Current Events > I'm not a vegetarian or vegan but those seem like morally superior options

(+) Yeah! (+)

what? I think it's pretty tenable if you accept that morals exist at all

Im not sure what excellence means in that context

---

Balrog0 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

So far all I've seen in this topic is "its cruel because it induces suffering" and "it contributes to global warming".

Yeah those are my two primary arguments. I don't think you've tried to refute either from what I can tell. Well, I guess you seemed to accept the former and deny the latter by comparing it to cars.

I refute that eating is meat is immoral because we can eat meat without causing suffering. I accept that "eating meat produced through avoidable suffering" is immoral, but that isn't the same as the former. I accept that eating meat contributes to global warming, but the point of bringing up cars is to point out that we as a species do many things that contribute towards global warming and so my argument is the "immorality" is negligible given the benefits to the species.
---

Balrog0 posted...

what? I think it's pretty tenable if you accept that morals exist at all

Im not sure what excellence means in that context

excellence just basically means self control and an ability to live one's own life without pressure from the outside (and inside) i guess.

but in terms of morality, i'd like to better understand what you mean by superiority. a person is morally superior if they do more moral things? do different acts have different values? is it just a collection of moral acts or is there a separate moral score that belongs to the person and not the act? is one person who has a harder time doing something getting more morality points because it's harder for them?
---

s0nicfan posted...

There's a difference between moral relativism and saying that people do immoral things to survive, and I was trying to get at that. If it's the former, we run into the issue of determining which morality is "right" absent a higher power, and if its the latter (which I doubt) we put ourselves in a situation where we have no choice but to say that struggling people are morally bad people because they do things that violate our moral compass. It's just an interesting discussion to probe.

I think I'm arguing here that people do immoral things even when survival isn't on the line?

I mean this is just a reformulation of the classic "would you steal bread to feed your family?" dilemma

Yeah, stealing is wrong. It is also wrong to let your family die. Sometimes life doesn't give you options that 'maximally' moral, but I think a lot of people use special cases like this to dismiss the ethical argument entirely when the analogy doesn't apply to themselves at all, because there isn't a competing moral wrong that they're balancing out.

---

I eat WFPB (whole foods plant based), I did it for my health not for all the common reasons(saving the world/animals/suffering/etc).

Its been the best decision of my life and for my health.

Lastly, what you choose to eat is up to you, I in no way condone or will try to sway anyone's opinion on taking on my eating habits.

Its up to you.
---

s0nicfan posted...

I refute that eating is meat is immoral because we can eat meat without causing suffering.

agreed

s0nicfan posted...

I accept that "eating meat produced through avoidable suffering" is immoral, but that isn't the same as the former.

I think it's functionally the same for the vast majority of the people I'm speaking to on this board for reasons I discussed. Very little meat is produced and consumed ethically, which is why it seems irrelevant.

s0nicfan posted...

I accept that eating meat contributes to global warming, but the point of bringing up cars is to point out that we as a species do many things that contribute towards global warming and so my argument is the "immorality" is negligible given the benefits to the species.

I think this is a better argument for cars than it is for eating meat, which has very little upside at a systems-level. Yeah, there are certain groups that need particular kinds of meat and protein to thrive, but using that to justify the current level of consumption isn't tenable.

MedeaLysistrata posted...

but in terms of morality, i'd like to better understand what you mean by superiority. a person is morally superior if they do more moral things? do different acts have different values? is it just a collection of moral acts or is there a separate moral score that belongs to the person and not the act? is one person who has a harder time doing something getting more morality points because it's harder for them?

yeah, being morally superior means doing things that are moral and not immoral. yeah there's probably a scale. I don't know, does it matter for this conversation? and, I don't know, does that matter for this conversation? I tend to think that reflexively being moral is better than the sort of standard christian formulation that the true morality is denying your vices daily or w/e but I'm not sure how it relates to what we're talking about

---

God made animals delicious for a reason TC

Balrog0 posted...

w/e but I'm not sure how it relates to what we're talking about

i guess it doesn't relate. i have a problem with relevance, don't mind me
---

PoopPotato posted...

Plants scream

This is why I only eat fruits and vegetables that fall on their own accord
---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

i guess it doesn't relate. i have a problem with relevance, don't mind me

nah you're fine, we can talk about it, I was just trying to clarify where we were going with it

---

I see no issue morally with eating animals. The horrid conditions of factory farming should definitely be addressed though.

nemu posted...

