Yeah, my last few statements were hyperbole. Sorry that didn’t come across to you. I’m also about as weird as they come, so “weirdo” really isn’t a jab, it’s just a statement of fact, we’re all different and weird from eachother.
The point, and fact remains that we’re the only species on the planet that can rationalize rejecting meat due to ethical concerns. Give a cat some factory farm meat and it won’t even think twice about eating it… rinse and repeat with pretty much any animal on earth other than humans.
Regardless of that point, I’m not about to tell anyone how to live, eat what you want. What you eat doesn’t affect or inform what I eat. I also want you to have options, so I don’t have any protest to the creation of things like veggie burgers or tofurkey or whatever. The only time I would have a problem with vegetarians/vegans is if their choices affect my ability to make a choice. eg. I can no longer get beef because there’s now a vegan law that forbids it (type of thing). It’s extreme to think about, but it’s along the same lines of laws forbidding LGBTQ+ people from getting married or something, or women getting abortions. Sally joe’s abortion doesn’t really cause any damage to your life, why do you care? if Jim and John want to get married, why do you care? It doesn’t stop anyone else from refusing to get an abortion, or refusing to get gay married, they’re just discriminatory laws that restrict people’s action based on other peoples wants… historically, vegetarians and vegans haven’t even tried to cross that line, and I don’t think that will change, which is good. The religious fanatics however, cross that line continually. I just want to live and be free to marry who I want and eat what I want and live where I want and how I want, with the understanding that those wants shouldn’t impact other people’s ability to do the same. On the same note, I want that freedom for mankind. Where everyone can do anything they want, as long as it does not impact others ability to do the same. If you take a look at most laws, that’s how they’re written, to prevent individuals from impacting others in a negative way; about the safety of the society as a whole. Don’t drive your car at excessive speeds, which may cause you to lose control and potentially crash, possibly into someone else, which will injure/kill them, which impacts that persons ability to pursue their own goals (etc).
I am a humanist above all else. I couldn’t give any fewer craps about who you are as a person (race, color, religion, creed, lifestyle, sexual identity, sexual preference, etc), as long as you’re not negatively affecting others to live their lives how they want, then by all means, do the things, be happy.
Autonomy and choice is important, do you think less intelligent humans also deserve a right to autonomy? What about less intelligent animals? If you answered differently to these two questions, why?
Humans generally understand restricting choice is a good thing if the choice in question is committing harm. We don’t let people choose to rape, murder, etc. We don’t let people farm mentally disabled humans for their skin and meat. We don’t let people farm dogs and cats for their skin and meat. We do let people farm cows and pigs for their skin and meat.
Vegans have rectified this inconsistency, non-vegans haven’t. If you told me that you were fine with farming disabled humans, dogs, cats, etc. I’d at least applaud your consistency, but I have yet to meet a single non-vegan who is this consistent.
I understand your point and frankly, if anyone is okay with farming Hunan meat, regardless, then admitting to it, especially in a public forum would be social suicide.
There’s a nontrivial population on earth that don’t see any issue with killing and eating what most residents of first world countries would consider to be pets. But it’s all aside from the point that you’re making.
I understand you’re trying to provoke deep consideration on the matter, something most people won’t even consider doing, and I’ll tell you that I’ve come to terms with the decisions I’ve made, and justified them with deep dives into the logic of the scenario. There are social constructs of what is acceptable that I reject but don’t violate because of the social backlash that would ensue. There’s also the matter of preference, just as some people may like beets and others don’t, not all meat products are made equal either. Venison doesn’t have the same taste and consistency as beef, chicken or fish.
There’s also the matter of preferring what you know you like apart from trying something you’ve never had, eg, I haven’t really ever eaten shrimp and I have no desire to start. There’s many reasons for this that I’m just not going to get into as they’re not relevant to the point. Fact is, I can go buy shrimp at any time and have some and I choose not to. I’ve never had it and have no reason to avoid it, but I still won’t all the same.
