Animal Welfare

[Old Gold]

yeah i figured that too, nah just seemed like he joined up deliberately to cause a bit of fuss, especially with his user name, ach well, i'm out of this before someone posts a diagram of the poultry slaughtering routine:puke:

Bit hypocritical coming from the guy who went into a thread to stifle discussion, post lame pictures and plainly tell people you hate them, to be brutally honest.

Not that it needs clarified to anyone that can read, but I reckon Mr Vegan has contributed a lot of good stuff to this thread. Long may it continue.

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

Why's it not a good argument? We live in a democratic society and things are usually done by majority votes. I'm pretty sure the omnivores in our society vastly outweigh the herbivores in numbers. That's a majority. The majority of people aren't opposed to eating meat. I'm one of that majority through personal choice. Do you really need to have everything explained to you by default?

It also doesn't make it automatically wrong either. Farming animals for food is nothing like slavery so i wish people would stop using that as an analogy.

Did you watch the Peter Singer link? Do you deliberately try not to understand anything? Can you seriously not think of a single counterexample to the idea that the opinion of the majority is the correct one? Have you read a single book on this subject? Have you considered that you might simply be trying to defend your own chosen lifestyle instead of objectively examining the evidence and philosophical argument? Have you researched multiple academic views and thought about the logical consistency of each?

Yes I do need all these things explained, because your consistently obtuse and unlettered views are so easily rebutted that it beggers belief.

[ca_gere]

I'm a bit lost with this thread... what are the opposing arguments?

Animal cruelty = bad, everyone agrees.

Eating meat = acceptable if it does not equte to animal cruelty. not essential to survival and a choice we can now make not to do. Whereas in the historic past it was a necessity.

Vegetarianism = not all veggies are the preachy type.

[Alkaline]

Did you watch the Peter Singer link? Do you deliberately try not to understand anything? Can you seriously not think of a single counterexample to the idea that the opinion of the majority is the correct one? Have you read a single book on this subject? Have you considered that you might simply be trying to defend your own chosen lifestyle instead of objectively examining the evidence and philosophical argument? Have you researched multiple academic views and thought about the logical consistency of each?

Yes I do need all these things explained, because your consistently obtuse and unlettered views are so easily rebutted that it beggers belief.

No, i haven't had a chance yet. I understand your viewpoint perfectly i just don't agree. I certainly can but by default that also doesn't mean that the majority is wrong (can you not see that?). I have a degree that covers this area along with a lot of other biological/genetic areas so i have read quiet a lot of books related to this actually. I'm entitled to defend my opinion as are you but i'm not saying you're wrong. The evidence is not conclusive and the philosophical merits of this topic are more than debatable. Yes.

Try not being so patronising to someone who does know what they are talking about please. My views are no more obtuse than yours. Unlike you, i can actually see both sides of the argument and i'm not constantly telling people that they're wrong and being condescending or insulting like you either. You haven't rebutted a single thing i've said, all you've done is waxed lyrical and quoted wikipedia and some hacks to try and look clever.

[KimyReizeger]

Alkaline

Neither the clothes I wear, or my decision to wear clothes at all, have any relevance to a discussion of the morality of meat-eating. And yes, it is a necessity in Scotland to wear clothes.

Just because millions of people believe in something doesn't make it correct; far from it. Most people read the sun and talk endlessly about football. Most people think very minimally about their lives, and judge seldom their actions. God save us from the hell that would ensue if you gave most people in this country - the lager-swilling, drug-addicted, tv-numbed, easily-manipulated, emotionally insecure, overdrafted, over-fed majority - control over moral issues.

The arguments for quitting meat produced by BletherinVegan are far more compelling than the ramshackle protest raised against them. It appears that the only argument for eating meat is the fact that it tastes good. On the contrary a vegetarian lifestyle negates the rearing of animals for food, and the pain and stress incurred along the way. Therefore it would appear that the most moral thing would be to stop eating meat.

Thus we are left to decide whether or not we want to sacrifice small luxuries in order to lead a more moral life.

