Vexing issue of Veganism
[To disclaim: I am looking to be convinced one way or another. I consider myself to be philosophically honest, and have no prejudice against veganism nor non-veganism, so whilst I may debate, it is for the purpose of coming to the truth, not to shut down anyone who disagrees with me.]
I am currently struggling with the complex problem of veganism. I have been considering the ethical arguments for veganism for quite some time, and I mostly consider them to be cogent. However, given my current scientific knowledge, I believe that the consumption of meat is healthier, and is better for the climate (I know, it is contrarian), and thus struggle, as I am not sure whether or not the ethical consequences of consuming meat are worse or better than the non-consumption, in favour of better human health, and climate health. I will quickly clarify my beliefs and form a short argument. I am looking to be convinced.
Health: I believe both vegan and meat-eating diets can be healthier than the standard American diet, however, I believe that a meat-eating diet, (specifical keto) is healthier. (I should also state that I do not particularly like the taste of meat, so my main reason for eating it is the reasons I list here).
Climate: I am a strong climate activist, and I am aware of the connection between climate action and veganism, however, I am currently convinced that organic, pasture-fed animals are environmentally neutral.
Ethical: I am fully aware of the awful conditions many animals in agriculture experience, I do not consume animal products from factory farms, only pasture-fed and finished animals, from local farms.
So my argument is thus
[b]Argument:
1. The consumption of meat will never be perfectly ethical, but the consumption of well cared, pasture-fed animals, is much more ethical than factory-farmed animals and is beneficial to human health.
2. A vegan diet is directly morally ethical, as it does not involve direct animal suffering, however, it may have indirect ethical issues given the environmental and health impacts.
[For the sake of the argument, please assume the scientific side of premises 1 & 2 is true]
3. It is more ethical to consume humanely raised animal products for the sake of human health and the prevention of climate change.[/b]
I understand that it may be compelling to argue how my current belief in the health and environmental impact of meat consumption may be wrong, and if you would like to argue it go ahead. But for most, I would prefer to assume my beliefs to be true for the purpose of the argument.
I am currently struggling with the complex problem of veganism. I have been considering the ethical arguments for veganism for quite some time, and I mostly consider them to be cogent. However, given my current scientific knowledge, I believe that the consumption of meat is healthier, and is better for the climate (I know, it is contrarian), and thus struggle, as I am not sure whether or not the ethical consequences of consuming meat are worse or better than the non-consumption, in favour of better human health, and climate health. I will quickly clarify my beliefs and form a short argument. I am looking to be convinced.
Health: I believe both vegan and meat-eating diets can be healthier than the standard American diet, however, I believe that a meat-eating diet, (specifical keto) is healthier. (I should also state that I do not particularly like the taste of meat, so my main reason for eating it is the reasons I list here).
Climate: I am a strong climate activist, and I am aware of the connection between climate action and veganism, however, I am currently convinced that organic, pasture-fed animals are environmentally neutral.
Ethical: I am fully aware of the awful conditions many animals in agriculture experience, I do not consume animal products from factory farms, only pasture-fed and finished animals, from local farms.
So my argument is thus
[b]Argument:
1. The consumption of meat will never be perfectly ethical, but the consumption of well cared, pasture-fed animals, is much more ethical than factory-farmed animals and is beneficial to human health.
2. A vegan diet is directly morally ethical, as it does not involve direct animal suffering, however, it may have indirect ethical issues given the environmental and health impacts.
[For the sake of the argument, please assume the scientific side of premises 1 & 2 is true]
3. It is more ethical to consume humanely raised animal products for the sake of human health and the prevention of climate change.[/b]
I understand that it may be compelling to argue how my current belief in the health and environmental impact of meat consumption may be wrong, and if you would like to argue it go ahead. But for most, I would prefer to assume my beliefs to be true for the purpose of the argument.
Comments (56)
We need more well-thought-out and clearly written original posts like this one. Other than that, I think your opinions related to the health and environmental consequences of veganism are incorrect, so I won't comment further.
Welcome to the forum.
Hello Louis, welcome to the forum.