The morality of handling the dead, specifically dead humans, by humans, is taboo pretty much regardless of who you are or what you do in life, and the dead are usually treated with a certain reverence and respect. So even if you’re not morally opposed to eating human meat, it’s likely you’re opposed to how it’s “farmed”. This is echoed in the film Soylent green. Fact is, we wouldn’t be okay with feeding or loved ones to the masses for nourishment, and most people can’t imagine anyone else would be okay with it, which is the critical point of the film. IMO, that a social construct and I further feel that it’s disengenous to the point. There’s very few creatures that engage in direct cannibalism. Even animals, with few exceptions, don’t do it.
So let’s put to bed the idea that humans, as a whole, would every be morally or socially okay with the idea of eating human meat. Same as so many other animals on the planet.
So we, as humans, omnivores, can choose to either participate in eating flesh of animals or not, that’s a personal decision, not one that should be mandated by any law. Human meat is off the table, and simply mentioning it speaks more about you than it does about the listener, that you would go to the length of comparing eating beef or chicken, to cannibalism. It’s a weak argument at best but has the virtue of having a lot of shock value.
For me, aside from cannibalism, I’m pretty okay with anything dying for my continued survival. Same as any meat eating predator on the planet. I hold no animosity to the animals I eat, I don’t want to eradicate them nor cause them suffering; simply, my desire to live is more potent than my empathy for their continued life. Fact is, as humans, we are not the majority of animal biomass on the planet, so carving out a small number of other animals so I can live is, in my opinion, fine. Their numbers will hardly vary and I get to live with all the benefits that the meat of their dead, provide. That enables me to continue to have stupid conversations like this, and help my fellow man.
I recognise animals as having intelligence, but as a human, I’ll always consider humanity as governed by a different set of rules. There’s no jail for a rabid animal that slaughters it’s own kind, only that their fellow animals fight it and kill it. Humans are held to different standards for crimes against humanity, since we at least consider ourselves to be more civilized. No single person acts as judge, jury and executioner. Even when there is a fatal shooting performed by law enforcement (or anyone else, for that matter), there’s still a trial to determine if the action was just, as we have agreed must be done as a society. Turning that idea on it’s head, we posthumously hold the dead person accountable for their final acts and whether killing them was a reasonable response to their actions and any immediate danger to life that they may have posed. We hold ourselves responsible for our actions in the court of law regardless if you died or not. This is exclusive to actions by humans against humans. We hold ourselves to a different standard. We always have and as far as I can see, we always will.
Tribes of wild cats can shift their loyalty on which Alpha Male can fight the best, they have their own laws that govern who lives and who dies, and what actions must be taken towards any winners or losers in their own system of law, same as us. The punishment can vary from disenfranchisement to death. Bears also have this same sort of law structure, etc. Most animals have some way of dealing with their own kind, and regard their own laws separate from other species. It’s not like a goat is going to rule over a pride of Lions or anything. In the same way, the laws of goats have no bearing on how lions rule their respective kingdoms. Once you step away from any specific animal and their kingdom, the rules that govern that animal don’t have any bearing on the social and law structure of another animal. We are the same way. Everything behaves this way on the planet. Humans are no exception.
When it comes to food, every other carnivorous animal on the planet cares not about the social structure or ongoing survival of the animals that they kill, and for centuries, humans were the same. Now that we have an understanding of nutrition and sufficient agriculture to sustain it, humans can now make a decision if they want to continue to eat the animals that historically were our prey. Some have chosen not to, and that’s fine.
Trying to guilt me into making that choice by falsely leading me to think that eating animals is akin to cannibalism is insane and to me, invalidates you as a trusted speaker. You’re free to say what you wish, you have the freedom of speech, but bluntly, your opinion of me for my choices is not valid because of what you’ve said, and tried to imply or draw comparisons to regarding my choices.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
This is gish-galloping, to properly address your points, every paragraph would require 3ish paragraphs, so I’d have to spend the better part of 2 hours responding, which is totally unreasonable to expect in a forum like this with a stranger you have no personal attachment to.
