Food Ethics (Poll)

[MatskiMonk]

Veganism doesn't make sense.

From the Vegan society...

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

.. I don't see what doesn't make sense here.

But then true vegananism wouldn't allow zoos either.

I have to object to the use of the word "true" here... it's not "true" it's just an absolutist view that takes the philosophy to it's strictest (and worst) definitions. I don't think it's a stretch to argue that a well run, well thought out zoo could be more beneficial for animals than dying a slow death in the wild thanks to the expansion of human society. You could focus on the exploitation aspect (though you'd have to determine what definition of exploitation was being used), but equally you could focus on what the philosophy is trying to achieve.

 

[Danoff]

From the Vegan society...

"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment.

There's nothing overtly nonsesical about that statement. But when you see what is put into practice in terms of "possible and practicable" and what is put into practice in terms of "exploitation and cruelty", it becomes nonsensical. For example, that statement is not incompatible with eating meat, or wearing animal products, or taking pharmaceuticals that are tested on animals, or benefiting from animal labor. Yet people who do those things do not consider themselves vegans, and are not considered vegans by other vegans. The reason is because of the interpretation of those terms.

The next part is where we start to get into nonsense:

In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

I'm not sure this is possible, but it certainly does not follow from the previous statement. So what is reduced to practice in this statement is not consistent with excluding "exploitation and cruelty" and certainly not consistent with "as far as is practicable" and maybe not consistent with "as far as is possible".

 

[TexRex]

I hope they perfect vegetarian meat for those of us who can't quite let go.

Impossible does a surprisingly good job with its burger.

I haven't eaten actual beef since St. Patrick's Day corned beef leftovers and, honestly, I think I'm about at the point I can give it up entirely. I've had Impossible...twice?...since then and it satisfies my craving for a "beef" burger. I haven't yet had a craving for a steak since I last ate one. I know that just me not eating beef doesn't affect much of a positive change for the environment, but it's also not nothing and it hasn't been an imposition.

I don't plan to go vegetarian. I've been eating a lot less meat in general, primarily fish at about once a week. Pork products top "turf" consumption, with poultry and lamb trailing. "Alternative" meat (ostrich, alligator, etc) is something I have had but it's not what I'd consider part of my diet.

 

[UKMikey]

Impossible does a surprisingly good job with its burger.

Their "beef" and "pork" products have yet to make it across the pond, unfortunately.

 

[Grand Prix]

Veganism and vegetarianism both stem from the idea that eating meat/killing an animal to provide sustenance, is somehow wrong. It implies that there is something inherently evil with being a carnivore or omnivore on some universal scale.

Let's look at an example of how predation can have a positive impact on the environment.

The Gray Wolf was brought to extinction in Yellowstone National Park in 1926. Yellowstone would not see the re-introduction of this species until 1995, due to much protest over the idea of having to share a park with wolves. During the 7 decades that the park was free of wolves, the elk population went largely unchecked, unable to be culled in significant enough numbers by human predation alone. As a result, the elk transformed the appearance and ecology of the park. Several species of plants struggled to survive, most notably these were: willows, aspens and cottonwoods (ugh! ).

After their reintroduction, the wolves also fed on coyotes. The culling of coyotes in turn led to a population increase in foxes, which had an impact on small plant and animal communities.

Beaver populations also increased due to the abundance of willow wood. Increased numbers of beaver dams stabilized the watershed and created new environments for otters, moose, mink, waterfowl and several species of fish and amphibians to thrive in.

The reduced populations of elk also led to an abundance of berries, which benefited the park's population of grizzly bears.

This example of a trophic cascade provides a reminder that predation and carnivores are not necessarily evil things, they play an essential role in every ecosystem. You can think of carnivores as being the guardians of plants.

With this in mind, I have no shame in eating meat. While I avoid consuming meat that came from endangered species, I will also eat whatever is tasty.

 

[Liquid]

Dispensing with food products derived wholly or partly from animals makes pollination of flowers an accessory.

 

[MatskiMonk]

derived wholly or partly from animals makes pollination of flowers an accessory.

A) Why?

and B) Not Chilli plants

 

[Northstar]

In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

.. I don't see what doesn't make sense here.

