Unsual Vegetarian Questions

[Yahweh]

It never really occurred to me until now to think of these things, and I feel silly for asking them...

Most ethical vegetarians cite the capacity for an animal suffer as the main reason to avoid eating meat, so would vegetarians object to eating meat if the animals were given anesthetic or killed quickly in their sleep (presumably quick enough that they wouldnt have a chance to know they had died or feel pain)?

On top of animal suffering, most vegetarians cite the capacity for an animal to be self-aware and value its own life as a reason for not eating animals. Would vegetarians therefore favor eating only animals kept in a permanent comatose state, or favor eating animals in their fetal forms before they develop the capacity to feel pain or have any sense of awareness?

[Iacchus]

Oh, shame on you! :D

[MRC_Hans]

Uhh, by the same reasoning, it would not be murder to kill a human in coma.

Hans

[Donks]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Uhh, by the same reasoning, it would not be murder to kill a human in coma.

Hans
Hmmm, no. Murder is a legal definition. These are arguments used by vegetarians which carry no legal weight. Although in certain places and under certain conditions you may be allowed to end the life of a person who falls into a coma, being euthanasia and not murder.

ETA: Also, it is not illegal to kill an animal, it depends mainly on how you do it. If I feel like it, I can probably get a vet to put my perfectly healthy dog to sleep, although I doubt I can get a doctor to do the same with my brother.

[MRC_Hans]

Well, laws simply reflect our ethical standards (ideally ;)). So according to ethical vegs, killing an animal IS eqal to murder. Thus, on an ethical scale, my argument remains valid.

Hans

[Anders]

Originally posted by Yahweh
It never really occurred to me until now to think of these things, and I feel silly for asking them...

Most ethical vegetarians cite the capacity for an animal suffer as the main reason to avoid eating meat, so would vegetarians object to eating meat if the animals were given anesthetic or killed quickly in their sleep (presumably quick enough that they wouldnt have a chance to know they had died or feel pain)?

On top of animal suffering, most vegetarians cite the capacity for an animal to be self-aware and value its own life as a reason for not eating animals. Would vegetarians therefore favor eating only animals kept in a permanent comatose state, or favor eating animals in their fetal forms before they develop the capacity to feel pain or have any sense of awareness?
As pointed out above, it's a question of moral context. In my moral context, it is OK to kill and eat almost any animal, except a few kinds, such as dogs, cats, hamsters. There are other part of the world or other people that are in in other moral contexts, by choice or not, where it is ok to eat cats, dogs and even hamsters.

Or still other contexts where it is tabu to eat animal or certain kinds of animals, like pigs.

This question can only be philosophic, never scientific.

I've heard vegitarians state that it is moraly wrong to eat dead animal. But which moral is he refering to then? Not mine anyway!

[Donks]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Well, laws simply reflect our ethical standards (ideally ;)). So according to ethical vegs, killing an animal IS eqal to murder. Thus, on an ethical scale, my argument remains valid.

Hans
Well, yes, I guess on an ethical standard it is valid. But then again, it's not surprise vegs would think this. Haven't you heard the slogan "meat is murder"?

[Anders]

Originally posted by Donks
Well, yes, I guess on an ethical standard it is valid. But then again, it's not surprise vegs would think this. Haven't you heard the slogan "meat is murder"?
Me personally don't really care. Call it killing, slaughter, murder, I'll have that roasted chicken anyways!

[BeholdTheTruth]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Well, laws simply reflect our ethical standards (ideally ;)). So according to ethical vegs, killing an animal IS eqal to murder. Thus, on an ethical scale, my argument remains valid.

Hans

But, Hans, as hypocrisy is both the glue that keeps societies together and the glue that keeps psyches together, perhaps a more basic question is, "Is the concept of ethics itself ethical, or is ethics just an unethical means of shepherds encouraging certain standards of behavior by sheep conducive to one kind of "farmer" or another's perhaps veiled interests?"

BTW, more on the long buried and left for dead -- and now being rightly resurrected -- meme of "Deictic Deicide" (which comedically claims to seriously reveal what lies lie behind "truths" about ethics) is found at the newly revised http://theometry.org pages. BTW2, Happy Thanksgiving week-end everyone!

[Suezoled]

We should do like "the Restaurant at the End of the Universe" and breed an animal that WANTS to be killed and eaten.

[Nex]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Well, laws simply reflect our ethical standards (ideally ;)). So according to ethical vegs, killing an animal IS eqal to murder. Thus, on an ethical scale, my argument remains valid.

