Arguments against veganism

[SYZ]

Moral "agency" is a difficult thing to define.

Obviously to the individual its purely subjective, but many
disparate human groupings possess a unique societal morality
of their own—which of course differs from one grouping to
the next.

There're obvious examples... middle Eastern countries that
condone stoning a female to death for adultery, or subcontinental
countries permitting marriage of underage girls, or even in
Australia allowing Halal or Kosher killing practices by a religious
minority (which I find morally repugnant).

So one person's morality can be another person's amorality.
Although some believe that nothing is morally right or morally
wrong; that morality does not exist.   

[Rhythmcs]

Is it? The ability to conceive of moral propositions and act upon them seems like a pretty cut and dry definition of moral agency.

Whether a person thinks that putting mustard on a hot dog is maximally moral or maximally immoral, both are examples of our ability to conceive of moral propositions. It's a content neutral term. Moral agency is not what people believe to be moral or immoral, but that people believe things to be moral and immoral. Even if they aren't. Take the moral argument for veganism. It assumes that it's audience is comprised of moral agents, and seeks to show them how meat consumption is sideways with the ethics they already hold. The hope being that a person will, quite rationally, seek to change their opinions and life to be consistent with their moral beliefs. It may not succeed. It may make claims to facts that turn out to be untrue. It may make assumptions about the other persons ethics that do not obtain in reality. It will not fail because one or the other person is not a moral agent - and explicit moral disagreements can only exist between two moral agents.

Personally, I think the only time that taking life isn't an item of immediate moral concern is some weird perfect sadist/perfect masochist combo. I might still have societal concerns - like what would it mean for a community to allow such matches, but morally I'd be indifferent to that. I think it's fair to say that match is not an accurate representation of our state of affairs vis-a-vis livestock (or other animals in general). We don't want to be maximally cruel, and they don't want to be killed. It's our moral responsibility to ourselves I'd point to as compelling in this relationship. We can believe that we're in a community of being with these other animals that places some sort of restrictions on how they can be treated, and even believe that we ought to treat things we are not in a community of being with in the same way. In the world that we live in they are often the same problem. You cant kill the trees, which are not moral agents, without killing the animals, which may be.

[Jarsa]

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?

I think animals can act morally because they are evolutionarily primed to do so with empathy, not because they actually have he capability to understand game theory, and the benefits of sharing food in the long term. A lot of humans also behave morally because of this reason, but the difference is that they have the capability to understand morality in a logical sense, rather then just doing good things because you get a good feeling, or avoiding doing bad things because they give you a bad feeling. 

It's the difference between preconventional and conventional stages of morality in Kohlberg's stages.

[Rhythmcs]

Snails. It's unlikely that snails can act morally, or that they can understand morality in a logical sense. Does that mean that we humans, who can act morally and think logically about morality, should feel morally free to sprinkle them with salt? I think most people would say there's something wrong with that, still. That it doesn't fully and accurately express our moral intuitions. We do think that reduced agency can modify moral responsibility and moral desert, even if or when it doesn't modify the moral nature of a given act, but we don't believe that moral agency alone determines the validity (or intensity) of moral concern.

[Fireball]

I'm pretty sure snails have no moral imperative beyond eating, or procreating with another snail. I had a childhood friend who had a goose in his back yard. They had a slope running up a ways, planted with ivy. It strutted around up there, eating the snails. Snail's hungry, eats the ivy; goose is hungry, eats the snails. Win-win. Also, anyone who knows how territorial geese are, nobody went into that yard without a family member present. 

[Rizen]

Snails.  It's unlikely that snails can act morally, or that they can understand morality in a logical sense.  Does that mean that we humans, who can act morally and think logically about morality, should feel morally free to sprinkle them with salt?  I think most people would say there's something wrong with that, still.  That it doesn't fully and accurately express our moral intuitions.  We do think that reduced agency can modify moral responsibility and moral desert, even if or when it doesn't modify the moral nature of a given act, but we don't believe that moral agency alone determines the validity (or intensity) of moral concern.