I see no issue morally with eating animals. The horrid conditions of factory farming should definitely be addressed though.

This is why I'd like to learn how to hunt someday.
---

Balrog0 posted...

MedeaLysistrata posted...

i guess it doesn't relate. i have a problem with relevance, don't mind me

nah you're fine, we can talk about it, I was just trying to clarify where we were going with it

what i'm really wondering, and this gets even further from the topic... is whether every situation has a most moral action that can be taken, and if there is a way of knowing it
---

nah man, life is radically uncertain, maybe if you don't eat that tyson chicken it's gonna cause the next world war or something

just gotta try your best I guess

---

Pepys Monster posted...

s0nicfan posted...

Animals absolutely have a choice. Scavengers, for example, and carrion creatures can choose between hunting and eating carcasses. We are not the only omnivore on the planet.

Saying "you could not" is also not an argument for a morality of one choice over the other. You also have the capacity to choose to give money to random strangers, therefore is it immoral because you do not?

Wow, you don't get it. Animals are in a struggle for survival. You can walk into a restaurant or go to the grocery store anytime and choose what you want to eat. By choosing to eat meat, you are choosing cruelty, despite having other options. An animal does what it has to to live to the next day.

Vegan options are both expensive and also hard considering you have to know exactly what you're eating or risk putting too little of something in your body. For most people eating meat is cheaper and safer. You act like any bum has the access to those options. They don't.
---

Superlinkbro posted...

Vegan options are both expensive and also hard considering you have to know exactly what you're eating or risk putting too little of something in your body. For most people eating meat is cheaper and safer. You act like any bum has the access to those options. They don't.

this problem is vastly overstated for most people, both in terms of the cost and the negative health effects

---

Balrog0 posted...

Superlinkbro posted...

Vegan options are both expensive and also hard considering you have to know exactly what you're eating or risk putting too little of something in your body. For most people eating meat is cheaper and safer. You act like any bum has the access to those options. They don't.

this problem is vastly overstated for most people, both in terms of the cost and the negative health effects

Not really or else more people would probably be vegan or vegetarian.
---

Superlinkbro posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Superlinkbro posted...

Vegan options are both expensive and also hard considering you have to know exactly what you're eating or risk putting too little of something in your body. For most people eating meat is cheaper and safer. You act like any bum has the access to those options. They don't.

this problem is vastly overstated for most people, both in terms of the cost and the negative health effects

Not really or else more people would probably be vegan or vegetarian.

You sure it's not because veganism is probably less fun and definitely limits the variety of food you can eat?
---

I dont think its morally wrong to eat animals

I do however have moral objections towards how those animals are sometimes treated. Treating animals like shit also produces an inferior yield
---

Gotta run, but I just wanted to say thanks for the stimulating discussion.
---

I don't know if the vegetable farming industry is morally superior when you take into consideration the way they destroy animal habitats (intentionally killing a variety of species and contributing to global warming) and treat farmers like trash especially in third world countries.

I guess vegans have the advantage of not dealing with the thought of immediate animal suffering to make a sandwich though.

Phewfus posted...

I don't know if the vegetable farming industry is morally superior when you take into consideration the way they destroy animal habitats (intentionally killing a variety of species and contributing to global warming) and treat farmers like trash especially in third world countries.

yeah this is a pretty good argument, the only issue with it is that animals themselves require feed which is farmed in this exact manner as well, and they require more to feed and then feed us than it would to just feed us

Phewfus posted...

I guess vegans have the advantage of not dealing with the thought of immediate animal suffering to make a sandwich though.

and if they do think about it, at least they realize that eating vegetables directly contributes way less to the problem than eating meat does

---

Balrog0 posted...

yeah this is a pretty good argument, the only issue with it is that animals themselves require feed which is farmed in this exact manner as well, and they require more to feed and then feed us than it would to just feed us

Deforestation in places like the Amazon aren't driven by cow farms or needing to feed cows though. It's driven by stuff like Soy and Cocoa.

HANGtheDJ_86 posted...

Superlinkbro posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Superlinkbro posted...

Vegan options are both expensive and also hard considering you have to know exactly what you're eating or risk putting too little of something in your body. For most people eating meat is cheaper and safer. You act like any bum has the access to those options. They don't.

this problem is vastly overstated for most people, both in terms of the cost and the negative health effects

Not really or else more people would probably be vegan or vegetarian.

