Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The below argument for vegetarianism is very straightforward, yet I've never heard an actual rebuttal to it that held water:
I. One should avoid causing suffering that is reasonably avoidable.
II. Eating meat causes suffering.
III. Eating meat is reasonably avoidable.
Conclusion: One should not eat meat.
The argument is obviously valid, and premises II and III seem to me to be clearly sound. I'm really not sure where meat eaters disagree, but I'm guessing it must be premise I.
Meat eaters: What do you dispute about this argument? Do you dispute its validity or its soundness, and if it's soundness, which premise do you dispute?
Moderator cut: -
I. Is a morality judgement
II. Is not necessarily a fact (it may, or may not)
Also: consider what happens in an ecosystem when you DON'T:
(I just posted in another thread about the example of the deer not adequately hunted in the north east and starving to death and dying of disease.)
Typical attempt to win an argument, stating opinions as fact and then trying to base the discussion on "if, then" when it's core premis is flawed.
I could even point or that without advanced laboratories (and the budget) III. Is not even true.
There's some vitamin (I forget which) which is only available through animals or 1st world labs.
I. Is a morality judgement
II. Is not necessarily a fact (it may, or may not)
Also: consider what happens in an ecosystem when you DON'T:
(I just posted in another thread about the example of the deer not adequately hunted in the north east and starving to death and dying of disease.)
Typical attempt to win an argument, stating opinions as fact and then trying to base the discussion on "if, then" when it's core premis is flawed.
I could even point or that without advanced laboratories (and the budget) III. Is not even true.
There's some vitamin (I forget which) which is only available through animals or 1st world labs.
You're confusing "morality" with "opinion." The two are not the same.
Regarding hunting, this is an example of something I've already addressed. There is a difference between nature accomplishing some end and us accomplishing some end. As I already said, imagine I told you I was going to go kill some children in poverty-stricken countries since they would die a death from disease or famine anyway. Would you say I was morally justified in killing those kids?
And your point about the health of vegetarianism is simply wrong. There is plenty of medical evidence that vegetarianism is healthy. The average vegetarian in the US lives between three and six years longer than the average meat eater.
If not used for "meat", how many of the animals we have now would be extinct? They would not have life at all. So, we as humans suffer so wouldn't it be better if we were never born either? It is kind of the same thing.
We don't eat that much meat going for the quality of organic and raised in a more natural way.
I've already addressed the first point. As I said, our food animals don't exist in nature. They serve no natural purpose, and they were invented by us simply for food. Their extinction would cause no natural problem.
Humans suffer, but humans shouldn't intentionally inflict suffering on other humans. Think through your argument here. Let's say I told you that I was going to have a baby, raise it to the age of 8, and then kill it. Would you say I was justified? Why not -- after all, all humans suffer! Would it have been better if it was never born?
*sigh* As created beings, don't you think God/nature/evolution/big bang/whatever you believe, created animals with whatever traits that are needed for the animals to live their lives?
It's not surprising that animals have a certain level of intelligence or form social connections. However, that still does not eliminate the possibility of said animals to be consumed as food. Again, the food chain and natural predators. Aren't dolphins said to be intelligent? Whales eat them all the time. It's just nature.
A coyote will eat a chicken and that's somehow okay. But if a human eats that same chicken, it's an outrage? The same chicken is still dead in both scenarios.
I make no distinction between dogs, cats, or any other animal that can be consumed for food if the need arises. People will eat other people. Eating a dog is not a stretch.
Coyotes are not moral agents. They are not capable of moral reasoning because they do not have language abilities.
Many animals also kill each other. Does that make humans killing each other morally acceptable? Of course not.
Nature doesn't come with "oughts." Just because something happens in the natural world doesn't mean it is morally preferable. Besides, we aren't "created" beings. No intention went into our existence.
If someone doesn't want to eat meat, that's up to him. But it's wrong for him to try to impose his tastes on people who want do want to eat meat.
There are a million and one things that cause suffering of some sort that can be avoided. Easily in in the eye of the beholder. Suffering of someone or something in a consequence of almost any action.
The arguments offered can be customized to prohibit almost any activity. They are not really arguments at all. They are circular reasoning.
Don't eat meat. If that fits your personal tastes or beliefs, that's all the reason you need.
Would you extend that argument to your own suffering? If someone walked up to you and broke your leg, then laughed as you writhed on the ground, would you say "Well, suffering isn't really a big deal because it exists all over the place!"