I am agree with your arguments. I want to add that veganism has become since the 2010's an other kind of mass similar to how Ortega y Gasset described it. I think inside veganism there are two sides who win: 1. Some companies or entrepreneurs who see it coming and started developing products just for "vegans". They were so clever and earned so much money playing with the health of the people.
2. Some political movements or lobbies. They are so called as Greens. I remember them just as a tiny group of members. Nevertheless, nowadays they are part of governments. Then, they created it another kind of "social agent" inside politics as well as trade workers or tobacco factories.
Anyway, thank you for bringing the subject up. What is ethical in terms of food consumption has been the subject of debate for millennia. I have studied the Jewish and Christian takes on it. Now I'm studying the Muslim perspectives. I find death by live beheading unethical. It gives me the creeps. It's very common, very standard, like the guillotine back in the days. Currently I think smoothies are ethical. I eat/drink a lot of them. With some added nutrient powder. Got some maple syrup just in case, but I find them sweet enough, just fine!
That is a bit simplistic. The issue I would put to you is one of sheer environmental acreage.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
Now that too is a simplification, because there is some land that is unsuitable for crops, but even there, most will support forest and wilderness. Unquestionably, a mainly vegan diet as the norm, would be greatly beneficial to the environment, at least while we wait for @180 Proof to halve the population, and even beyond. Most animals are fed crops for a portion of their diet because pasture does not grow all the year round in most places, and at the moment we are still losing forest to cattle and their feed, to satisfy the increasing demand for meat
Quoting Kevin Tan
I agree. There has always been a bit of a religious attitude about polluting the body with animal products. Leave the slugs in your salad for added protein, I say. :wink:
Let's call it escargots then ;)
Bear in mind that the feed efficiency of animals depends on whether we are talking about a live, cackling chicken or a serving of skinless, boneless meat.
It also depends on whether we are talking about a chicken running around outside all day, or a chicken that is in a cage with very limited space, bred and fed to grow fast and die young. Truly free-range animals are going to reach their best market weight slower than confined animals. I prefer range-fed beef, but it does take longer for a grass / hay fed cow to reach market weight. (Grass and hay fed cows are also healthier--not requiring antibiotics to control crowd-sourced infections and to speed weight gain.)
I'm an enthusiastic carnivore, but the methods of mass production of chicken, pork, and beef are disgusting in several senses of the word. The methods in use are pretty much required if corporations are going to maximize profits--and if meat is going to be relatively cheap.
Take for example Cattle. Cattle, wihin a short few years, have changed from being a mildly successful species in terms of survival to becoming a wildly successful species survival wise. Cattle, thanks to we humans, have become one of the most successfu species of all time.
So, my answer to any possible bull that might want to thank me for its fantasic survival, might be --"Oh don't hank me. Thank my butcher."
I think it's necessary for, at least, lowering demands for food production (re: impacts e.g. agricultural deforestation) and depletion of highly-stressed fresh water aquifers and wetlands as well as the number and frequency of regional military conflicts (massive carbon emitters) over scarcer arable land, etc.
In the long-term, I agree. Meeting the near-term goal of under 2° C over mid-19th century temperatures requires, it seems to me, 'picking the low-hanging fruit' of slowing major warming identified (greenwashed?) in COP26, etc.
Yes, this. But to lower demands, we must lower the population, or find substitute nutrients. (You mentioned reduce population in your earlier post). In any areas of people's lives, consumption has always been a linear increase, never a decrease, unless an item we're used to consuming in the past had been deemed poisonous or cancer-causing food. It would take a governmental action, such as in the subject of smoking, to stop the population.
There is a jump between 2 and 3. Where's the missing link?
The vast majority of meat eaten by the vast majority of people is not produced in a way that is consistent with 1 & 3. So the ethical thing to do is to reduce, or ideally altogether avoid, consumption of meat produced in environmentally harmful and unhealthy ways. Whether that be by veganism or exclusively eating ‘well-cared, pasture fed’ meat, the aim should be eliminating ‘factory’ farming practices, something which both vegans and ‘ethical’ meat eaters agree would benefit the environment and health.
1. The planet and its plants and animals don't exist for humans to eat it up.
2. If one eats solely for the purpose of living, one might as well eat cardboard. Or soylent green.
I don't know what your worldview is, but how could you say that naturally, humans are not meant to eat animals? Do you think there is some greater purpose of animals that is not that they should be eaten? I'm confused.