You sure it's not because veganism is probably less fun and definitely limits the variety of food you can eat?

Well I mean that's also part of it
---

Phewfus posted...

Deforestation in places like the Amazon aren't driven by cow farms or needing to feed cows though. It's driven by stuff like Soy and Cocoa.

If you say so. From what I've seen, like this: https://globalforestatlas.yale.edu/amazon/land-use, there's plenty of clear cutting for pasture land for cattle specifically. And most soy that's grown in the US at least is specifically used to feed livestock. Not gonna pretend to be an expert on the amazon.

---

I will argue this to the death.
Vegamism/vegetarianism kills nearly as many (and in some areas more) animals than just eating meat does.

Veganism/vegetarianism increases demand for farmland, especially as land suitable for livestock is often not suitable for any crops.

Farmers also poison and kill hundreds, if not thousands, of pests and small animals in each field. Pests being frogs, toads, rabbits, rodents, snakes, snails, slugs, various insects, small birds, even coyotes, feral dogs, and feral cats. There's more

Don't even get me started on organics and anti-GMO sentiment.

---

here's the citation on that soy stat fyi: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf

Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture.

---

meestermj posted...

Veganism/vegetarianism increases demand for farmland, especially as land suitable for livestock is often not suitable for any crops.

Farmers also poison and kill hundreds, if not thousands, of pests and small animals in each field. Pests being frogs, toads, rabbits, rodents, snakes, snails, slugs, various insects, small birds, even coyotes, feral dogs, and feral cats. There's more

that's true, but again, those animals also increase the demand for farmland as they eat crops that are grown that way else where

---

Balrog0 posted...

that's true, but again, those animals also increase the demand for farmland as they eat crops that are grown that way else where

Not at the same level, in any way.
Due to veg/an popularity the demands for soy, quinoa, agave, and others has skyrocketed.
Agave is actually a huge factor in declining bee populations and is heavily damaging the local economies/livelihoods of areas that produce it.

I'm all for a healthier lifestyle, but you can maintain health while eating meat. Being veg/an does not make someone superior. Morally or otherwise.

---

Superlinkbro posted...

Vegan options are both expensive and also hard considering you have to know exactly what you're eating or risk putting too little of something in your body. For most people eating meat is cheaper and safer. You act like any bum has the access to those options. They don't.

this isn't true. people on standard american diets have more deficiencies than vegans do
---

Meh. I don't really look at eating meat as a moral issue. It just is.
---

Thanks for saving me some typing, Balrog. Refuting the same few arguments has gotten a little stale.
---

Agave farming is harming bat populations
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/10/29/560292442/bats-and-tequila-a-once-boo-tiful-relationship-cursed-by-growing-demands

Honey vs Agave shows no health benefits
https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/dr-bj-hardick/benefits-of-agave_b_7836952.html

Soy demand since 2007 has jumped dramatically.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/soybeans

Quinoa farming is damaging Bolivian economy and soil
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/083115/quinoa-destroying-bolivias-economy.asp

---

meestermj posted...

Soy demand since 2007 has jumped dramatically.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/soybeans

But... this shows that soybean production currently is about the same as it was in 2007 and 2003

---

actually, isn't that just showing the price and not the production?

---

Balrog0 posted...

But... this shows that soybean production currently is about the same as it was in 2007 and 2003

It's hard to see on mobile, but it goes through phases of high demand vs dips.


---

ThyCorndog posted...

Superlinkbro posted...

Vegan options are both expensive and also hard considering you have to know exactly what you're eating or risk putting too little of something in your body. For most people eating meat is cheaper and safer. You act like any bum has the access to those options. They don't.

this isn't true. people on standard american diets have more deficiencies than vegans do

I think that has more to do with the level of commitment necessary to go vegan in a largely meat-eating society than anything else. people don't just go vegan on a whim -- it definitely requires that a lot more effort and thought be put into the food
---

Balrog0 posted...

actually, isn't that just showing the price and not the production?

Is it? I'm on mobile so it's tough to see. I'll find another source.

---

Superlinkbro posted...

HANGtheDJ_86 posted...

Superlinkbro posted...

Balrog0 posted...

Superlinkbro posted...

Vegan options are both expensive and also hard considering you have to know exactly what you're eating or risk putting too little of something in your body. For most people eating meat is cheaper and safer. You act like any bum has the access to those options. They don't.

this problem is vastly overstated for most people, both in terms of the cost and the negative health effects

Not really or else more people would probably be vegan or vegetarian.