[HeinzHines]

Just because millions of people believe in something doesn't make it correct

Ironic for both points of view.

[Zapatista]

Damn straight you're not except from the whole process! You feed your dog commercially produced meat, an animal which has a diet that you essentially have complete control over! Not to mention the fact that you wear animal skin in the name of fashion (which might I add, does not come from the same cow that got carved up to feed your hungry hound).

I disagree that every little helps in this case. Hypocrites can cripple a cause. I don't doubt that your heart is in the right place though, and you've certainly struck up a decent debate. You'll likely be preaching to the converted however.

Why are you being so aggressive about it, if you can find a single thread where I have stated I think I am better tahn others cause I don't eat meat you can have my GF for a week, I think you'll find I won't!

I raised this thread to try and highlight the pain some animals endure at slaughter, it was others that turned this into either a veige debate, or a moral debate, NOT ME!

Just for reference was an article in the EE yesterday in regards to a local slaughter house being fined for causing unnecessary suffering in animals. Think that makes my initial point a valid one!

Tomas

[Shaki]

No, i haven't had a chance yet. I understand your viewpoint perfectly i just don't agree. I certainly can but by default that also doesn't mean that the majority is wrong (can you not see that?). I have a degree that covers this area along with a lot of other biological/genetic areas so i have read quiet a lot of books related to this actually. I'm entitled to defend my opinion as are you but i'm not saying you're wrong. The evidence is not conclusive and the philosophical merits of this topic are more than debatable. Yes.

Try not being so patronising to someone who does know what they are talking about please. My views are no more obtuse than yours. Unlike you, i can actually see both sides of the argument and i'm not constantly telling people that they're wrong and being condescending or insulting like you either. You haven't rebutted a single thing i've said, all you've done is waxed lyrical and quoted wikipedia and some hacks to try and look clever.

Didn't you know that every academic and moral philosopher in the world is a vegetarian?! You must have missed that class.

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

Ironic for both points of view.

Not really, the point is clearly that neither side should be using this invalid argument.

[paranoid]

Therefore it would appear that the most moral thing would be to stop eating meat.

How did you get to that conclusion? I'm not convinced, and I'm sure there are others who are yet to see a valid point, free from slavery, cannibalism and other "whacky" ideas that are detracting from the discussion.

[nullmouse]

This thread makes great reading, but I just wanted to add in that it's not just B-12 deficiency that vegans have to worry about - Calcium, Vitamin D and n-3 fatty acids are also likely to be sparse in a vegan's diet, but can be compensated for by supplementation. Deficiencies in Vitamin D and calcium can have long-term health impacts on bones, so vegan diets shouldn't be taken lightly as a choice for children or the elderly without proper consultation from a real doctor. I know it probably goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: Anyone considering a drastic change in diet should consult their GP first.

So yeah, properly controlled a vegan diet is sustainable, but requires supplementation and careful monitoring. An omnivore diet also requires careful monitoring (as any diet idealistically should to be effective) but is not reliant upon supplementation. For us in the UK, where we can buy supplements with ease, you could argue that the choice comes down to being a moral one. Although, just to throw a spanner in the works, the supplement business is just as bad an industry as big pharma, plus the cost of our convenient access to these supplements or wide range of food choices with an accessible reach comes at the exploitation of the environment, resources and people for our benefit. Could you truly have a healthy, vegan diet without any exploitation? (I actually don't know the answer to that - I'm trying not to be a rhetorical aresehole).

I would not agree that a properly controlled vegan diet imparts any better health properties than a properly controlled omnivore diet and I would certainly not agree that the China study comes anywhere near convincing me otherwise: As someone else has already pointed out, genetics play a huge factor in health in relation to diet, and other cultural influences confound the comparisons made within the China study meaning it's far too complicated to tease out the sole effects of diet from the quagmire of other factors involved in the author's comparisons.