From what I gather, your main issues are social ostracization and false equivalencies. Using social norms to drive your moral decisions is obviously problematic, you can think of a ton of atrocities committed by humans when those atrocities were socially normalized. People aren’t born evil, with an intent to cause harm. They’re taught to be ambivalent, and can perpetuate atrocities through apathy.
As for the idea that there’s some false equivalence, you’re misunderstanding the thought experiment. Yes, eating humans is more dangerous than eating chickens or dogs, but that’s a happenstance of nature. It’s possible we could figure out a way to eliminate prion diseases and other harmful effects of cannibalism, and then farming disabled humans who process information at the same level of a cow would be morally permissible to a logically consistent non-vegan.
Of course, essentially no carnists are logically consistent. They use emotion and preference towards certain species to guide their decision instead of rationally considering when it’s okay to harm something (taste pleasure isn’t a high enough bar to inflict pain and death, obviously).
The only time I would have a problem with vegetarians/vegans is if their choices affect my ability to make a choice. eg. I can no longer get beef because there’s now a vegan law that forbids it (type of thing).
Just out of curiosity, how would you feel about laws that make beef more expensive? (because of lower subsidies, stricter animal welfare regulations, or maybe higher taxes to cover climate impact)
Everything is more expensive. It continues to be more expensive all the time. So I’m not sure of your point, nor why the cost of beef would affect my willingness to eat it.
Laws that specifically make beef much more expensive could be seen as a milder way of banning beef (extreme example: if it costs as much as you make in a month, it’s basically banned), so I was curious where you draw the line of “their choices affecting my ability to make a choice”.
I suppose it mostly depends on by how much. If it’s an unreasonable amount, I’m sure that many will have something to say about it. Of course that raises the question of what would be considered to be a reasonable amount. 30 years ago, an increase of a few dollars for an average cut of beef would have people up in arms, but now, a $3 increase of the same would hardly be noticed.
Yeah, my last few statements were hyperbole. Sorry that didn’t come across to you. I’m also about as weird as they come, so “weirdo” really isn’t a jab, it’s just a statement of fact, we’re all different and weird from eachother.
The point, and fact remains that we’re the only species on the planet that can rationalize rejecting meat due to ethical concerns. Give a cat some factory farm meat and it won’t even think twice about eating it… rinse and repeat with pretty much any animal on earth other than humans.
Regardless of that point, I’m not about to tell anyone how to live, eat what you want. What you eat doesn’t affect or inform what I eat. I also want you to have options, so I don’t have any protest to the creation of things like veggie burgers or tofurkey or whatever. The only time I would have a problem with vegetarians/vegans is if their choices affect my ability to make a choice. eg. I can no longer get beef because there’s now a vegan law that forbids it (type of thing). It’s extreme to think about, but it’s along the same lines of laws forbidding LGBTQ+ people from getting married or something, or women getting abortions. Sally joe’s abortion doesn’t really cause any damage to your life, why do you care? if Jim and John want to get married, why do you care? It doesn’t stop anyone else from refusing to get an abortion, or refusing to get gay married, they’re just discriminatory laws that restrict people’s action based on other peoples wants… historically, vegetarians and vegans haven’t even tried to cross that line, and I don’t think that will change, which is good. The religious fanatics however, cross that line continually. I just want to live and be free to marry who I want and eat what I want and live where I want and how I want, with the understanding that those wants shouldn’t impact other people’s ability to do the same. On the same note, I want that freedom for mankind. Where everyone can do anything they want, as long as it does not impact others ability to do the same. If you take a look at most laws, that’s how they’re written, to prevent individuals from impacting others in a negative way; about the safety of the society as a whole. Don’t drive your car at excessive speeds, which may cause you to lose control and potentially crash, possibly into someone else, which will injure/kill them, which impacts that persons ability to pursue their own goals (etc).