You sure it's not because veganism is probably less fun and definitely limits the variety of food you can eat?

Well I mean that's also part of it

What percentage would you say?
---

Balrog0 posted...

here's the citation on that soy stat fyi: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf

Just over 70 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States are used for animal feed, with poultry being the number one livestock sector consuming soybeans, followed by hogs, dairy, beef and aquaculture.

Is that just soybean meal?

Soybean oil constitutes almost 88% of human consumption and use, according to Michigan State Universty :

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_do_all_these_soybeans_go

China is one of the biggest consumers of Soy products according to the quoted citation.

Also the increasing demand Soy and Palm oil products over the last couple decades has contributed to rising deforestation in the Amazon:

https://rainforests.mongabay.com/0811.htm

So while the demand by the meat industry for soy feed does contribute, so do humans for non meat soy related products by large countries like China and the USA.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/192058/production-of-soybeans-for-beans-in-the-us-since-2000/
Steady increases of Soy production within the US by year since 2000.
I know US produced soy is about 60-70% used for livestock, that other 30-40% still matters.

Soy has seen a 60% increase worldwide in the last 15 years.
http://www.sopa.org/statistics/world-soybean-production/?search_type=search_by_period&years=&starting_year_value=2005-2006&ending_year_value=2018-2019&submit=Search

---

Phewfus posted...

Is that just soybean meal?

huh?

Phewfus posted...

Soybean oil constitutes almost 88% of human consumption and use, according to Michigan State Universty :

and human consumption is 15% of soy bean production, at least of what's produced in the US, whereas feed uses constitute 70%

Phewfus posted...

Also the increasing demand Soy and Palm oil products over the last couple decades has contributed to rising deforestation in the Amazon:

https://rainforests.mongabay.com/0811.htm

So while the demand by the meat industry for soy feed does contribute, so do humans for non meat soy related products by large countries like China and the USA.

direct conversion of rainforests for soy has been relatively limited. Instead, the impact of soy on rainforests is generally seen to be indirect. Soy expansion has driven up land prices, created impetus for infrastructure improvements that promote forest clearing, and displaced cattle ranchers to frontier areas, spurring deforestation.

---

you said before that deforestation wasn't driven by 'cow farms' or 'needing to feed cows' but your articles show that cattle farms are an important mechanism for deforestation and don't show that the soy being grown is for human consumption rather than feed for cattle

---

"According to Mike Staton, a Michigan State University Extension Soybean educator, soybeans contain two marketable components: meal and oil. Soybean meal is very high in protein. Ninety eight percent of soybean meal is used for animal feed (poultry, hogs and cattle mostly) and only one percent is used to produce food for people. On the other hand, 88 percent of soybean oil is used for human consumption (mostly cooking oil) and 12 percent is used as an alternative to petroleum oil. According to the Michigan Soybean Promotion Committee, soybeans are the number one source of plant-derived protein on the planet. The Chinese began cultivating soybeans over 3,000 years ago and there are many varieties grown all around the world today."

https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/where_do_all_these_soybeans_go

This article is also from 2013, so percentages may have changed.

It's bad to deprive a living thing of life when it would very much prefer that you didn't. Just because a goat isn't writing poetry doesn't mean it doesn't value its own life.

The argument that we can kill and eat animals because we're smarter or more developed doesn't really make sense imo because it seems inherently self serving and arbitrary. We eat pigs who are smarter than dogs, some people eat chimps etc. And if aliens who were were of higher intelligence than us to the same degree as we are over pigs, would it be okay for them to slaughter us? No, because we're the cutoff right, or we have souls or something? Also completely unproven, arbitrary, and self serving.

Then there's the cruelty aspect like others say, we cause unnecessary pain and fear and lack of freedom to beings who would definitely prefer we didn't do that. Primarily out of convenience. Then there's climate change effects.

Overall, meat eating is almost certainly not justifiable in a time when plant based nutrition is well understood and can be relatively delicious. The climate effects of farming may be bad as well, but at least there's not the cruelty aspect and meat eating fuels farming as well.

With all that said, I eat meat daily because thats how I was raised and it is easy and delicious. It's pretty high on the list of things I expect my grandkids or their kids to say "that was heinous, why did you think that was okay?" like we would say to a slave owner. And I won't have much to say in my defense.
---