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

No, i haven't had a chance yet. I understand your viewpoint perfectly i just don't agree. I certainly can but by default that also doesn't mean that the majority is wrong (can you not see that?). I have a degree that covers this area along with a lot of other biological/genetic areas so i have read quiet a lot of books related to this actually. I'm entitled to defend my opinion as are you

Try not being so patronising to someone who does know what they are talking about please. My views are no more obtuse than yours. Unlike you, i can actually see both sides of the argument and i'm not constantly telling people that they're wrong and being condescending or insulting like you either. You haven't rebutted a single thing i've said, all you've done is waxed lyrical and quoted wikipedia and some hacks to try and look clever.

In reverse order if I may. Hacks? Peter Singer is a hack? The guy literally wrote the book on animal rights.

Wikipedia? What? Are you thinking of someone else? Work out who you are arguing with.

And also, yes I have waxed lyrical, because I have an interest in the subject.

I can see both sides of the debate. I see one side giving reasoned positive evidence, and the other giving negative evidence. The only positive evidence so far in favour has been of meats great taste, usually followed by a statement declaring how little the meat eater both knows and cares about the debate.

I apologise for coming across as patronising, but you actually are objectively wrong in some of your reasoning, and to say that you know what you are talking about is frankly laughable considering you haven't heard of any of the philosophical arguments before (the slavery analogy, speciesism, the naturalistic fallacy, democratic morality, the sophisticated inegalitarian argument), most of which an undergraduate would cover in the first few months. The funniest thing is, of all the subjects in moral philosophy there are none as conclusive as the argument against being a carnivore. It was controversial in the 70s, but is academically accepted almost across the board in present day. Considering that the book isn't closed on such debates as abortion and the death sentence, that means a lot.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, I'm just suggesting that your opinion isn't worth much on this particular subject. I'm sure your opinions on matters in which you are better informed (genetics for example) are worth much more.

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

This thread makes great reading, but I just wanted to add in that it's not just B-12 deficiency that vegans have to worry about - Calcium, Vitamin D and n-3 fatty acids are also likely to be sparse in a vegan's diet, but can be compensated for by supplementation. Deficiencies in Vitamin D and calcium can have long-term health impacts on bones, so vegan diets shouldn't be taken lightly as a choice for children or the elderly without proper consultation from a real doctor. I know it probably goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway: Anyone considering a drastic change in diet should consult their GP first.

So yeah, properly controlled a vegan diet is sustainable, but requires supplementation and careful monitoring. An omnivore diet also requires careful monitoring (as any diet idealistically should to be effective) but is not reliant upon supplementation. For us in the UK, where we can buy supplements with ease, you could argue that the choice comes down to being a moral one. Although, just to throw a spanner in the works, the supplement business is just as bad an industry as big pharma, plus the cost of our convenient access to these supplements or wide range of food choices with an accessible reach comes at the exploitation of the environment, resources and people for our benefit. Could you truly have a healthy, vegan diet without any exploitation? (I actually don't know the answer to that - I'm trying not to be a rhetorical aresehole).

I would not agree that a properly controlled vegan diet imparts any better health properties than a properly controlled omnivore diet and I would certainly not agree that the China study comes anywhere near convincing me otherwise: As someone else has already pointed out, genetics play a huge factor in health in relation to diet, and other cultural influences confound the comparisons made within the China study meaning it's far too complicated to tease out the sole effects of diet from the quagmire of other factors involved in the author's comparisons.

Welcome to the thread!

Let's say for the sake of argument that eating meat was proved unequivocally to be better for you, would that change the moral status of being a vegetarian? I don't think it would.

The majority of the literature on this subject isn't concerned with the idea that which ever diet is better for us is more moral, mainly because the health benefits are arbitrary. If we needed to have meat to live, then the case might be different, but not necessarily.

Also for anyone joing late in the thread here's the Peter Singer link again.

[Teabags]

I have the freedom to choose something that doesn't have any real detrimental effect to me or my fellow human beings, and i actually enjoy it.

Hate to be a cunt, but that brings us back to the dog and the blow-torch.

[Alkaline]

In reverse order if I may. Hacks? Peter Singer is a hack? The guy literally wrote the book on animal rights.