The part that doesn't make sense is the fact pretty much every plant falls afoul of this rule since organic fertilizer is usually animal based. Sure there's alternatives like alfalfa meal, but that has the obvious problem of needing alfalfa to grow, so it's just animal based fertilizer with extra steps.

Or I guess you could just go the chemical fertilizer route, but considering what our current use does to the water supply and other animal/bug life I can't imagine that would be a popular move.

 

[Liquid]

A) Why?

and B) Not Chilli plants

Perhaps I should have been a bit more specific; food containing ingredients from flowers that where pollinated by bees and other animals would seem to contravene the previous statement about food derived partly from animals.

I mean... it's fine to have a general ethos like that yet draw a line, most of us do it in some ways, but creating, printing or publishing an unclear and ambiguous statement like that just leaves you open to critique.

 

[MatskiMonk]

derived partly from animals.

Derived from, or derived through the natural actions of? Pollination takes place naturally, I'm reasonably sure that it can very much take place without triggering a definition of exploitation? Part of the problem is how much of an animal we've found a purpose for, the use of by-products that enables primary use, is prolific and I believe that's what 'derived partly from' refers to. The fact an insect might have pollinated a plant you then ate cannot reasonably be considered as animal exploitation because it would likely have occurred anyway.

The part that doesn't make sense is the fact pretty much every plant falls afoul of this rule since organic fertilizer is usually animal based. Sure there's alternatives like alfalfa meal, but that has the obvious problem of needing alfalfa to grow, so it's just animal based fertilizer with extra steps.

Or I guess you could just go the chemical fertilizer route, but considering what our current use does to the water supply and other animal/bug life I can't imagine that would be a popular move.

Read the whole statement.

It's perfectly possible to avoid animal 'based' fertilisers, but the industrialisation of food production makes it a hard task to achieve practically. It's not like it can only happen with animal based products, but even Vegans acknowledge that finding info on how plant based products are fertilised is a problem that undermines their efforts, and any reasonable Vegan would accept that in a naturally occurring fertilisation situation involving animal matter, there's no exploitation or cruelty.




... honestly, all I'm seeing is people thinking if something's got anything to do with an animal, it's a Gotcha, and I'm not even a Vegetarian!

 

[TexRex]

The part that doesn't make sense is the fact pretty much every plant falls afoul of this rule since organic fertilizer is usually animal based.

****.

 

[EamerRed]

Veganism and vegetarianism both stem from the idea that eating meat/killing an animal to provide sustenance, is somehow wrong. It implies that there is something inherently evil with being a carnivore or omnivore on some universal scale.

Let's look at an example of how predation can have a positive impact on the environment.

The Gray Wolf was brought to extinction in Yellowstone National Park in 1926. Yellowstone would not see the re-introduction of this species until 1995, due to much protest over the idea of having to share a park with wolves. During the 7 decades that the park was free of wolves, the elk population went largely unchecked, unable to be culled in significant enough numbers by human predation alone. As a result, the elk transformed the appearance and ecology of the park. Several species of plants struggled to survive, most notably these were: willows, aspens and cottonwoods (ugh! ).

After their reintroduction, the wolves also fed on coyotes. The culling of coyotes in turn led to a population increase in foxes, which had an impact on small plant and animal communities.

Beaver populations also increased due to the abundance of willow wood. Increased numbers of beaver dams stabilized the watershed and created new environments for otters, moose, mink, waterfowl and several species of fish and amphibians to thrive in.

The reduced populations of elk also led to an abundance of berries, which benefited the park's population of grizzly bears.

This example of a trophic cascade provides a reminder that predation and carnivores are not necessarily evil things, they play an essential role in every ecosystem. You can think of carnivores as being the guardians of plants.

With this in mind, I have no shame in eating meat. While I avoid consuming meat that came from endangered species, I will also eat whatever is tasty.

I respect your view, but I don't think pulling out a very specific and distinct example like this really is the gotcha that you think it is. Even if there were 1,000 more examples just like these, or even 10,000, great as they are, do they outweigh the cons of eating meat? The health issues, the environmental issues, and for some the ethical issues. Of course they don't.

You're absolutely right in saying that providing sustenance is not wrong whatsoever. But if you are lucky enough to have the option of providing sustenance ethically or providing it unethically, then I think the question of which one is the most 'correct', is already answered.

