 'basically' the same in terms of 'basic' rights, comes from a time of Christian moral values - the ideals of humans being a heaven sent shepherd for the planet. And, again I risk incurring somewhat of a heavenly revenge, but Christian ethics are mainly based on the desires of an arrogant mythical being - which is bollocks.

Haha the eternal optimist! I wouldn't like to be on the opposite side of you in a revolution.

ooh practical problem, does this mean that you've accepted the moral issue is important?! No point worrying about practical application if not! If something happened to the soya crops you would have a hell of a job feeding the animals we currently keep, and infact even a massive amount less due to the amount cows eat and the amount we need to feed ourselves. If something happens to our crops we're buggered on both ends - animal use and non-animal use. Again, the moral line is a practical application point. The best judge would be science, and judging which animals have nervous systems complex enough to feel emotion (by our best reckoning). I mean cows, pigs, chickens, fish etc obviously come above the line, comfortably. As for insects, I haven't researched it to be honest. My philosophy on the matter is, if you can't be sure then be careful. We have no idea if most insects suffer in a way which is important, but it's not like we need to eat them so until we can be sure leave the fine young critters alone - don't go out of your way to stamp on them, and if you do see one in the street, there is nothing wrong sidestepping it just in case!

'I mean that there is no way a cow is aware it is being reared to be eventually killed and eaten. It cannot grasp this and it never will be able to. They can probably experience fear, which is why the killing process should be as 'humane' as possible.' If this provides reason to farm and eat cows, it justifies the same of any individual who has those same characteristics of unawaredness etc. And obviously that doesn't sit well with moral thought, hence why it isn't upheld as a point against animal rights. Well, it is on here, but not in the literature! 'Please tell me why animals should have 'equal claim in our moral thought'. Why should they?' Well it's fairly simple. I don't treat human beings I meet with respect because they are human, I treat them with respect because they possess certain characteristics which deserve it. Similarly if an alien race appeared who had similar characteristics, I would treeat them with respect too - another thought experiemtn which shows it isn't 'being human' that matters, but instead it is the characteristics that humans have that matter. Well obviously pigs don't have our intelligence, or awaredness, or whatever else you like in this area. But they are individuals who experience their own life (which is the important things about humans) and so by virtue of this deserve the respect that goes along with it. They don't have intelligence on our level, so we don;t need to give them a right to vote. or right to education etc, but they do live , experience life and can suffer - so why wouldn't they be equal in these areas? I think the mistake you're making is taking the physical boudaries of species and suing it to determine moral decisions. Whereas, of course, rights aren't given on basis of physical boudaries, they are given by virtue of intellectual characteristics. Amnesty may have you believe that 'protect the human' is the point, but it is really 'protect the individuals ability to suffer' which is the important thing. It's not as catchy though.

Yeah it is pretty interesting...will have to PM for your address or something. Either way be warned that it is a dvd made by a pro-vegetarian group, so ignore the first lecture (which is just propogandha and not health based at all!). The rest of it is good though, Jane Plant and Colin Campbell on there (he's always interesting I find).

Well I wouild say it isn't really about whether they now they are going to die or not. It's just a simple philosophical thought experiment that's needed to tell us that. Ie, if you have one individual human who is at the same intellectual level as say a pig, it wouldn't be right to farm and then kill to eat him (even if it was shown to be healthy food), so that says something about our moral stance on the matter. That pig is just an individual, so if you can live without killing and eating him (like in the example if you can live without eating the mentally impaired individual) then you arguably should. I wouldn't advocate we treat animals well/don't use them because they are the same as us, I would advocate we treat them well because we can, and they can feel it if not. If we don't need to eat them, there is little reason to, regardless of how much they feel suffering etc - as the point is that they do.

Well no, but you have to remember that in America charities (especially the cancer charities) are run like businesses. There is very good dietary information, as you state, which involves cancer prevention - however they rarely will support these causes, instead working on the elusive cures. I would doubt our charities are run much better, especially from what I know of the british heart foundation anyway. As conspiracy based as it might sound, it is very difficult to get information out if there are interests that don't want it to. Link wise, after having a brief look I could only suggest giving you a copy of the propogandha-promoted DVD with lecture on. Either that or buy/obtain the book in which she talks about it (this one I would imagine: www.JanePlant.com).