Wikipedia? What? Are you thinking of someone else? Work out who you are arguing with.

And also, yes I have waxed lyrical, because I have an interest in the subject.

I can see both sides of the debate. I see one side giving reasoned positive evidence, and the other giving negative evidence. The only positive evidence so far in favour has been of meats great taste, usually followed by a statement declaring how little the meat eater both knows and cares about the debate.

I apologise for coming across as patronising, but you actually are objectively wrong in some of your reasoning, and to say that you know what you are talking about is frankly laughable considering you haven't heard of any of the philosophical arguments before (the slavery analogy, speciesism, the naturalistic fallacy, democratic morality, the sophisticated inegalitarian argument), most of which an undergraduate would cover in the first few months. The funniest thing is, of all the subjects in moral philosophy there are none as conclusive as the argument against being a carnivore. It was controversial in the 70s, but is academically accepted almost across the board in present day. Considering that the book isn't closed on such debates as abortion and the death sentence, that means a lot.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, I'm just suggesting that your opinion isn't worth much on this particular subject. I'm sure your opinions on matters in which you are better informed (genetics for example) are worth much more.

Now, now. Just because Peter Singer wrote "the" book on Animal Rights doesn't mean he's not a hack and it also doesn't mean he's right.

No, i'm not completely wrong. I have a different opinion to you and my opinion hasn't been proved to be wrong at all. This is such a subjective argument due to the relative depths of what is and isn't moral. You could say that stretching human morality to the fate of animals isn't right, and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong. Where did i say i hadn't heard of those philosophical arguments? I actually studied Psychology, Philosophy and the History and Philosophy of Science at University as part of my course. It doesn't mean that i've discarded or denied the merits of any of them but due to my independent thought i currently don't agree with them being applied in this case. The book isn't closed on being omnivorous either (we're not talking about being carnivorous really as the majority of us meat eaters eat vegetables as well as part of our diets). Morals are subjective.

My opinion is worth as much as yours on the matter whether you agree with it or not.

[Alkaline]

Hate to be a cunt, but that brings us back to the dog and the blow-torch.

I know what you mean, but that wasn't what i was getting at.

[Le Stu]

Let's say for the sake of argument that eating meat was proved unequivocally to be better for you, would that change the moral status of being a vegetarian? I don't think it would.

]

Yes it does. It effectively makes a vegan a martyr. ie. I must suffer less than perfect health so that certain animals do not suffer. Since you're waving your Richard Dawkins around would you mind explaining to me why a species such an Homo Homo Sapiens should consider it a moral obligation to deviate from the standard omnivorous diet of primates when clearly chimpanzees and bonobos have no such compunction?

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

Now, now. Just because Peter Singer wrote "the" book on Animal Rights doesn't mean he's not a hack and it also doesn't mean he's right.

No, i'm not completely wrong. I have a different opinion to you and my opinion hasn't been proved to be wrong at all. This is such a subjective argument due to the relative depths of what is and isn't moral. You could say that stretching human morality to the fate of animals isn't right, and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong. Where did i say i hadn't heard of those philosophical arguments? I actually studied Psychology, Philosophy and the History and Philosophy of Science at University as part of my course. It doesn't mean that i've discarded or denied the merits of any of them but due to my independent thought i currently don't agree with them being applied in this case. The book isn't closed on being omnivorous either (we're not talking about being carnivorous really as the majority of us meat eaters eat vegetables as well as part of our diets). Morals are subjective.

My opinion is worth as much as yours on the matter whether you agree with it or not.

Moral relativism? And you got away with this in a philosophy class?

And seriously, as much as I have my problems with Singer, to call him a hack is unreal.

[Alkaline]

Moral relativism? And you got away with this in a philosophy class?

And seriously, as much as I have my problems with Singer, to call him a hack is unreal.

And that's where you fail. You aren't willing to entertain that a subject like this is morally relative.

He wouldn't be the first academic to be called one and i'm sure he's not crying over spilled soya milk as we speak.

[Le Stu]

Hate to be a cunt, but that brings us back to the dog and the blow-torch.