Hans
No it doesn't. There are plenty of vegetarians who do not view killing for food as murder. They're vegetarian because of ethical reasons like animal suffering and cruelty, societal health concerns (as in, not just personal but the whole of society, and this type is usually REALLY preachy), or environmental concerns. :p

Originally posted by Suezoled
We should do like "the Restaurant at the End of the Universe" and breed an animal that WANTS to be killed and eaten.
...at least it would shut PETA up.

Eh, who am I kidding, PETA won't ever shut up...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Well, laws simply reflect our ethical standards (ideally ;)). So according to ethical vegs, killing an animal IS eqal to murder. Thus, on an ethical scale, my argument remains valid.

Hans
So what are the ethical objections to killing a human in a coma? And can the same ethical objections be carried over to non-human animals?

[neutrino_cannon]

I would extend the question to completely functional animals that are obviously not self-aware, such as jellyfish. If killing an unconscious person is murder, presumably because they have the capacity to regain consciousness, then is killing something which has no capacity whatsoever for consciousness murder?

Of course, until there's a solid definition for self-awareness and consciousness, these discussions are largely putting the cart before the horse.

[rustypouch]

Originally posted by Donks
Well, yes, I guess on an ethical standard it is valid. But then again, it's not surprise vegs would think this. Haven't you heard the slogan "meat is murder"?

I have heard "meat is murder" many times. A great album by a great band.

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Yahweh
So what are the ethical objections to killing a human in a coma? And can the same ethical objections be carried over to non-human animals?

1 - The meat will be flabby and won't cook well
2 - yes.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why does anyone feel better about killing plants? Where's PETP when we need them?

~~ Paul

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Wudang
1 - The meat will be flabby and won't cook well
2 - yes.
1. I always took it that most meat-eaters enjoyed veal.
2. Animals are people, too :)

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Yahweh
1. I always took it that most meat-eaters enjoyed veal.


To be serious, there are moral issues there. Anyone in the UK who drinks milk or partakes of other dairy products should feeel morally obliged to eat veal, as the calves are the by-product of the dairy industry. Otherwise they can be shipped abroad to be reared in crates. So remember to balance that low-fat yoghurt with a weiner schnitzel. Vegetarians who eat cheese etc morally bankrupt. So as you tuck into your oss buco remember to say "I'm doing this for the baby cows".

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Wudang
To be serious, there are moral issues there. Anyone in the UK who drinks milk or partakes of other dairy products should feeel morally obliged to eat veal, as the calves are the by-product of the dairy industry. Otherwise they can be shipped abroad to be reared in crates. So remember to balance that low-fat yoghurt with a weiner schnitzel. Vegetarians who eat cheese etc morally bankrupt. So as you tuck into your oss buco remember to say "I'm doing this for the baby cows".
Interesting point.

What do Organic Providers do with the calves born from dairy cows?

And are their any ethical objections to buying eggs from Organic Providers?

[Wudang]

Originally posted by Yahweh

What do Organic Providers do with the calves born from dairy cows?
Good question. The answer should be good ammo,

And are their any ethical objections to buying eggs from Organic Providers?
I haven't invented any yet. Give me a while. :D

[Nex]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Interesting point.

What do Organic Providers do with the calves born from dairy cows?

And are their any ethical objections to buying eggs from Organic Providers?
Here in the States calves born on free-range organic farms are either sold off to the slaughterhouse or kept as milkers if they're female and needed.

Off the top of my head, I know PETA's objection to buying eggs from organic providers would be, "Humans shouldn't mess with Nature! Let the hens run free! It is cruel to keep intelligent (*snicker*) birds just to lay eggs for horrible meddling humans."

Or maybe that's just my biased view of PETA. :D

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Why does anyone feel better about killing plants? Where's PETP when we need them?

~~ Paul

Supposedly I heard that some vegetables, like lettuce, are still alive when you're eating them. Wouldn't that be more cruel? After all, plants like being talked to! They're aware! ;)

[Kitty Chan]

I know Ive posted this before but I cant resist . . . .The Arrogant Worms

Carrot Juice is Murder

Listen up brothers and sisters, come hear my desperate tale
I speak of our friends of nature, trapped in the dirt like a jail
Vegetables live in oppresion, served on our tables each night
The killing of veggies is madness, I say we take up the fight
Salads are only for murderers, cole slaw's a fascist regime
Don't think that they don't have feelings, just cuz a radish can't
scream

CHORUS
I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream scream
scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (Having their insides
revealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (burning off calories)
How do you think that feels (bet it hurts really bad)
Carrot Juice constitutes murder (and that's a real crime)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (let my vegetables grow)
It's time to stop all this gardening (it's as dirty as hell)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade...)