The part that doesn't make sense is the fact pretty much every plant falls afoul of this rule since organic fertilizer is usually animal based. Sure there's alternatives like alfalfa meal, but that has the obvious problem of needing alfalfa to grow, so it's just animal based fertilizer with extra steps.

Or I guess you could just go the chemical fertilizer route, but considering what our current use does to the water supply and other animal/bug life I can't imagine that would be a popular move.

What you're essentially saying here though is what's the point in doing 99.9% if you can't do 100%.

If you eat a vegan diet, of course you are going to have an impact in the ways you've outlined above. But that is a million miles better than contributing to the problems that livestock provide to the planet, and then the subsequent food that they need grown for them. Using animal based products to feed 1 person's plant-based diet, is SO much better than using animal based products to feed dozens of animals that are then raised to feed 1 person on a omnivorous diet. Every meat eater has an exponential effect. If you compared the emissions of 1 diet v the other, the latter is probably dozens if not hundreds of times more damaging. And therein is the benefit.

I think what vegans are trying to say (I could be wrong) is that veganism is more of a process of living your life with the least impact possible, rather than a blanket ban. Yes that might mean still driving a car, or getting on a plane, but if you're at least trying to be better in other facets of life then you're at least contributing to a solution.

 

[Northstar]

Read the whole statement.

I did, it changes nothing.

It's perfectly possible to avoid animal 'based' fertilisers, but the industrialisation of food production makes it a hard task to achieve practically.

Well, go on...

It's not like it can only happen with animal based products,

I know, I even gave an example!

but even Vegans acknowledge that finding info on how plant based products are fertilised is a problem that undermines their efforts, and any reasonable Vegan would accept that in a naturally occurring fertilisation situation involving animal matter, there's no exploitation or cruelty.

Yeah, an entire field isn't getting fertilized by naturally occurring animal fertilization so chances if you bought it at a store, it was manually fertilized with something. Depending whether it's organic or not that something is either chemical or animal based.

... honestly, all I'm seeing is people thinking if something's got anything to do with an animal, it's a Gotcha, and I'm not even a Vegetarian!

I don't think I'll ever understand why people enter a section of a forum dedicated to debating things, than act surprised when people debate them. What did you think was going to happen?

And I don't see this as some sort of gotcha, it's honestly something I've always been curious about. It really does remind me of the blindness some people show towards pretty much everything they ingest than act shocked when they learn what they are actually eating and drinking.

What you're essentially saying here though is what's the point in doing 99.9% if you can't do 100%.

What I'm essentially saying is stick to what I actually wrote, not what you think I meant. If you can manage to do that I'll be happy to properly respond to you, otherwise I'm afraid you're yelling at clouds.

 

[EamerRed]

What I'm essentially saying is stick to what I actually wrote, not what you think I meant. If you can manage to do that I'll be happy to properly respond to you, otherwise I'm afraid you're yelling at clouds.

So if that wasn't your point, why did you write it then? Genuinely interested, I did assume it was trying to make out that vegans are basically pointless as they have to use some sort of animal product to exist. But it presumably was not that?

 

[Grand Prix]

I respect your view, but I don't think pulling out a very specific and distinct example like this really is the gotcha that you think it is. Even if there were 1,000 more examples just like these, or even 10,000, great as they are, do they outweigh the cons of eating meat? The health issues, the environmental issues, and for some the ethical issues. Of course they don't.

You're absolutely right in saying that providing sustenance is not wrong whatsoever. But if you are lucky enough to have the option of providing sustenance ethically or providing it unethically, then I think the question of which one is the most 'correct', is already answered.

The problem is that vegans and many vegetarians are implying that all carnivores are unethical/evil in some way. Unless, if they have a problem with humans eating meat, but don't care about other animals doing it, then there is a double standard there.

Humans are just another member of the animal kingdom, one that managed to reach apex predator status due to various factors over the course of our history, such as the development of thumbs. We're not unique in the act of domesticating other animals either, house cats may have domesticated us at least as much as we domesticated them. As for farming, ants have been observed farming aphids for their honeydew.

While it is true that the reintroduction of the Gray Wolf to Yellowstone is just one example, you have to realize that every single ecosystem with carnivores in it (read: nearly all of them) are also examples. Imagine what Earth would be like with no carnivores.