The Dog And Blowtorch sounds like the kid of pub I would drink in.

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

Yes it does. It effectively makes a vegan a martyr. ie. I must suffer less than perfect health so that certain animals do not suffer. Since you're waving your Richard Dawkins around would you mind explaining to me why a species such an Homo Homo Sapiens should consider it a moral obligation to deviate from the standard omnivorous diet of primates when clearly chimpanzees and bonobos have no such compunctions?

Well first of all, go back about 10 pages to read what I have already said about the naturalistic fallacy. A case could be made for war being inherent ergo natural, but that wouldn't make it moral. The point is that we are out of the grip of the evolutionary struggle and therefore do not have to act according to the laws of the jungle, but can decide rationaly what is the best thing to do. This point is really fucking tired by the way.

Let's say that it was proved that having a human slave was proved to be better for your health and well being, would that hold any water in the argument? Would that make you into some kind of a martyr for not having a slave?

Homo Homo Sapiens? I think that's just your species mate!

[TheTickingTime-Bomb]

And that's where you fail. You aren't willing to entertain that a subject like this is morally relative.

He wouldn't be the first academic to be called one and i'm sure he's not crying over spilled soya milk as we speak.

There is an objective moral truth. Not a Platonic "Theory of Ideas" style "out there" morality, but a simple, objective, human, logical truth.

[Alkaline]

There is an objective moral truth. Not a Platonic "Theory of Ideas" style "out there" morality, but a simple, objective, human, logical truth.

Yes, but why apply human morality to something that doesn't apply human morality to us? If we're edging on equality for animals and that sort of school of thought by applying our morals when dealing with our own species to them we've completely lost the plot as a species. Yes animals should not be allowed to suffer unnecessarily but it isn't immoral to kill an animal. It is immoral (under usual circumstances) to kill a human being. Even in our environment if you put a predatory animal into it, said animal wouldn't think twice about wrenching you from your mortal coil yet you'd quite happily let it due to some misguided and frankly ludicrous stretch of your moral code.

Just because i eat meat does not mean i'm immoral.

[paranoid]

Let's say that it was proved that having a human slave was proved to be better for your health and well being, would that hold any water in the argument? Would that make you into some kind of a martyr for not having a slave?

Why in the name of all fuck do you keep harping on about slavery?!?!

[nullmouse]

Welcome to the thread!

Let's say for the sake of argument that eating meat was proved unequivocally to be better for you, would that change the moral status a vegetarian? I don't think it would.

The majority of the literature on this subject isn't concerned with the idea that which ever diet is better for us is more moral, mainly because the health benefits are arbitrary. If we needed to have meat to live, then the case might be different, but not necessarily.

Cheers min!

First, I'd like to declare that I am looking in to one specific claim that's been made once or twice throughout this thread, that vegan diets are universally supported by dietary associations etc. This doesn't tally with my experience, that a healthy diet is described to include diary products, fish and meat. I think this is relevant, because of the issue of supplementation - Is a supplemented diet a natural one? It interests me because one aspect of the moral argument would revolve around what we, as a species, are adapted to eat: Just because we have worked out how, in the developed world, to bypass our need for meat by artificial supplementation doesn't make veganism universally applicable from a moral aspect: We couldn't expect people in less Holland-and-Barrett infested areas of the world to survive healthily without utilising meat or diary, for example, nor could we look down upon them as less moral beings as a result. Even within the UK, does everyone have the means to support a vegan diet when a balanced diet can be obtained using cheap meat and diary products? I'm curious about what moral superiority this creates, to be blunt.

I'd actually say that the moral stance as a vegetarian is untenable if it's a choice made for animal welfare issues: Animals are still killed as a direct result of providing diary (given that most of us would be rightly suspicious of milk produced from male cows). For a vegan, the welfare rights, and political stance it probably relates to, I would not imagine they would be convinced to change diet if a meat diet was proven to be beneficial - So long as their diet wasn't detrimental to health. I don't have a problem with that choice, although the secret humanist in me hopes they look after themselves and eat well no matter what.