I'm fine with killing creatures if they're food or pests. If there's ants or spiders in my house, I kill them. They're pests. Plenty more where they came from. So, to answer your question, if the snails were pests in a garden or something, or I wanted escargot, I think it's morally fine to kill them. I wouldn't go out of my way to kill them in nature though.

[Rhythmcs]

Do we not go out of our way to kill them because we're lazy or because we think there would be something wrong with that? Would it be morally fine for us to go well out of our way and kill them in the cruelest possible way? Inflicting the most pain we could, for the longest time we could apply it?

I suspect we can both be comfortable with killing pests or uncomfortable about killing pests depending on what methods we're prompted to respond to. I've got coyotes. They're pests. Do I snare them by the legs them watch then starve until they begin to gnaw off their paws and then and only then shoot them - say, in the stomach? OFCNot, neither of us are sociopaths. There's something wrong about us treating anything that way, regardless of whether or not that thing is a moral agent. Hell...it could be a wall. Somebody just goes to town, wanton destruction, on a wall....we look and think "wtf?".

[brewerb]

Note to self, stop cutting planaria in two.

[Fireball]

Note to self, stop cutting planaria in two.

 The Hydra!

[Rizen]

Do we not go out of our way to kill them because we're lazy or because we think there would be something wrong with that?  Would it be morally fine for us to go well out of our way and kill them in the cruelest possible way?  Inflicting the most pain we could, for the longest time we could apply it?  

I suspect we can both be comfortable with killing pests or uncomfortable about killing pests depending on what methods we're prompted to respond to.  I've got coyotes.  They're pests.  Do I snare them by the legs them watch then starve until they begin to gnaw off their paws and then and only then shoot them - say, in the stomach?  OFCNot, neither of us are sociopaths.  There's something wrong about us treating anything that way, regardless of whether or not that thing is a moral agent.  Hell...it could be a wall.  Somebody just goes to town, wanton destruction, on a wall....we look and think "wtf?".

If you're torturing animals it means you're a psycopath. Unless you have a ranch with livestock, coyotes usually aren't considered pests. I think in most cases killing them would be illegal.

[Jarsa]

Snails.  It's unlikely that snails can act morally, or that they can understand morality in a logical sense.  Does that mean that we humans, who can act morally and think logically about morality, should feel morally free to sprinkle them with salt?  I think most people would say there's something wrong with that, still.  That it doesn't fully and accurately express our moral intuitions.  We do think that reduced agency can modify moral responsibility and moral desert, even if or when it doesn't modify the moral nature of a given act, but we don't believe that moral agency alone determines the validity (or intensity) of moral concern.

Most people would think that is immoral because we evolved empathy. I wouldn't really say that should have an effect on whether we should include a snail in our moral system. I think the purpose of morality is to have the best possible experience for humans, not just a system that is consistent with our intuitions. After all, the moral intuitions given to use by evolution can misfire, which is why we intuit that incest is wrong, even without making children, but can't logical defend it.

[Rhythmcs]

Most people would think that is immoral because we evolved empathy. I wouldn't really say that should have an effect on whether we should include a snail in our moral system. I think the purpose of morality is to have the best possible experience for humans, not just a system that is consistent with our intuitions. After all, the moral intuitions given to use by evolution can misfire, which is why we intuit that incest is wrong, even without making children, but can't logical defend it.

Let's say this is true. 

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.

..and if killing those people who were diminished or selfish (really, add any negatively weighted attribute here) yielded the best possible human experience..what could the problem be? The ur argument for eugenics.

I'd say you have it about right in your formulation up top, but maybe not the consequences. It may be the case that our evolved empathy motivates us to a specific set of behaviors that we will (nevermind should) apprehend as morally important. If so, the possession of moral agency by a second subject is neither here nor there, it cannot be a problem, as all that matters is the contents of the first subjects empathetic moral agency. If it makes you feel like shit, don't do it. Doesnt matter whether or not you're really harming the second subject (or even object)..as the perception engenders harm to yourself, by itself.

Personally, I think it's conceivable that some moral thing would be a very bad experience for a person or for people. That some immoral thing may improve our experience.