There is no "correct" method of obtaining sustenance, there is only sustenance. Some species of animals found it by killing plants, others found it by killing other animals. Sometimes the plant consumes the animal, and plants feed on dirt and animal 💩. Everything is 💩 at the end of the day. Or stardust, if you want to go back even further.

We'll be eating cultured/synthetic meat relatively soon anyway.

 

[EamerRed]

The problem is that vegans and many vegetarians are implying that all carnivores are unethical/evil in some way. Unless, if they have a problem with humans eating meat, but don't care about other animals doing it, then there is a double standard there.

Humans are just another member of the animal kingdom, one that managed to reach apex predator status due to various factors over the course of our history, such as the development of thumbs. We're not unique in the act of domesticating other animals either, house cats may have domesticated us at least as much as we domesticated them. As for farming, ants have been observed farming aphids for their honeydew.

While it is true that the reintroduction of the Gray Wolf to Yellowstone is just one example, you have to realize that every single ecosystem with carnivores in it (read: nearly all of them) are also examples. Imagine what Earth would be like with no carnivores.

There is no "correct" method of obtaining sustenance, there is only sustenance. Some species of animals found it by killing plants, others found it by killing other animals. Sometimes the plant consumes the animal, and plants feed on dirt and animal 💩. Everything is 💩 at the end of the day. Or stardust, if you want to go back even further.

We'll be eating cultured/synthetic meat relatively soon anyway.

I mean, regarding your first point, can you not see their viewpoint? It might be a terrible example, but childbirth is a painful experience for someone to go through. If you had the option to allow a woman to go through it painlessly, versus the current way, you would obviously allow the former. It would be a no-brainer.

Well if you believe that you can eat without the need for meat, but you choose to do so knowing that it causes great pain and that you don't actually have to do that, that is by definition unethical, is it not? You have a choice and you choose to take the option which causes distress, when both would be perfectly viable. That is by definition unethical. And it's not meant to sound all high and mighty from me by the way. The thing is, we all do unethical things in our lives, this is just one of those unethical things that certain people choose not to do.

There's certainly no double standard when it comes to other animals either as they don't have the sentience that we do. I notice a chunk of your post is devoted to saying that Earth should have no carnivores which is not something I've ever heard a vegetarian or vegan say in my life.

I don't buy the argument that we should ignore it due to our predator status. Once upon a time we had to kill each other to survive. It's now frowned upon (at the very least!) to do so, we don't accept it just because we 'are predators'. Once upon a time maybe you would have to rape to procreate, we don't say 'it's okay because we're naturally stronger'. So why do we allow it when it comes to putting animals through so much pain?

This is coming from someone who ate meat for 27 years by the way. I'm certainly aware of my hypocrisy, but I don't think it makes my points any less valid personally. Being brutally honest, I do find it interesting to see the ways that people try to justify it, but in many cases (certainly on this page) I do learn a fair few things too.

 

[Danoff]

I mean, regarding your first point, can you not see their viewpoint? It might be a terrible example, but childbirth is a painful experience for someone to go through. If you had the option to allow a woman to go through it painlessly, versus the current way, you would obviously allow the former. It would be a no-brainer.

I don't know what you mean by allow, but on the face of it it doesn't look unethical to do either of these. If there is a woman in the world who cannot afford an epidural, you didn't give her your money, and so you had the option to to "allow" her to go through it painlessly and didn't because you selfishly kept your property to yourself. This fails your definition of ethical, but not mine.

Edit:

In case it's not obvious, this can be extended ad nauseum. You didn't give your money to a starving child in Africa, you didn't spend your life trying to free a wrongly imprisoned person, you didn't become a doctor and so you didn't choose to help people who are in pain, etc.

Edit:

To further point out the obvious, you necessarily cannot do all of the things that you possibly could do to mitigate the pain for any one person or animal. And so you must choose who's pain you mitigate with your time and property. Essentially according to your ethical structure your goal is not to be ethical, which is impossible, it's to minimize how unethical you are.

Well if you believe that you can eat without the need for meat, but you choose to do so knowing that it causes great pain and that you don't actually have to do that, that is by definition unethical, is it not?