'2. If one eats solely for the purpose of living, one might as well eat cardboard. Or soylent green.'
If by living you mean staying alive for as long as possible, then no, one should not just eat cardboard.
Not much has changed, bodily, for the past 35,000 years (Cro-Magnons looked like us and we look like them)
Mentally, however, we've taken great leaps forward!
These bodies are no longer the appropriate vessels for our highly advanced brains/minds.
Many issues like carnism/veganism can be framed in the context of The Mind-Body Gap to get a good handle on them.
According to our bodies, the year is 2022 CE
According to our minds, the year is 30032 CE
:grin:
So I can reasonably assert that eating meat is NOT more healthy; as Louis believes it is.
By not feeding them (via supliments) adequate nutrition, thru the years, my eyes have bcome weaker, and tinnitus is lessening my hearing. . However, I virtually- never get sick. I give the plant-based diet the credit. Get your food organically-grown if at all possible. Eat it as fresh as possible. Emphasize raw salads; and for protein a handful of raw nuts every day. Eat a LOW-protein diet. You will see the difference in how well you will feel!!
p.s. I am a professor of Values and Ethics; so if you are interested in that field, ask me any questions ...or search out and read my latest writing, an essay entitled THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS.
Your impressions of it. ...may take two hours of your time to peruse it straight through. Reflect upon it and tell us what you think -- review it.
Questions? Comments?
Leaving aside that a sample of one is not representative --
Eating meat clearly is more healthy, for one's ego, if one believes that humans live to consume the planet and everything on it.
When I became a vegetarian I had four or five reasons for it. The ethical considerations were only one of my motives for doing so. [I also wanted more color and variety in my meals./ I did not want to see bloodiness on my dish. I had compassion for the animals. I cared about the environment.. Those were some of my other reasons.] I did not like the working conditions in the slaughter-houses.. Do you?
Save the planet; it is our habitat.
Get in harmony with nature!
Comments? Questions?
Both constitute life, both are in ways essential for our survival, and all life shows signs of consciousness. We don't have a moral right to mistreat an animal any more than we have a moral right to mistreat plants and trees.
To make any kind of consumption ethical, some form of symbiosis needs to be reached.
Man has reached this symbiosis with plants and animals on many occasions, but it is often lost under the pressure of overpopulation and greed.
You seem to be implying that you know the purpose of this planet and its plants and animals. Then what does the planet and its plants and animals exist for? In saying such things you seem to be implying that there was some plan for the planet and its plants and animals and it wasn't for humans to eat it up.
This also seems to imply that the state of the planet when humans evolved is the end-goal, or purpose (of the universe, god, or what?) when the planet has changed enormously before humans evolved with most animals species becoming extinct without any human involvement at all. The changes that humans have brought about since their appearance on this planet could just as well be the purpose of the planet and its plants and animals. It seems to me that extinction, or change, is the norm in this universe, so why is it that we consider ourselves and our actions "unnatural", or that the planet is suppose to remain in the state we found it, when humans are the outcomes of natural processes? After all, the purpose could just as well be that AI is the next evolutionary step and that humans, as well as all other life, will then become the energy sources for AI (the Matrix).
The Vulture Solution: Don't kill yet have a meat diet. Simple!
Then there's the issue of sweet and tasty fruits. Plants want us to eat them. Well it's actually fellatio/cunnilingus (fruits grow from flowers which are, truth be told, plant dicks & pussies), but hey, nobody's complaining. Think about it the next time you chow down on an apple in front of your kids! :grin: And they make such a hue and cry about bestiality!
Arguments in favor of Vegetarianism (a belief system), as compellingly expressed by Peter Singer, are undeniable for a perfect world, such as the one portrayed in Genesis, where grass-fed lions lay down with vegetarian lambs. He's basically saying that "if I were G*D, I would have created an ideal world". The Utilitarian Argument is rigorously logical, but the pragmatic real world is more like fuzzy Logic.