I saw a man eating celery, so I beat him black and blue
If he ever touches a sprout again, I'll bite him clean in two
I'm a political prisoner trapped in a windowless cage
Cuz I stopped the slughter of turnips by killing three men in a
rage
I told the judge when he sentenced me, this is my finest hour
I'd kill those farmers again just to save one more cauliflower

CHORUS

How low as people do we dare to stoop
Making young broccoli's bleed in the soup
Untie your beans, uncage your tomatoes, let ptted plants free
Don't mash that potato
I've heard the screams of the vegetables (scream scream
scream)
Watching their skins being peeled (fates in the stir fry are
sealed)
Grated and steamed with no mercy (you fat gourmet slob)
How do you think that feels (leave them out in the fields)
Carrot Juice constitutes murder (V8's genocide)
Greenhouses prisons for slaves (yes your compost's a grave)
It's time to stop all this gardening (take up macram_)
Let's call a spade a spade (is a spade is a spade...)
Power to the peas
Give peas a chance
All we are saying is give peas a chance

:D

as per

http://www.elyrics.net/go/a/arrogant-worms-lyrics/carrot-juice-is-murder-lyrics/

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Anders
As pointed out above, it's a question of moral context. In my moral context, it is OK to kill and eat almost any animal, except a few kinds, such as dogs, cats, hamsters. There are other part of the world or other people that are in in other moral contexts, by choice or not, where it is ok to eat cats, dogs and even hamsters.

Or still other contexts where it is tabu to eat animal or certain kinds of animals, like pigs.

This question can only be philosophic, never scientific.


I dont buy into this kind of "subjectivism", I've always had it that moral questions are either correct or incorrect. By the very fact that people can discuss and disagree about moral questions assumes that there are objective facts which are being disagreed about - and therefore is objective. Cultural relativism is false for the same reason, because people of different cultures and times still have disagreements about moral questions.

So, of course it'll always be philosophical, but it can still be an objective question at the same time.



I've heard vegitarians state that it is moraly wrong to eat dead animal. But which moral is he refering to then? Not mine anyway!
At least one reason why its wrong to eat dead animal is because you have to kill them, did you happen to mean animals that die naturally? I've heard this explained as a sanitation issue (quite similar to why there are ethical concerns about sharing dirty needles). Of course, the same standard might apply to eating dirty veggies, so perhaps I the ethics go away when you clean your dead animals...

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Yahweh
On top of animal suffering, most vegetarians cite the capacity for an animal to be self-aware and value its own life as a reason for not eating animals. Would vegetarians therefore favor eating only animals kept in a permanent comatose state, or favor eating animals in their fetal forms before they develop the capacity to feel pain or have any sense of awareness?
On the same note, are there any ethical objections about eating bugs or jellyfish? I'm fairly sure bugs and jellyfish have no capacity to suffer, or have self-awareness, or consciously value their own lives.

(Presumably, bugs and jellyfish can be factory farmed, so isnt a danger of wrecking the environment.)

Edit to add:
Oops, I see I've had a flash of subconscious suggestion. Neat! I glanced over N_C's post quickly. Later the post played back to me and I'd forgotten that where I'd read it. I dont take credit for this post, the credit goes to N_C.

Good work, N_C :)

[Nex]

Originally posted by Yahweh
On the same note, are there any ethical objections about eating bugs or jellyfish? I'm fairly sure bugs and jellyfish have no capacity to suffer, or have self-awareness, or consciously value their own lives.

(Presumably, bugs and jellyfish can be factory farmed, so isnt a danger of wrecking the environment.)
I've heard the argument that if it has the ability to feel pain, it can suffer.

I don't buy it, but I have heard it. :con2:


I'm not much help, sorry. I used to be veg, but I've gone back to my muderous evil ways.

Mmmm, food with a face... :D

[bignickel]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Most ethical vegetarians cite the capacity for an animal suffer as the main reason to avoid eating meat,..
<SNIP>
On top of animal suffering, most vegetarians cite the capacity for an animal to be self-aware and value its own life as a reason for not eating animals.

Since I don't think any vegetarians on this board believe these things (or I don't know of any), I don't think you're going to get any answers beyond heresay (assuming that any posters to this thread know 1). some vegetarians who 2). believe more or less what you've listed above).