I am a humanist above all else. I couldn’t give any fewer craps about who you are as a person (race, color, religion, creed, lifestyle, sexual identity, sexual preference, etc), as long as you’re not negatively affecting others to live their lives how they want, then by all means, do the things, be happy.
Autonomy and choice is important, do you think less intelligent humans also deserve a right to autonomy? What about less intelligent animals? If you answered differently to these two questions, why?
Humans generally understand restricting choice is a good thing if the choice in question is committing harm. We don’t let people choose to rape, murder, etc. We don’t let people farm mentally disabled humans for their skin and meat. We don’t let people farm dogs and cats for their skin and meat. We do let people farm cows and pigs for their skin and meat.
Vegans have rectified this inconsistency, non-vegans haven’t. If you told me that you were fine with farming disabled humans, dogs, cats, etc. I’d at least applaud your consistency, but I have yet to meet a single non-vegan who is this consistent.
I understand your point and frankly, if anyone is okay with farming Hunan meat, regardless, then admitting to it, especially in a public forum would be social suicide.
There’s a nontrivial population on earth that don’t see any issue with killing and eating what most residents of first world countries would consider to be pets. But it’s all aside from the point that you’re making.
I understand you’re trying to provoke deep consideration on the matter, something most people won’t even consider doing, and I’ll tell you that I’ve come to terms with the decisions I’ve made, and justified them with deep dives into the logic of the scenario. There are social constructs of what is acceptable that I reject but don’t violate because of the social backlash that would ensue. There’s also the matter of preference, just as some people may like beets and others don’t, not all meat products are made equal either. Venison doesn’t have the same taste and consistency as beef, chicken or fish.
There’s also the matter of preferring what you know you like apart from trying something you’ve never had, eg, I haven’t really ever eaten shrimp and I have no desire to start. There’s many reasons for this that I’m just not going to get into as they’re not relevant to the point. Fact is, I can go buy shrimp at any time and have some and I choose not to. I’ve never had it and have no reason to avoid it, but I still won’t all the same.
The morality of handling the dead, specifically dead humans, by humans, is taboo pretty much regardless of who you are or what you do in life, and the dead are usually treated with a certain reverence and respect. So even if you’re not morally opposed to eating human meat, it’s likely you’re opposed to how it’s “farmed”. This is echoed in the film Soylent green. Fact is, we wouldn’t be okay with feeding or loved ones to the masses for nourishment, and most people can’t imagine anyone else would be okay with it, which is the critical point of the film. IMO, that a social construct and I further feel that it’s disengenous to the point. There’s very few creatures that engage in direct cannibalism. Even animals, with few exceptions, don’t do it.
So let’s put to bed the idea that humans, as a whole, would every be morally or socially okay with the idea of eating human meat. Same as so many other animals on the planet.
So we, as humans, omnivores, can choose to either participate in eating flesh of animals or not, that’s a personal decision, not one that should be mandated by any law. Human meat is off the table, and simply mentioning it speaks more about you than it does about the listener, that you would go to the length of comparing eating beef or chicken, to cannibalism. It’s a weak argument at best but has the virtue of having a lot of shock value.
For me, aside from cannibalism, I’m pretty okay with anything dying for my continued survival. Same as any meat eating predator on the planet. I hold no animosity to the animals I eat, I don’t want to eradicate them nor cause them suffering; simply, my desire to live is more potent than my empathy for their continued life. Fact is, as humans, we are not the majority of animal biomass on the planet, so carving out a small number of other animals so I can live is, in my opinion, fine. Their numbers will hardly vary and I get to live with all the benefits that the meat of their dead, provide. That enables me to continue to have stupid conversations like this, and help my fellow man.