No, it is not objectively unethical to choose to eat meat even if it causes pain. What I mean by "objectively" is that you cannot tell me that it is unethical for me to eat meat even if it causes pain. You can tell me it is unethical for YOU to eat meat even if it causes pain. That's fine, subjective ethics. Likewise, you cannot tell me that it is unethical to have an abortion if it causes pain. The reason is that most animals and fetuses do not have a right against being caused pain, and the reason for that is reciprocity.

we all do unethical things in our lives, this is just one of those unethical things that certain people choose not to do.

That's also not true. If you think it is, you need to re-evaluate your notion of ethics. If you believe it is impossible to live your life ethically, I think your definition of ethics is broken.

Well if you believe that you can eat without the need for meat, but you choose to do so knowing that it causes great pain and that you don't actually have to do that, that is by definition unethical, is it not?

If I know of a particularly cruel tactic used on particularly developed animals, I try not to contribute to it. I wouldn't eat certain animals (dolphin or elephant for example), and I don't support companies that engage in particularly egregious or careless techniques that might put those animals in danger. I think at one point an example in this thread included a video of an animal being skinned alive, that's horrific and I wouldn't support a company that does that. It's not the same as animals that are dirty or in cages. Chickens don't have a massive capacity for understanding, my threshold for what constitutes treatment of them that I won't support is lower. That doesn't mean I think that each of theses is objectively ethically required, it's about personal preference, and it has to do with the capacity of the animal's brain.

The most difficult animal in this question is the pig. I'd like to see pigs treated with some level of care. That doesn't mean I think it's wrong to eat pig, but we should be taking steps to ensure that their physical and emotional pain is mitigated in the process.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I did

Then why do you ignore that the stated philosophy includes where possible, where practical, and to promote the development of alternatives? Being unable to determine the fertilization method, or simply having no alternative doesn't undermine the philosophy because it allows for those cases. It's the meat-eaters definition of veganism that seems to be the problem.

I know, I even gave an example!

You mean the example that you said was "just animal based fertilizer with extra steps"? Great example to miss the point.

Yeah, an entire field isn't getting fertilized by naturally occurring animal fertilization so chances if you bought it at a store, it was manually fertilized with something. Depending whether it's organic or not that something is either chemical or animal based.

Animal-waste based fertilisers, green waste and supplemental synthetics can be used. "Manual" fertilisation doesn't go against the Vegan philosophy anyway, so that's irrelevant - and believe it or not there are options for Vegans that want to buy things that are fertilised using the methods I mention, and not powdered animal. Given the amount of crops grown to feed animals to convert to food no doubt contributes greatly to the use of fertilisers in the first place, more people at least adopting a plant based diet would likely reduce this requirement, perhaps to the level that synthetic fertilisers become almost superfluous.

... but that's not the point. Not being able to go to your local store and buy something that's veganic because your store doesn't sell it, doesn't undermine the entire philosophy, especially when it says where possible, and where practical, and wants to promote alternatives, which is does, because there are alternatives.

And I don't see this as some sort of gotcha, it's honestly something I've always been curious about. It really does remind me of the blindness some people show towards pretty much everything they ingest than act shocked when they learn what they are actually eating and drinking.

Fair enough, if the only issue you take with veganism is how things are fertilised then there's still massive scope to reduce the dependency on animal based products. FWIW, the vegans I know are far more informed about what they ingest than most other people.

I don't think I'll ever understand why people enter a section of a forum dedicated to debating things, than act surprised when people debate them. What did you think was going to happen?

I'm not even sure what you're responding to here. I'm not surprised people are debating the point, I've seen it many, many, many times... and I still think people assume that any link they can make between an animal and vegan undermines the vegan philosophy. Which is what I exclaimed.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not even sure what you're responding to here. I'm not surprised people are debating the point, I've seen it many, many, many times... and I still think people assume that any link they can make between an animal and vegan undermines the vegan philosophy. Which is what I exclaimed.

Vegans are clearly not a uniform population. For example:

Man sues Burger King for cooking vegan burger and meat on same grill

Phillip Williams argues he wouldn’t have bought the burger if he’d known it was ‘covered in meat by-products’

www.theguardian.com

In this case the link between animal and vegan is even more tenuous than fertilizer. The non-meat burger was not created from animal by-products, but was not actively isolated from animal by-products, and this is worthy of a lawsuit. It does not harm any animals to eat a non-meat burger cooked on the same grill as a meat burger, in fact it harms animals to make this argument because it seeks to make it HARDER to provide access to alternatives... and yet there are vegans out there that make these claims, and file these lawsuits.