So far, all Utopian dreams (sky castles) of idealistic humans have crumbled under the weight of gravity. For example, a lion has the teeth of a carnivore, which are not adapted to to an ungulate diet. Humans have the teeth of omnivores, so can survive on a meatless diet. But the big human brain is adapted to a high protein diet, which is necessary to thrive. Fortunately, it's your choice : thrive or survive . . . or use your pumped-up primate brain to make the world a better (but not perfect) place for all of its inhabitants. :smile:
The Incoherence of Peter Singer's Utilitarian Argument for Vegetarianism :
https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-incoherence-of-peter-singers-utilitarian-argument-for-vegeta/10096418
Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth value of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. It is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. ___Wikipedia
Prey animals are batteries for predators.
Thanks, sir. Your essay looks promising, though without a kindle (my home library contains over 2,500 "dead-tree" books) I'm afraid I won't be reading it anytime soon. Anyway, welcome to TPF ...
Every manuscript I have published on Kindle I also have available for you in pdf. form. So tell me what the item is to which you refer, and how or whether I can get a moderator's permission to let you have a link to a place to read it on the worldwide web or the internet.
I don't know how you arrived at that from what I said. One of the ideas that I did propose was that we're here to initiate the next step of evolution. I also proposed the idea that asserting that you know why you are here is something akin to a delusion of grandeur.
I don't think we are here for anything. We are here because of many things (the Big Bang, the formation of the Earth, the evolution of humans and our parents having sex), but here for nothing. We each create our own purposes for ourselves, so if you don't want to be here just to eat and shit, then that is your prerogative. I don't want to be here to just eat and shit either, which is why I am here having a discussion with you and doing many other things besides just eating and shitting.
Because I didn't. It's the theme I'm pursuing in this thread, as initiated in my first reply in this thread. The OP has a consumerist approach to life, and this is what I'm criticizing.
So, per you, us being here to "initiate the next step of evolution" is "something akin to a delusion of grandeur".
But you just said
How can that be? We're not living in a vacuum.
I'm refering to comsumerism, consumption, in a broader sense that just eating and defecating, though. One can also be a consumer of music, art, ideas. What is blameworthy is the attitude of "we're here to consume".
Which is circular. If life exist to generate next life, you involve life in the reason.
:snicker: We're basically tubes, fancy ones but essentially tubes (mouth - guts - anus). Brains are, the bottom line, an organ that works for the tubes. It's kinda rebelling, now and then (hunger strikes), but it still serves the tubes. I wriggle, wiggle...like a worm!
I've been dining on some faux meat products from the supermarket - a mince product which made an acceptable spaghetti bolognaise for dinner last night, and just now Impossible Meat burgers for lunch. Yum! :nerd:
Did you know...
According to some scientists, (parasitic) worms rolled back on nervous system development (they lost their minds :snicker: ).
[quote=Obelix]These [s]Romans[/s] Worms are crazy![/quote]
Zen Buddhism [mushin no shin (mind without mind)] is for nematodes, parasitic ones! :scream:
Maybe not so much philosophical but biological for sure. Plants have totally different survival strategy, they are "built" to be eaten by animals, and then they just grow back the part that was eaten. Or maybe the animals eat flowers, fruits etc. that are even more meant to be eaten. Biologically, plants and animals are different in this sense. Plants are more like the "lab meat" of scifi visions of future.
As for me, I've been mostly vegan for many years. My "philosophical" argument is very thin, I just don't feel good about eating my fellow living and breathing creatures. So I don't eat them.
I don't know which diet is best for the climate, and I don't believe I have the resources or competence to really understand these complex issues. So I'm happy that other people are doing it. If it turns out that my way of living is a disaster for the environment, then I'll probably change something.
There are some challenges to this in that there is a question whether one's devotion to non-humans can be placed above one's obligations to other human beings. In short, consider if this position will assert your own selfish interests to the detriment of a larger interest in social ties.
The primary advantage human beings have over other animals is found in the cooperation with other people. So, if factory farming produces the greatest advantages for the human race on the whole compared to farming methods less stressful for the animals, it would seem to be more ethical to support the former over the latter.
So, if the well-cared, pasture-fed animals approach employs fewer people and feeds fewer people and leads to higher food costs, then it seems to betray a more basic principle than the self-interested desire to avoid animal suffering.