I recognise animals as having intelligence, but as a human, I’ll always consider humanity as governed by a different set of rules. There’s no jail for a rabid animal that slaughters it’s own kind, only that their fellow animals fight it and kill it. Humans are held to different standards for crimes against humanity, since we at least consider ourselves to be more civilized. No single person acts as judge, jury and executioner. Even when there is a fatal shooting performed by law enforcement (or anyone else, for that matter), there’s still a trial to determine if the action was just, as we have agreed must be done as a society. Turning that idea on it’s head, we posthumously hold the dead person accountable for their final acts and whether killing them was a reasonable response to their actions and any immediate danger to life that they may have posed. We hold ourselves responsible for our actions in the court of law regardless if you died or not. This is exclusive to actions by humans against humans. We hold ourselves to a different standard. We always have and as far as I can see, we always will.
Tribes of wild cats can shift their loyalty on which Alpha Male can fight the best, they have their own laws that govern who lives and who dies, and what actions must be taken towards any winners or losers in their own system of law, same as us. The punishment can vary from disenfranchisement to death. Bears also have this same sort of law structure, etc. Most animals have some way of dealing with their own kind, and regard their own laws separate from other species. It’s not like a goat is going to rule over a pride of Lions or anything. In the same way, the laws of goats have no bearing on how lions rule their respective kingdoms. Once you step away from any specific animal and their kingdom, the rules that govern that animal don’t have any bearing on the social and law structure of another animal. We are the same way. Everything behaves this way on the planet. Humans are no exception.
When it comes to food, every other carnivorous animal on the planet cares not about the social structure or ongoing survival of the animals that they kill, and for centuries, humans were the same. Now that we have an understanding of nutrition and sufficient agriculture to sustain it, humans can now make a decision if they want to continue to eat the animals that historically were our prey. Some have chosen not to, and that’s fine.
Trying to guilt me into making that choice by falsely leading me to think that eating animals is akin to cannibalism is insane and to me, invalidates you as a trusted speaker. You’re free to say what you wish, you have the freedom of speech, but bluntly, your opinion of me for my choices is not valid because of what you’ve said, and tried to imply or draw comparisons to regarding my choices.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Good day to you.
This is gish-galloping, to properly address your points, every paragraph would require 3ish paragraphs, so I’d have to spend the better part of 2 hours responding, which is totally unreasonable to expect in a forum like this with a stranger you have no personal attachment to.
From what I gather, your main issues are social ostracization and false equivalencies. Using social norms to drive your moral decisions is obviously problematic, you can think of a ton of atrocities committed by humans when those atrocities were socially normalized. People aren’t born evil, with an intent to cause harm. They’re taught to be ambivalent, and can perpetuate atrocities through apathy.
As for the idea that there’s some false equivalence, you’re misunderstanding the thought experiment. Yes, eating humans is more dangerous than eating chickens or dogs, but that’s a happenstance of nature. It’s possible we could figure out a way to eliminate prion diseases and other harmful effects of cannibalism, and then farming disabled humans who process information at the same level of a cow would be morally permissible to a logically consistent non-vegan.
Of course, essentially no carnists are logically consistent. They use emotion and preference towards certain species to guide their decision instead of rationally considering when it’s okay to harm something (taste pleasure isn’t a high enough bar to inflict pain and death, obviously).
Just out of curiosity, how would you feel about laws that make beef more expensive? (because of lower subsidies, stricter animal welfare regulations, or maybe higher taxes to cover climate impact)
Everything is more expensive. It continues to be more expensive all the time. So I’m not sure of your point, nor why the cost of beef would affect my willingness to eat it.
Laws that specifically make beef much more expensive could be seen as a milder way of banning beef (extreme example: if it costs as much as you make in a month, it’s basically banned), so I was curious where you draw the line of “their choices affecting my ability to make a choice”.
I suppose it mostly depends on by how much. If it’s an unreasonable amount, I’m sure that many will have something to say about it. Of course that raises the question of what would be considered to be a reasonable amount. 30 years ago, an increase of a few dollars for an average cut of beef would have people up in arms, but now, a $3 increase of the same would hardly be noticed.