So perhaps you're seeing the "gotcha" in response to this kind of vegan.

 

[MatskiMonk]

In this case the link between animal and vegan is even more tenuous than fertilizer. The non-meat burger was not created from animal by-products, but was not actively isolated from animal by-products, and this is worthy of a lawsuit. It does not harm any animals to eat a non-meat burger cooked on the same grill as a meat burger, in fact it harms animals to make this argument because it seeks to make it HARDER to provide access to alternatives... and yet there are vegans out there that make these claims, and file these lawsuits.

So perhaps you're seeing the "gotcha" in response to this kind of vegan.

The litigious nature of many Americans isn't their best trait, irrespective of diet.

Besides that, it's not more tenuous, you are literally ingesting it. Lax attitudes towards food labelling and preparation is why people die from allergies.

 

[Danoff]

you are literally ingesting it

I thought we were talking about ethics and minimizing harm. The goals are shifting here. It is more tenuous than fertilizer.

 

[Thematic]

In this case the link between animal and vegan is even more tenuous than fertilizer. The non-meat burger was not created from animal by-products, but was not actively isolated from animal by-products, and this is worthy of a lawsuit. It does not harm any animals to eat a non-meat burger cooked on the same grill as a meat burger, in fact it harms animals to make this argument because it seeks to make it HARDER to provide access to alternatives... and yet there are vegans out there that make these claims, and file these lawsuits.

So perhaps you're seeing the "gotcha" in response to this kind of vegan.

It's basic hygiene & common sense to not prepare food together with animal derived food with the same utensils.

 

[Danoff]

It's basic hygiene & common sense to not prepare food together with animal derived food with the same utensils.

In this case, it was on the same grill. It's also not the point. The point is that no animals are harmed in the making of an impossible burger on the same grill that a meat-based burger was made on.

 

[EamerRed]

That's also not true. If you think it is, you need to re-evaluate your notion of ethics. If you believe it is impossible to live your life ethically, I think your definition of ethics is broken.

Can't buy into this whatsoever I'm afraid. Every single person every single day does unethical things, and if you think that you don't then perhaps we're coming at this from different angles. But the way I see it, whether it's driving your car when you could walk, or choosing not to share something when you could, all totally minor things, it's a scale. Your mistake here is treating ethics as a binary decision when in reality it's more about doing the best you can.

I fly all over the world, that is pretty unethical. I don't eat animals, that hopefully offsets it somewhat. And at least my understanding of veganism is that - your very existence means that you will have an impact on the world, that's fine. But these people try to live their lives so that they impact the very least on the world around them. At the very least, that is ****ing admirable in my opinion. Despite all the crap they get, they do something which is totally selfless purely for the good of others.

Sorry to be slightly rude on this point, but you can kid yourself all you like, if you think that being complicit in the gassing of thousands of beings (a horrific way to go btw) is you leading an 'ethical' lifestyle, then I couldn't disagree more with you there. I think that is cognitive dissonance at it's highest. By all means do it, I'm not trying to convince you here, but it's quite entertaining to see people try to convince themselves that they're still doing the right thing when it's clearly an unethical act to do.

I do appreciate your point regarding pigs though, that's exactly where I'm coming from, and I'm glad you at least accept the fact that they have a comparatively high level of understanding and are killed in awful ways. That alone makes it totally not okay for me, but that's where we clearly disagree . The most awful people are those who just flat out deny or ignore it. The ones who they themselves are okay, so why should they care about anyone/anything else. But I'm glad you at least acknowledge that fact.

Again, I have a diesel car, I've flown 10 times across 3 continents in the last 9 months or so, I'm pretty useless myself when it comes to ethics/climate, etc, so I really don't mean to be patronising or confrontational. I'm just explaining the viewpoint, and as I care about animals it is something that would quite rightly evoke a response of sorts.

In this case, it was on the same grill. It's also not the point. The point is that no animals are harmed in the making of an impossible burger on the same grill that a meat-based burger was made on.