Perhaps the question could be posted on a vegetarian forum page? I bet you'd get more information from there, since you might find some with those beliefs.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Most ethical vegetarians cite the capacity for an animal suffer as the main reason to avoid eating meat, so would vegetarians object to eating meat if the animals were given anesthetic or killed quickly in their sleep (presumably quick enough that they wouldnt have a chance to know they had died or feel pain)?
My partner stopped eating meat because she decided she didn't like the way most farmed animals are treated when they are alive (initially she just stopped eating mammals, but gave up chicken as well when I pointed out how much worse chickens are often treated - I'm not a great fan of chicken...). The killing method wasn't a particular issue.

At least she still eats fish.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Anders
I've heard vegitarians state that it is moraly wrong to eat dead animal. But which moral is he refering to then? Not mine anyway!
In this sort of context "morally wrong" almost invariably means "I don't like this but I can't provide a credible argument for it being wrong, so I don't want to get involved in a rational discussion about it."

It's like using the words "Human Cloning" in any discussion about research into genetics (as in "...but that could lead to HUMAN CLONING!").

[thatguywhojuggles]

There are no such things as vegiterians or vegans. It's all a myth. Consider this: you shed 1.5 million skin cells every hour. So if you or some other human is preparing your food, you are eating flesh--human flesh! :p

[bignickel]

Since I've heard nothing yet about anyone asking these questions on veggie forums, I have to tentatively conclude that this is a 'bash the vegetarian strawman' thread.

[scepticalan]

There are many reasons that people become vegetarians. I think that most aren't only against the death situation of the animals, but also the lives that the animals have to live before becoming meat.

I find meat unnecessary in my diet, so i don't eat it. I would eat it in an emergency situation, and i couldn't care less about the dietary choices of other people. For the record, if an animal was killed painlessly and without any suffering, i still wouldn't eat it because i don't really like meat all that much anyway.

[Lilith]

My partner stopped eating meat because she decided she didn't like the way most farmed animals are treated when they are alive (snip). The killing method wasn't a particular issue.



Likewise - I object to the way many animals on farms are treated while alive. I would be less uncomfortable eating pork, for instance, if I believed that farm pigs had a decent life. But I am also concerned with the humaneness of their death. If I could choose, animals raised for food would have a nice happy life with many sunny days, and their death would come quickly without pain or terror. Of course, I also wish the same for humans! And for prey animals the world over. We can't have such a world, I know. But for the animals that humans are responsible for, I think it is the right thing to aim for. I live in deer-hunting country, and I detest the gory hunter's stories that some of them seem to enjoy telling of the deer that cried in fear and pain after being shot.

For the record, if an animal was killed painlessly and without any suffering, i still wouldn't eat it because i don't really like meat all that much anyway.


For the record, I still wouldn't eat beef - I don't like it. Other meat I don't like much, but sometimes eat it. I imagine it is harder to be a vegetarian if you just love to eat meat.

[linusrichard]

I feel silly for asking them...
Fair enough.
Most ethical vegetarians cite the capacity for an animal suffer as the main reason to avoid eating meat, so would vegetarians object to eating meat if the animals were given anesthetic or killed quickly in their sleep (presumably quick enough that they wouldnt have a chance to know they had died or feel pain)?
I'll pretend to be an ethical vegetarian for a moment - animals raised for food don't just suffer at the moment of their death. A lot of these animals live in really awful conditions for most of their lives. So, no. Maybe free range or wild animals killed in this way... maybe not.
On top of animal suffering, most vegetarians cite the capacity for an animal to be self-aware and value its own life as a reason for not eating animals.
"Most vegetarians"? I'd love to see the evidence to back up that claim.
Would vegetarians therefore favor eating only animals kept in a permanent comatose state, or favor eating animals in their fetal forms before they develop the capacity to feel pain or have any sense of awareness?
Ugh. Why? It's pretty easy to just not eat meat if you don't want to eat meat. Why would anyone, vegetarian or otherwise, want to eat a cow-fetus sandwich, or gross lifelong-comatose-chicken nuggets?

The only good argument against ethical vegetarianism I've ever encountered. (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill)

[Gevaudan]

Why does anyone feel obliged to morally justify what they eat to anyone?

[bokonon]

Why would anyone, vegetarian or otherwise, want to eat a cow-fetus sandwich, or gross lifelong-comatose-chicken nuggets?
Yeah. And why would anyone want to rub his pee-pipe inside somebody else's pee-pipe until it pukes? That's just gross. Ick.

[Juustin]

I've been a vegetarian since I was 15 (I'm 27 now), which was set into motion by a fetal pig disection in biology class (I had been thinking about it before then anyway).