It's funny how people can be so flippant about another being's suffering. When it's our own, we are adamant that suffering should be avoided if possible.
The below argument for vegetarianism is very straightforward, yet I've never heard an actual rebuttal to it that held water:
I. One should avoid causing suffering that is reasonably avoidable.
II. Eating meat causes suffering.
III. Eating meat is reasonably avoidable.
Conclusion: One should not eat meat.
*All II proves is that we shouldn't kill animals to eat unless we can reduce the pain of their dying process to a trivial level at worst. Nitrous Oxide used by dentists definitely reduces the pain, and it's admittedly a joyful experience too (as someone who has been under it). Or perhaps some other means is available to render the animals sensations painless.
*Even assuming II is impossible to defeat, there's still some debate as to whether a person can actually be healthy on a vegetarian or especially vegan diet.
Your point about number two is true regarding this argument. This argument doesn't prove that killing animals would be wrong if we could do it without suffering. That doesn't imply that it is okay to kill animals if no suffering is involved, though. It just means that this argument isn't about that. This argument is about killing animals when suffering is involved.
If I could kill you without you suffering, would you grant that there was nothing wrong with me killing you? If not, why not? We should care about the interests of beings who are capable of having interests. I tried to keep things as simple as possible in the OP in order to avoid tangents. I'll expand here, though. We would probably all agree that if we were somehow magically put under anesthetic while we slept, that it would not be acceptable for someone to kill us just because we wouldn't suffer. It's tough to explain why that is true for humans but false for other sentient creatures. There is a difference in degree between the two, but not in kind.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-02-2015 at 08:17 PM..
Reason: Fixed formatting
I said being a "Vegetarian" still results in the mass slaughter of animals, not being a "vegan." And yes, if you are a vegetarian who eats dairy, animals still die to support your diet. If everyone in the world became a vegetarian, animals would still be killed. You can say it's the food industry that's doing it, but if you're buying from the food industry, you're supporting their methods with your dollars. It's almost impossible not to.
Reducing the number of animals killed and the number of animals who suffer is a major success. We can't eliminate all crime, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have police departments. You are right in that it is impossible to not cause some sort of suffering in life. That doesn't give us a free pass on intentionally causing suffering for no good reason, though.
if we all stopped eating meat tomorrow animals would still be killed, cattle and sheep and chicken are bred solely to feed us humans and if we no longer eat them there is no reason for a farmer to keep them, so they will all be killed and the farmer will go over to arable crops.
Of course, but it would at least stop the cycle. There would be no further chickens and cows and sheep bred just to be slaughtered.
I'll make a deal with you: You can have all of the animals that currently exist in the food system. You just can't have any new ones!
Putting ultimatums and absolutions on things people should and should not do in this regard is generally something that does not make sense.
Everything comes down to how it is done and the context in which it is done. Maybe someone should not eat so much meat and fast food garbage, but they should certainly not tell others what they should not eat patronizingly.
What works for you and your diet is not the same as what may work for others, obviously. Some people need meat. I would argue people should not eat junk food. Junk food is not meat.
You're confusing my argument with a health argument. I'm not suggesting that the reason people should avoid meat is because it isn't as healthy. I pointed out the health benefits to show that we don't have health reason to eat meat, but my argument against meat is a moral argument.
There is no context in which intentionally killing a sentient creature for no good reason is acceptable.
You're confusing "morality" with "opinion." The two are not the same. Go take sociology 101. This is simply wrong. (example: 200 years ago people with darker skins than others were property. 50 years before that, on the other side of the world, people with whiter skin than others were property.) This was "moral" to the time and place.
Regarding hunting, this is an example of something I've already addressed. There is a difference between nature accomplishing some end and us accomplishing some end. As I already said, imagine I told you I was going to go kill some children in poverty-stricken countries since they would die a death from disease or famine anyway. Would you say I was morally justified in killing those kids? I know you said it, it's just as absurd then as now. WE ARE A PART OF NATURE! More "red herring" pseudo-analogies will not detract from that.
And your point about the health of vegetarianism is simply wrong. There is plenty of medical evidence that vegetarianism is healthy. The average vegetarian in the US lives between three and six years longer than the average meat eater.
Also: most vegetarians by default are careful about their diet/bodies.
Your attempting to compare them with a populace which includes those eats twinkles and chips as their main meals, with a side rider of bacon, AND those who also take care of their bodies.
Invalid comparison.
Care to try again?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