Personally I am more than happy to eat an impossible burger made on the same grill. Same reason I don't ask people at Subway to change their gloves. Honestly I couldn't care less if there's meat on there, as long as I'm not contributing to more deaths. I already feel like veggies/vegans get a bad rep for making people cater to them, so I like to try and be as non-impacting as possible.

That's my logic, but I understand that it's completely different for different people.

 

[Danoff]

Can't buy into this whatsoever I'm afraid. Every single person every single day does unethical things, and if you think that you don't then perhaps we're coming at this from different angles. But the way I see it, whether it's driving your car when you could walk, or choosing not to share something when you could, all totally minor things, it's a scale. Your mistake here is treating ethics as a binary decision when in reality it's more about doing the best you can.

I fly all over the world, that is pretty unethical. I don't eat animals, that hopefully offsets it somewhat. And at least my understanding of veganism is that - your very existence means that you will have an impact on the world, that's fine. But these people try to live their lives so that they impact the very least on the world around them. At the very least, that is ****ing admirable in my opinion. Despite all the crap they get, they do something which is totally selfless purely for the good of others.

Sorry to be slightly rude on this point, but you can kid yourself all you like, if you think that being complicit in the gassing of thousands of beings (a horrific way to go btw) is you leading an 'ethical' lifestyle, then I couldn't disagree more with you there. I think that is cognitive dissonance at it's highest. By all means do it, I'm not trying to convince you here, but it's quite entertaining to see people try to convince themselves that they're still doing the right thing when it's clearly an unethical act to do.

I do appreciate your point regarding pigs though, that's exactly where I'm coming from, and I'm glad you at least accept the fact that they have a comparatively high level of understanding and are killed in awful ways. That alone makes it totally not okay for me, but that's where we clearly disagree . The most awful people are those who just flat out deny or ignore it. The ones who they themselves are okay, so why should they care about anyone/anything else. But I'm glad you at least acknowledge that fact.

Again, I have a diesel car, I've flown 10 times across 3 continents in the last 9 months or so, I'm pretty useless myself when it comes to ethics/climate, etc, so I really don't mean to be patronising or confrontational. I'm just explaining the viewpoint, and as I care about animals it is something that would quite rightly evoke a response of sorts.

Personally I am more than happy to eat an impossible burger made on the same grill. Same reason I don't ask people at Subway to change their gloves. Honestly I couldn't care less if there's meat on there, as long as I'm not contributing to more deaths. I already feel like veggies/vegans get a bad rep for making people cater to them, so I like to try and be as non-impacting as possible.

That's my logic, but I understand that it's completely different for different people.

First of all, if you're defining "ethical" like that, it's necessarily subjective and so you can't tell other people that they're being unethical or attempt any kind of objective claim. If all acts, or perhaps all lives, are unethical, and the question is the degree of unethical, you're attempting to figure out how unethical eating a pig is compared to how unethical flying in a plane is, and it's an impossible act. They're dissimilar acts, it will necessarily come down to a subjective evaluation of both.

That's point one. At the outset, this is subjective and personal. Even calling it "ethics" implies that there is some objectivity to it. To avoid confusion you might want to refer to it as "personal ethics".

Second of all, there is something objective that you can base ethical and moral decisions on (rights), and your definition of ethics seems to ignore that. This leaves your definition of ethics severely lacking. The fact that you attempt to weigh something which is not a violation of rights against something that is strikes me as inherently unethical.

Third of all, the degree of your unethical decisions, by your own definition, is infinite. Whether you eat a pig tomorrow or not will not change its infinite state. There are countless people dying right now of starvation or disease which you personally could help, and yet you haven't. There are millions of animals that you could help, and you haven't. There are thousands of choices you could make today that would put you in a better position to make a more ethical decision tomorrow, and you haven't, and so by your own system of ethics, you are absolutely buried in every unethical choice you haven't made. Eating a pig tomorrow would be just one more pig in the thousands of pigs that you could have saved but which you didn't.

The biggest (of many) problem with the ethics that you lay out is that you need to distinguish between things you do vs. things you don't do. You say that it is unethical to choose not to share something when you could, this alone is an infinity of unethical behavior - necessarily.