However, it still leaves open the idea that a convincing argument could be made that the preferred approach could lead to better working conditions and wages or profits for farmers and a more sustainable agricultural approach for the industry as well.
Also, the dichotomy between the approaches is not exact or defined. There are industrial agricultural approaches moving toward the more humane and sustainable so it may be more effective to reform factory farming in ways that do not hinder productivity than advocate for the complete replacement of it by styles of farming that may not be scalable over the entire market.
Good is, by and large, pro-life (pro-choicers might wanna rethink their position because now they look bad) i.e. ethics seems to be be a faithful servant of (the god of) evolution which, as we all know, seems to be in the business of creating/perpetuating life (for as long as possible). A survival game or endless mode.
This may be an accident of perspective. Things that are able to perpetuate remain while things that do not perpetuate do not continue to exist. So the attribution of "good" to those things that stick around is arbitrary. Almost anything we might consider evil today is just as likely to sustain itself. Slavery and serfdom lasted for centuries. Far longer than the societies today that "abolished" them.
So, if we reinstate slavery and serfdom (and who is to say we haven't), by the standards of longevity and perpetuation, they can certainly be considered good.
These are now reportedly dead and buried. I'm not sure though, evil memes adapt and evolve and find new ways to survive. Just yesterday I was reading up on Batesian mimicry. Feels relevant (to me).
Another thing, what do you suppose the law is all about? Incarceration to capital punishment - don't these give you the impression that some form of eugenics (regulating the gene pool) is going on here? Then there are the social credits you gain for being a good human being? Something mighty interesting is going on, wouldn't you say?
This is probably unhelpful, but your question leads to a variety of interpretations. Animals ate other animals. One day, many moons later, plants came into the picture and animals evolved to eat plants. In an evolutionary sense, non-animal eating animals came AFTER animal eating animals (and omnivores are in-between). So if evolution is progress, the vegetarian/vegan animals are ahead of the carnivores.
Also, you may have noticed that vegans are a subset of people - this means that people can evolve into being vegan, but could not evolve into being omnivores. Again, the shift from being what we are (omnivores) to something else is evolution - so what we are becoming is better than what we are.
In any event, the argument from evolution doesn't work in favor of meat eating the way you might think unless you are saying that what organisms evolve to do is an indication of moral acceptability. In that case, everything everything does is morally acceptable (after all, everything that is alive evolved to be precisely what it is), so the existence of carnivores is of no moment in the discussion of whether it is better to be a carnivore rather than an omnivore that chooses to limit its behavior/diet.
And yes, god (mother nature, etc.) makes lots of boo boos. It goes with the territory.
If humans continue to evolve into cyborgs or robots, the vegetarian question may become moot. Instead we'll be debating the morality of consuming Nuclear vs Hydrogen vs Solar energy vs Carbon-based Life-Forms, as the source of our electron diet. :joke:
Yuval Noah Harari touches upon the issue of how our brains have messed up evolution in his book Sapiens. He doesn't explain how it happened but he says that the human brain kinda made a quantum leap in the few hundred thousand years that have passed and became a force to reckon with - tools, hunting weapon, etc. were rapidly invented in a geological wink of an eye - and animals like mammoths and others couldn't adapt fast enough to humans and hence died out.
The crux of the problem: Our brains can bring abour rapid changes (re global warming), changes that are just too fast for plants and animals to adapt to. The mechanics of evolution weren't designed for fast-acting forces. We could, in fact, draw a parallel between planetkiller asteroids and h. sapiens in terms of the extensive devastation to the ecology we're responsible for. Veganism is the mind's idea, but the body wants meat. If memory serves, our guts are essentially adapted to a meat diet.
The first tentative steps towards brains in vats. :grimace: :fear: :scream:
1&2 - why do you assume that not eating animals is ethical? why being ethical is good? if a wolf eats a rabbit, is he ethical or not ethical?
3 - why do you assume climate change it bad? what is the optimal temp. and co2 levels, why do you believe that?
in short, all your arguments are based on pretty much baseless assumptions. if you take those assumptions at face value, than yes, your conclusions sound logical. if you question those assumptions, your conclusions fall apart.
Quoting 180 Proof