I went through some stages. I was never an in-your-face type of vegetarian, but I'm sure I repeated some BS that I definitely didn't understand when I was younger (usual silliness about humans not being 'designed' to be meat eaters, etc.)

Anyway, somewhere in the last few years, I've started to wish that most vegetarians would stick to the personal ethics for their justification for not eating meat. I still don't eat meat, because I feel like there are alternatives that I've embraced, and I feel like I can't justify it to myself to eat meat, so I don't. Everyone has their opinions, and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you're not shoving BS down someone's throat.

What I object to, is I often hear vegetarians making scientific sounding claims that are simply not true, and that bothers me. I've heard PETA say that no good has ever come out of animal research. I've come a long way on this topic (I still think it should be used sparingly when possible, but I acknowledge it's usefulness and that it's necessary in a lot of cases; I've also realized not every scientist who works on animals is a crazed sadist who enjoys torturing monkeys). I think a lot of them just need to understand that whether you think something is ethical or not is a completely different argument than whether it's useful or not.

[linusrichard]

Why does anyone feel obliged to morally justify what they eat to anyone?
This is the winning question.

I have no idea why meat eaters seem driven to defend their choices. I don't defend my fish, dairy, and egg consumption to anyone, and I don't demand that anyone defend his beef, pork, or chicken consumption to me.

It's a weird phenomenon - I see the same thing with alcohol. When those who do are confronted with those who don't, some of them take no notice, while others will launch into a defense of their choice, as well as trying to find flaws in the abstainer's reasons for abstaining. I think the former group is comfortable with their choice, and the latter group harbors some sort of guilt. Work that guilt out on your own, guilty meat-eater/alcohol-drinker! It didn't come from me! Become comfortable with your choice or make a different choice!

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Yeah. And why would anyone want to rub his pee-pipe inside somebody else's pee-pipe until it pukes? That's just gross. Ick.

What I find more disturbing is your apparent lack of knowledge about female anatomy.

:p

It's not a pee-pipe. It's a menses, mucous, and baby pipe. How's that for ick?

:sour:

[Magic 9-Ball]

Why does anyone feel obliged to morally justify what they eat to anyone?


Good question, and I agree. When one animal eats another one, say a fox eating a mouse, I don't think they have any moral problems with it. (The mouse may not like it, however).

When Humans were evolving, they had no moral problems with the hunt, and ate just about anything they could catch. There's good evidence that Neanderthals even ate each other.

I do not, however, begrudge anyone who feels they don't want to eat meat, and prefers to be a vegetarian; the ones that I know (at least 5 or 6) don't preach and don't take it upon themselves to make a big deal out of what others eat.

[linusrichard]

Yeah. And why would anyone want to rub his pee-pipe inside somebody else's pee-pipe until it pukes? That's just gross. Ick.

Sounds far more painful than gross, if you ask me. (Unless, by your second use of "pee-pipe" you mean vagina, in which case you need an anatomy brush-up.)

As gross as a cow-fetus sandwich sounds to me, I won't judge you for having one. And as much as I wince when I think about anything going inside my pee-pipe, I won't judge you if you let anything in yours. Ouch.

[bokonon]

Sounds far more painful than gross, if you ask me. (Unless, by your second use of "pee-pipe" you mean vagina, in which case you need an anatomy brush-up.)Yeah, tell that to the young lady who sneezed while she was sitting on my ... oh, never mind.

[Vic Vega]

What I object to, is I often hear vegetarians making scientific sounding claims that are simply not true, and that bothers me. I've heard PETA say that no good has ever come out of animal research. I've come a long way on this topic (I still think it should be used sparingly when possible, but I acknowledge it's usefulness and that it's necessary in a lot of cases; I've also realized not every scientist who works on animals is a crazed sadist who enjoys torturing monkeys). I think a lot of them just need to understand that whether you think something is ethical or not is a completely different argument than whether it's useful or not.


I would be curious to know what percentage of current PETA members would actually be alive today if it were not for all of the drugs and medical procedures developed through anmal testing. Whatever that percentage is, I imagine it would be small.

Not only would many of them have died due to ailments that are common and treatable today, but many of their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents would never have even reached child-bearing age.

[Lilith]

When Humans were evolving, they had no moral problems with the hunt, ...


We don't know that. It may be true, but we really don't know. Perhaps some did and some didn't. I would guess that the earlier we are talking in evolution, the more likely it is true, but we don't even know if animals that prey on other animals don't feel a little bad for their prey (I kinda doubt they do, based on their look of excitement, and that such empathy wouldn't be an advantage toward species survival).