It's destructive to your mindset, and to your decision making process, to have a broken system of ethics, and prevents you from sharing that system and effectively learning about ethics because of its inherent subjectivity.

 

[EamerRed]

First of all, if you're defining "ethical" like that, it's necessarily subjective and so you can't tell other people that they're being unethical or attempt any kind of objective claim.

Second of all, there is something objective that you can base ethical and moral decisions on (rights)

Make your mind up.

And the idea that rights can define ethics is laughable. By that logic the right to bear arms means it's ethical to do so

 

[Danoff]

Make your mind up.

I don't see a contradiction. Your definition of ethical is inherently subjective. That doesn't mean that others are.

 

[TexRex]

By that logic the right to bear arms means it's ethical to do so

So I'm curious what sort of deck you're playing with. When you say "bear arms" in this context, what exactly do you mean?

 

[Imari]

By that logic the right to bear arms means it's ethical to do so

Why would it be unethical to bear arms? I don't get why that's a laughable idea.

 

[Grand Prix]

I mean, regarding your first point, can you not see their viewpoint? It might be a terrible example, but childbirth is a painful experience for someone to go through. If you had the option to allow a woman to go through it painlessly, versus the current way, you would obviously allow the former. It would be a no-brainer.

Well if you believe that you can eat without the need for meat, but you choose to do so knowing that it causes great pain and that you don't actually have to do that, that is by definition unethical, is it not? You have a choice and you choose to take the option which causes distress, when both would be perfectly viable. That is by definition unethical. And it's not meant to sound all high and mighty from me by the way. The thing is, we all do unethical things in our lives, this is just one of those unethical things that certain people choose not to do.

There's certainly no double standard when it comes to other animals either as they don't have the sentience that we do. I notice a chunk of your post is devoted to saying that Earth should have no carnivores which is not something I've ever heard a vegetarian or vegan say in my life.

I don't buy the argument that we should ignore it due to our predator status. Once upon a time we had to kill each other to survive. It's now frowned upon (at the very least!) to do so, we don't accept it just because we 'are predators'. Once upon a time maybe you would have to rape to procreate, we don't say 'it's okay because we're naturally stronger'. So why do we allow it when it comes to putting animals through so much pain?

This is coming from someone who ate meat for 27 years by the way. I'm certainly aware of my hypocrisy, but I don't think it makes my points any less valid personally. Being brutally honest, I do find it interesting to see the ways that people try to justify it, but in many cases (certainly on this page) I do learn a fair few things too.

I know of two people in my life who weren't comfortable with the existence of carnivores until I pointed out to them the ecological impacts and evolutionary pressures they place on prey animals, which can help ecosystems survive extinction events. More diverse ecosystems are generally a good thing for the survival of life on Earth, even if many species become too specialized to survive themselves. That is why I asked you to try to imagine what an environment without meat eaters would be like, because it would be pretty stagnant, and generally terrible to exist in for herbivores.

Regarding animal sentience, many tests have been done to try to figure out which ones have consciousness, most famous of which is the mirror test. Several animals pass the mirror test, as expected: humans, orangutans, chimpanzees, bonobos, orcas, bottlenose dolphins, magpies, elephants and pigs. Surprisingly, ants (!) also pass the mirror test, as do pigeons. Some notable animals that fail the mirror test include: dogs, cats, rats, all species of waterfowl (they spend much of their lives looking down in the water...), and crows! Yes, crows fail the mirror test.

Spiders will fail the typical mirror test; they always attack their own reflection in the mirror. However, some spiders appear to recognize themselves when looking down at a wet surface. So the factor in that case isn't the mirror itself, it's the orientation, or perhaps the texture of the reflection. After all, how many vertically oriented mirrors would you encounter in the wild? The mirror test appears to have its flaws, but is not the only method for testing intelligence and consciousness. I suspect all animals with a central nervous system have consciousness.

With that said, I consume meat. It's just a natural part of life for me, most forms of life consume other living things to survive. You won't find me objecting to better living conditions for livestock however.

The effects of the mass production of cultured meat are going to be interesting to observe, to say the least. Many farmers are not going to continue to raise livestock animals if there is no money in it. The market being flooded with synthetic meat and meat replacements could result in the extinction of several livestock animal species. That would be quite ironic indeed.