[Rhythmcs]

If you're torturing animals it means you're a psycopath. Unless you have a ranch with livestock, coyotes usually aren't considered pests. I think in most cases killing them would be illegal.

Who cares if it's illegal, I'm wondering whether it would be immoral. We could make livestock illegal tomorrow and that won't make it immoral. We could make torturing animals (or killing any particular animal) legal tomorrow, and that won't make it moral.

[Jarsa]

..and if killing those people who were diminished or selfish (really, add any negatively weighted attribute here) yielded the best possible human experience..what could the problem be?  The ur argument for eugenics.

That's an interesting point. I think that when you're building a moral system from the ground up, the first thing I think it needs is a motivation to actually follow the system. I think this is what's missing from something like Raw's veil of ignorance. It's all good that you can make fair decision for everyone, but why should a rich person who doesn't realistically have the threat of becoming poor bother to look at things from a poor person's perspective?

Let's say you are on an island with someone else. You find some food without the other person knowing. Should you share it or keep it? The prisoners dilemma gives you a real motivation to share the food, given that you know you will be stuck on the island for a long time. But this depends on the chance that the other person can also find food. This gives you a motivation to behave morally to other people who could possibly help you back, but not to a disabled person perhaps. The problem is, if everyone only behaved morally towards people who could potentially help them back, society would collapse, since you would only receive help from people who thought you would be able to help them. Everyone would miss out on help when they need it the most. So instead, helping everyone at all times regardless of whether they can help you back or not would create the ideal society. Even if you miss out on individual acts of moral behavior, in the long run its best. 

Now lets say there was someone who was extremely immoral, they never behave morally, but don't do anything illegal either. You could recognize that behaving morally towards them is a waste of time, but this leads to the slippery slope of only helping people whom you believe could help you back sometime. In this system, you should adopt of board principle of helping anyone, no matter what the return on investment could be. So, I don't think you should kill those people, just because of the ideological reason where it leads to moral decay and people only helping each other for the possibility of something in return.

[Rhythmcs]

Does the best possible human experience necessarily speak to your own self interest any more than the plight of the poor speaks to the morbidly rich? Awfully brave for any of us to assume it would. Either way, it seems to me that there are all sorts of transactional concerns rich people may have about their own self interest in a maximally unjust society. No one is ever truly immune to the rapid onset of poverty or death. Or, maybe, they're empathetic creatures, as you suggested, and their evolved moral intuitions will compel them. What it is that makes us behave morally, whatever that is for us, is an interesting question...but not in the sense that there's any credible chance of it not happening should we choose moral system a or b or c (if indeed we even can choose moral systems). No matter what our moral basis are (or aren't) we all seem to find a motivation to moral agency.

What's slippery, or a slope, about only helping people whom you believe could help you back sometime? What moral decay? Do animals help us? Is it credible to think that we should treat animals well because we know they will help us, whether they want to or not? Would we consider cruelty to animals or our livestock a sign of societal decay?

[SYZ]

Okay... to get this thread on vegetarianism back on track:

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately
planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are
healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may(?) provide health benefits in the
prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian
diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle,
including pregnancy, infancy, and adolescence, and for athletes.    A
vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including
fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods. [This article] reviews
the current data related to key nutrients for vegetarians including protein,
n-3 fatty acids (125g av./day), iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins
D and B-12.

Vegetarians also appear to have lower low-density lipoprotein cholesterol
levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension and type
2 diabetes than non-vegetarians. Furthermore, vegetarians tend to have
a lower BMI and lower(?) overall cancer rates. Features of a vegetarian diet
that may(?) reduce risk of chronic disease include lower intakes of saturated
fat and cholesterol and higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains,
nuts, soy products, fibre, and phytochemicals.       [PubMed, Winston J Craig et al, July 2009]

Having considered each of those purported human health benefits, I still choose
to make a rational (from my omnivore perspective) decision to eat meat, poultry,
and fish. At my advanced age, any practical food consumption decisions are very,
very low on my list of lifestyle priorities.     But yes... I can fully understand someone
in their 20s or 50s more strongly considering and acting upon their food-versus-health
options.  

