Knowing how this discussions sometimes get flamed or one party doesn't understand the tone of the other, I ask you to read all my posts in a friendly/not agressive tone.
LaFlorecita said:
Very good point, many vegans seem to forget about the fact that animal lives are full of suffering. We keep pigs etc in a relatively safe environment as a food supply. In the wild they'd get slaughtered by wolves and foxes and hit by cars.
I hate seeing animals suffer. But suffering is part of an animal's life. I love watching documentaries about nature but hate seeing the kill scenes. There's a scene in Life(?) about pelicans eating another bird's chicks that continues to haunt me.
Us humans are natural omnivores but I understand and respect that some people can't bring themselves to eat meat. (I personally always try to buy the more animal-friendly meat but sadly that is also a lot more expensive.
)
No vegan forgets any of that. To start with, no farm animal living in a natural environment would suffer more than they do at the hands of humans. Some of them could die (naturally!) for whatever reason, including being eaten by predators, but those who we keep, all die. The point of veganism is that animals should not be seen as property and that we're not entitled to exploit them. Your logic is extremely flawed, not only because of what I've wrote before, but because you imply that since animal life is already full of suffering, that somehow gives a justification for their slaughter by humans. It is also a huge oversimplification. That's adding more suffering where it doesn't exist, or exists in lesser amounts. As an example, think of the poor children and women of Bangladesh who live miserable lifes. Some local and international companies, who have their factories settled there offer them a place to stay, food, sometimes. In other words, a ''relatively safe environment''. But they are exploiting them. Following your line of thinking, these 'evildoers' would be justified to do what they do. In the animal case, you're trying to justify an unnecessary human action which inflicts pain and suffering with a natural and necessary reality which we have no control over (which is non-human animals hunting other non-human animals). You seem to think that we rescue these animals from the wild and keep them in what you call a ''relatively safe environment'', but that's as further from the reality as it can get. Farm animals for food exist because they are artificially impregnated countless times a year while in captivity, and that's how the cycle continues. It is us who bring them to suffer, we don't help them excaping it.
Slaughterhouses are not natural, Fleur. It's an unnecessary process of death and pain, which sadly makes part of some animals' lifes. We as society are far from nature and what's natural, and we can't justify our actions saying that suffering is part of animals' lifes. Because there's a huge difference between what comes naturally and plays a role in the ecosystem, and what we do for no reason other than please ourselves with such petty things as taste and convenience. I don't like animal suffering either, that's why I don't contribute to it. You say you don't like it, but want it or not you contribute to it. Before I went vegan I also thought I did not like animal suffering, and I didn't, but it doesn't make sence to say it and act the opposite. I realized I didn't like animal suffering at all, but somewhy only cared about some, and how that had no justification. If I linked you two youtube videos, would you watch them? I was already a vegetarian when I watched the documentary Earthlings, and it was one of the things, alongside hours of research, that made me go vegan. Narrated by Joaquim Phoenix (a vegan himself), It's one of the most graphical videos you will ever see in your life, and one no one can stay indifferent to. I admit I couldn't watch it entirely, and had to see it on two different occasions as to how horrific it is. I think you should watch Gary Yourofsky's speech at Georgia Tech University first. On a hour video, there are about 8 or 10 minutes of graphical content. If you ever decide to watch it, all I ask is that you don't skip it. Anyway,
here it is. In terms of cruelty, I'd say the dairy industry is as bad if not worse than the meat one. If I already abstained from meat, it only made sence to avoid all animal products.
To end, I'd like to tell you that there's no such thing as animal-friendly meat or more animal-friendly meat. Green farming is a concept that originated in recent times to accommodate the growing number of persons who shown trouble and discomfort with the act of killing another sentient being but always felt too attached to meat to be able or do an effort to leave it. It's nothing more than a marketing stunt, do not expect animals to be treated better there while they are alive. Their lives are as short as those stuffed in slaughterhouses, the only difference being that they get short periods on the outside, though there are plenty who don't even have any pasture. For cows, their longevity when raised for food is less than 5 years, and no more than that number if raised to give milk. Once they are older and stop giving milk, they also go for slaughter. In order to fit the demand, even in ''Green Farming'' animals are artificially inseminated (raped) with a huge syringe-like metal piece to resemble the male's genital organ. Calves, piglets are taken away from their mothers not long after birth. Have you ever heard a cow cry? I did, I also cried. Let's talk about chickens, those poor animals no one cares about. Even in ''Green Farming'' male chicks are immedeately put to death after birth because they are of no use (remember insemination on females is by rape) or sold to do nuggets with their corpses.
Cheers Fleur. Hope you take a look at that video.
Netserk said:
What is the vegan argument against eating game? And no, death ain't = suffering. Anyway everyone is going to die at some point.
Something has always puzzled me, why do many vegans eat fish? Ain't they animals too?
[/QUOTE]
Not vegans. Pescetarians, as Christian wrote.
Netserk said:
But why not? The whole suffering argument falls to the ground regarding fish, so why not eat them?
That's because the whole point of veganism is to abstain from all sorts of animal products. Suffering is just one of the reasons, the maxima is to not exploit animals as we're not entitled to do so. We have no need for it. To eat fish is to exploit animals. There's no need to apply discrimination within the same kingdom, animals in this case. We either eat them or we don't.
escheator said:
BigMac,
You make a very nice case, but your assumptions are not something everyone could agree - I can speak only for myself, but I'm not convinced although it might not be your goal in the first place. But, again, I suppose when you give argumentation, that it has to have some purpose when you've invested such an effort to type such carefully crafted text.
First of all, moral; its existence, justification, nature, etc. You state something as moral or not, why should someone accept such assertions and such standard? Are there consequences for not adhering to these clauses? Does someone care for such consequences and want to avoid them? (Religions use gods and their retribution to strengthen the moral by adding them the consequences, right?)
Second, the difference that might spoil the analogy between animals and slaves: slaves fought for their freedom themselves, too.
IMHO, the best argumentation is energy sustainability, but many species, humans included, expand while there are resources so...
I'm aware that responding to all of this would probably be OT :/, but we can make another thread
!
I eat diverse food, meat included. Most often, convenience and economic considerations drive my eating decisions. Vegetarian/vegan diets just put too many constraints on my convenience for me to use any of them exclusively all the time.
I respect your choices, in today's economy setup IMHO it takes a lot of discipline and sacrificing.
Thanks, escheator. I'm not sure if I understand the first part of your text, though. What I did was present my (the) argument as to why I find using and consuming animal products morally wrong. I want someone to counter it. I don't know what those assumptions are. It's very simple and goes something like: animals are sentient (all mammals and birds, some others too... all vertebrates feel pain) - we have no dietary need for animal products - therefore it is morally unjustifiable to kill and eat them. The point is that there is no greater reason as to why we should do it. Again, I don't think taste, convenience and tradition serve as justifications. None of those should rank higher than the life of a sentient living being who has an interest in living. Why does there have to be consequences? If someone adheres to something because of fear of eventual consequences, then their judgement was not moral but selfish and opportunistic. The point is to look beyond ourselves.
Regarding the analogy between animals and slaves, indeed slaves fought for their freedom themselves, too, but I think we can agree that the reason animals don't, is because they cannot. Hence there are us to fight for them. I don't think there is anyone in this world who thinks animals enjoy being held in captivity, exploited and then killed.
I don't know where you live (perhaps in extreme regions?) but vegan food is not that much expensive than animal products. You can go for the costy stuff, but there's no need for it. It also depends on the type of vegan diet you adopt. A normal vegan diet, a high-carb vegan diet, a (mostly) raw vegan diet...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram