Arguments against veganism

[brewerb]

My wife should stop imitating a peccary.

[Rhythmcs]

All this discussion about supposed rights. About legality, about self defense. These are not moral invocations. We enjoy the right to do a great many immoral things. Illegal things and immoral things are not the same things, and there's plenty of situations in which self defense, while legal..is in no way moral.

If a person believes that animals are suffering for their diet, and that they cannot stand the idea of it - then they should do something about that. They should not believe, however, that simply going vegan will reduce animal suffering. That would be lazy, and false. The changes and choices that would need to be made to satisfy that compulsion are more involved and site specific at a local level..and at a global scale - petrochemical agriculture will continue to kill as many animals and in as gruesome and uncontrolled a way as always, no matter what it produces - while walking away from petrochemical agriculture would require a vast increase in livestock production. This is before we get into land use and land use capacity, the suffering of the humans involved in production, or the even greater suffering (and increased predation) that would ensue if they no longer had access to livestock, the livestock industry, and the industries which support it - to say nothing of the industries which it, in turn, already supports. These are just the practical considerations from within the framework offered by "the moral argument" for veganism. The moral aspect is itself questionable. Do we have a moral responsibility when it comes to biological imperatives? Should we commit self righteous suicide, or murder? If we do, and we should, is it morally bad when we fail to do so, or is it negatively weighted, but permissible? ...and...ofc...who cares about moral arguments for anything if they're all subjective. Just opinions?

TLDR version, if a person wants to insinuate that another person is a moral failure on account of what's on their fork and have that accepted as some sort of obvious fact...it'd better be their next door neighbors still beating heart.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My wife should stop imitating a peccary.

:Jokes about 'makin' bacon' will NOT be read.:

[epronovost]

They should not believe, however, that simply going vegan will reduce animal suffering.  That would be lazy, and false. 

We are not simply talking about veganism, but ethical veganism here. I would say most vegans (or at least a large portion of them) are ethical vegans. They do not consider that simply going vegan will reduce animal suffering. They actively seek to convince others to adopt veganism too; they are very active and leader and founders of group of defense of animal rights. They are amongst the most ardent conservationists and environmentalists and actively seek to radically change society in way that would reduce animal suffering and subjugation to human's will and needs. Ethical vegans actively compare themselves and their cause to that of abolitionists of the 19th century; they don't just want people not to eat meat (or wear wool, animal leather or fur). they want to radically change how are society consider and treats animals. Veganism, in that context, is a personal practice necessary for the ethical framework in which the ethical vegan operates. If you can't change the world by yourself, the first possible step you can make is stop consuming products made from animal's dead bodies or from animal body parts.

[Rhythmcs]

Ah, so, fantasists.

[Fireball]

Ah, so, fantasists.  

Next they'll be telling people pulling the faces off of crickets is unethical. But avoiding eating cricket shit is a health imperative for said cricket eaters. 

[SYZ]

...Humans, being omnivorous, thus have the same right to predation than any other meat eating animals and thus the killing of animals for food would be acceptable.

Why wouldn't this right to predation also allow killing other humans for food, reproduction, or shelter? Animals kill members of their own species all the time, for food or to eliminate rival mates. Is it ok for a homeless person to cannibalise someone for food, or kill a rival mate?

I know you're posing this question rhetorically, but all the same I'm
pretty concerned that it's crossed your mind.

Humans are the only animals that posses the logic of ethics and morality.  
Animals survive on inescapable instinct alone; humans do not. And Nature
favours survival over sentiment.

[epronovost]

Ah, so, fantasists.  

Next they'll be telling people pulling the faces off of crickets is unethical. But avoiding eating cricket shit is a health imperative for said cricket eaters. 

Just so you know, vegans are against the consumption of insects too. So no cricket meat or flour allowed; no honey either. I don't know what's their position on pollinating hives (aka hives whose purpose is to pollinate in fruits and vegetable farms). I don't think they know this is a thing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm seeing a lot of assumptions that everybody has the same metabolism and needs the same things in the same amounts in their diet. I'm not the same person as my 500+ lbs cousins.

[Fireball]

Next they'll be telling people pulling the faces off of crickets is unethical. But avoiding eating cricket shit is a health imperative for said cricket eaters. 

Just so you know, vegans are against the consumption of insects too. So no cricket meat or flour allowed; no honey either. I don't know what's their position on pollinating hives (aka hives whose purpose is to pollinate in fruits and vegetable farms). I don't think they know this is a thing.

Sorry, I left out this emoji. 

[Jarsa]

If you are in a situation where to survive you sbsolutely need to kill and eat another human being; that murder would fall under the rubric of self defense. It already happened before and that's our society treats it; cannibalism and murder in some situation is legal if aweful. Of course, it needs to be a last necessecity because we are part of the same society/group and thus have rights and responsabilities designed to insure mutual safety and survival. Rights don't exist in a vaccuum. No, a "right to predation" assume or extand to a right to kill anybody or anyone because you are a bit peckish; making such an argument is obviously in bad faith.

The cannibal would be in the same position most people who eat meat are in. They don't NEED to kill and eat another human, they just like the taste. If someone is poor, or has health issues that prevent them from being vegan, that's fine. I'm only talking about people who have the choice to be vegan, but don't want to. What's the difference between this cannibal and someone who eats meat for pleasure?

[Jarsa]

I know you're posing this question rhetorically, but all the same I'm
pretty concerned that it's crossed your mind.

Humans are the only animals that posses the logic of ethics and morality.  
Animals survive on inescapable instinct alone; humans do not. And Nature
favours survival over sentiment.

I've thought about this justification for not giving weight to animal suffering. They aren't moral agents, so we don't need to include them in our moral system. But I ran into problems with humans who are too mentally disabled to understand ethics or morality, and only care about themselves.

[epronovost]

 I'm only talking about people who have the choice to be vegan, but don't want to. What's the difference between this cannibal and someone who eats meat for pleasure?

To an ethical vegan, as far I understand, absolutely nothing. As far as I am concerned, I think I have answered quite clearly how cannibalistic murder is very different from predation (or animal husbandry which is a form of predation) and how one is immoral while the other is not.

[Rhythmcs]

I've thought about this justification for not giving weight to animal suffering. They aren't moral agents, so we don't need to include them in our moral system. But I ran into problems with humans who are too mentally disabled to understand ethics or morality, and only care about themselves.

Must we keep a comatose person alive? Or do you just mean why can't we eat assholes?

The Problem™ often turns out to be "this moral system doesn't reach all of the conclusions I wish it would". Of course any moral system that meters moral responsibility based on the other subjects moral agency (and not your own.....for whatever reason....) is going to end up saying that it's permissable to do some otherwise impermissable thing to some person. Social contract theory, for example, implies you owe nothing to anyone who is not onboard with said contract. Doesn't matter whether they're normally functioning or not.

[SYZ]

Currently, anthropologists have confirmed that no modern human
group is known to practice routine, socially accepted cannibalism.
Practices that existed historically among some groups in Papua
New Guinea, or parts of the Southern Americas have disappeared
due to cultural change, local legalities, and contact with the outside
world.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Currently, anthropologists have confirmed that no modern human
group is known to practice routine, socially accepted cannibalism.
Practices that existed historically among some groups in Papua
New Guinea, or parts of the Southern Americas have disappeared
due to cultural change, local legalities, and contact with the outside
world.

Isn't there an island in the I.O. that is home to a group that eats uninvited "guests"?

[SYZ]

...Isn't there an island in the I.O. that is home to a group that eats uninvited "guests"?

Apparently not:

Since colonial times, there's been a pervasive rumour that the
Sentinelese are cannibals. There's no evidence to support this,
and a 2006 analysis from the Indian government following the
death of two fishermen on the island concluded that the group
does not practice cannibalism.

The false belief reportedly grew from misunderstanding the practice
of a neighbouring tribe, the Onge, who cut up and burned the flesh of
their deceased to prevent them from being consumed by evil spirits.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Thanks. Couldn't remember the name. Inquiring minds want to know.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Do you think there are any logical arguments against veganism, or is it just one of those things that you know is morally wrong, but you do it anyway because its enjoyable or practical?

I thought of a moral system where humans operate under a social contract theory for mutual benefit, but I can't really justify excluding animals without running into problems like "why shouldn't we exclude disabled people then?"

A logical argument against vegetarian/vegan diets isn't hard at all:

It's just plain harder to get all the essential nutrients you need from a vegetarian/vegan diet.

That being said, the issues are far from insurmountable. The problems typically arise when vegetarians/vegans make that lifestyle choice relying on pop-culture information and food producer's marketing claims (0 net carbs!!1!). It's not just a choice to not eat meat/not use animal products. In most cases, it's re-learning much of what you already know about food. How to properly source things like vitamin B12, iron, and Omega-3 fatty acids. Things that are readily available on meats, and have better uptake from meat, than their vegetable sourced alternatives. We've evolved as an omnivorous species and breaking from that is going to be difficult. And, if you don't do it right, your health will suffer to one degree or another, depending on how much you get wrong.

Logical arguments against vegetarian/vegan morality is a whole other thing. The above is rooted in science. Morality is rooted in subjectivity and there are as many subjective arguments in favor as there are against

Personally, if someone finds it morally wrong to eat meat, I have no problem with that. It's their life to live as they choose, and their morality is their morality. I'm not going to, nor would I want to, change it. Besides, I get their bacon.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If you have the physiology for a vegan diet then have fun. If you don't it can kill you. Still, have fun if you want to.

[Mathilda]

I've thought about this justification for not giving weight to animal suffering. They aren't moral agents, so we don't need to include them in our moral system.

Actually they are moral agents. There are plenty of examples of animals helping out other animals, even of a different species. They can also have a sense of fairness.



Or do you think morality was invented by human society? Do you think if society collapsed we'd all revert back to being completely amoral?

Or is morality innate in which case why shouldn't other animals have evolved it as well?

[GenesisNemesis]

I've thought about this justification for not giving weight to animal suffering. They aren't moral agents, so we don't need to include them in our moral system.

Actually they are moral agents. There are plenty of examples of animals helping out other animals, even of a different species. They can also have a sense of fairness.



Or do you think morality was invented by human society? Do you think if society collapsed we'd all revert back to being completely amoral?

Or is morality innate in which case why shouldn't other animals have evolved it as well?

 
The idea that humans are the only animals capable of moral reasoning, should be considered a myth at this point and it's been widely debunked. I'd put it on the same level as the "we only use 10% of our brain" myth. 

[Dānu]

I'm not sure that employing moral reasoning makes one a moral agent in the relevant sense.

[GenesisNemesis]

I'm not sure that employing moral reasoning makes one a moral agent in the relevant sense.

It's really just a made up concept though. Like the concept of a planet- we decide what qualities a planet should have. We also decide what qualities moral agents should have.

[Rhythmcs]

What would the relevant sense be, and in what sense would anything be a moral agent if employing moral reasoning did not make it so?

-for clarification more than anything - I don't think whether or not a second thing is a moral agent provides a complete or satisfactory answer to whether or not a first thing has a moral responsibility towards it - we can note that there isn't (or at least shouldn't be) any dispute over whether or not other people are moral agents and we still think it's at least permissable to do some pretty horrible shit to them.