   And I'm not anti-vegetarian by any means.   Live and let live is my credo.   

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd put it on the same level as the "we only use 10% of our brain" myth. 

Come to our family reunion?

[Rhythmcs]

I don't think there's any meaningful dispute about vegetarian and vegan diets being healthy. Hell, even if they weren't...it would still seem like a swell idea, to me, for people with concerns about livestock conditions.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

In general, I agree with you. But the nether end of that line is horrific. My mother's land lord (back in Indiana) raised pampered hogs. They became a sought after commodity, well known for be extraordinarily tasty." Cool showers in the Summer, heats barns in the winter and he claimed that the pampering made them worth the double price demanded for them. Some folks claimed his claims were BS. Then he sold his operation for ten figures and retired. Buyers were a French restaurant chain who also bought the total output for a eel farm in Monck's Corner, South Carolina. Never tried the eel, accidently came across it in Paris.

[Rizen]

This raises the question: what exactly defines livestock? In the USA eating dogs is extremely taboo but in other countries like Vietnam and Cambodia it's a common thing. While it sounds barbaric to us, we eat pigs, which are smarter than dogs or cats. Why are pigs fair game but not dogs?

[Thumpalumpacus]

This raises the question: what exactly defines livestock? In the USA eating dogs is extremely taboo but in other countries like Vietnam and Cambodia it's a common thing. While it sounds barbaric to us, we eat pigs, which are smarter than dogs or cats. Why are pigs fair game but not dogs?

Looks has to be part of it. Cats and dogs are a lot cuter than hogs.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This raises the question: what exactly defines livestock? In the USA eating dogs is extremely taboo but in other countries like Vietnam and Cambodia it's a common thing. While it sounds barbaric to us, we eat pigs, which are smarter than dogs or cats. Why are pigs fair game but not dogs?

Looks has to be part of it. Cats and dogs are a lot cuter than hogs.

Little pink piglets are reputed to be "cute".

[Rizen]

This raises the question: what exactly defines livestock? In the USA eating dogs is extremely taboo but in other countries like Vietnam and Cambodia it's a common thing. While it sounds barbaric to us, we eat pigs, which are smarter than dogs or cats. Why are pigs fair game but not dogs?

Looks has to be part of it. Cats and dogs are a lot cuter than hogs.

Baby pigs are adorable but they get bigger. Pigs can weigh over 1000lbs. I've never tried dog meat but bacon is delicious! It's hard to think of many foods that taste better than bacon. That's probably a big part of it too.

[Rhythmcs]

This raises the question: what exactly defines livestock? In the USA eating dogs is extremely taboo but in other countries like Vietnam and Cambodia it's a common thing. While it sounds barbaric to us, we eat pigs, which are smarter than dogs or cats. Why are pigs fair game but not dogs?

Domesticated animals raised in agricultural settings for this or that animal product.  If we were raising dogs for their hides or meat they would be livestock.  We don't, because dog farming is an economic loser.   Particularly compared to pigs, which put on weight very fast.

That said...aren't dogs fair game?  If two people and a dog were on a deserted island....and they ate the dog, they'd have an easier time explaining that than one giy who comes back with the dog and without his human companion. Maybe this is just me, but I'd eat a pig first, a dog second, and a person never.

[Rizen]

This raises the question: what exactly defines livestock? In the USA eating dogs is extremely taboo but in other countries like Vietnam and Cambodia it's a common thing. While it sounds barbaric to us, we eat pigs, which are smarter than dogs or cats. Why are pigs fair game but not dogs?

Domesticated animals raised in agricultural settings for this or that animal product.  If we were raising dogs for their hides or meat they would be livestock.  We don't, because dog farming is an economic loser.   Particularly compared to pigs, which put on weight very fast.

That said...aren't dogs fair game?  If two people and a dog were on a deserted island....and they ate the dog, they'd have an easier time explaining that than one giy who comes back with the dog and without his human companion.  Maybe this is just me, but I'd eat a pig first, a dog second, and a person never.

I meant in the USA. Anything's fare game if you're starving on a desert island.