On Vegetarianism
“Why should man expect his prayer for mercy to be heard by What is above him when he shows no mercy to what is under him? “
Pierre Troubetzkoy
Enough said to all you meat eaters 
24 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Our Photo Pool
More Photos -
-
Good food , Good mood !
Are you suggesting that everyone should become a vegetarian/vegan?
Why yes I am! wouldn’t it be grand? a world where we don’t kill each other ? where one’s meal doesn’t consist of a dead animal on your plate? a world filled with loving and caring vegetarians? imagine the possibilities
umm sounds a little to much like utopia… come on you know better… even you wouldnt want to live in such a world. It would have the exact same problems … or worst. Humans need imperfection, the very reason we have the animal instincts that we have. And if you want to say that evolution has led us so that we no longer need animal meat… why is it that vegetarians need to eat vitamins we meat eaters dont need to take .. such as .. b12… I love the idea of vegetarians its very humane, is it a convincing enough argument… no… should we instead perhaps try and improve the meat industry… i think its a far better cy then totally eliminating it from our diets… not to mention probably more allies. In a world filled with imperfections… ineficiancy is a much better approach then perfection. And far more realistic.
Anonymous,
I tried hard to find you an article that I read a while back regarding Vitamin B12 and how it used to be naturally produced in our system but due to the fact that we eat meat, that is no longer the case. Unfortunately, I was not able to find that article and did a bit of research on the issue and yes you are correct to argue that historically, as a species, we have rarely been vegetarians and hence it is quite “normal” for people to eat meat.
Despite that fact, I still argue that for ethical/moral/environmental/health reasons being a vegetarian is better. My main objection lies in the cruelty that animals have to go through for us to eat as well as the fact that basically what one is eating is “flesh” … forget about all the other reasons, think about the fact that you are eating something that used to be alive…does that not disturb you?? (pleaseeee no smart asses coming up with the “ well aren’t plants alive??” argument cause that’s just weak and pathetic)
Lastly (this is getting long, sorry!) I don’t think the issue here is perfection vs. realism. It would be nice to make the meat industry more humane but in a market ruled by demand and ruthless companies out to increase profit, that’s a tad hard.
I leave you with this quote from Pythagoras: “As long as Man continues to be the ruthless destroyer of lower living beings he will never know health or peace. For as long as men massacre animals, they will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seed of murder and pain cannot reap joy and love.”
As a vegetarian are you simpy satisfied as being one… isnt the goal to influence others to think in the same manner as you? And if the case is to convince others dont you think that decreasing the intake of meat as oppose to immediate elimination is a more reasonable if not practical way of accomplishing such a goal. How is one to propose change if one isnt willing to make the proper changes to achieve such goal. Einstein said “stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.” By that comment I am not saying you are stupid… merely pointing out the fact that if you are passionate (which you are about not eating meat) why wouldnt you try to make it so you could try and persuade others in this line of thinking. I got tired of being ‘anonymous’ Besides other people keep taking it!!!
Since ur a fan of Einstein, he also said: “”Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet”.
That being said, having meat eaters accept and understand vegetarians comes before “converting”.
Ideally and ultimately, vegetarians will no longer be a minority and the demand for veg/vegan products will be at an equilibrium with meat products…then again, that’s just to satisfy my current selfish goal of being able to buy the products I like without going completely broke.
I am not in the business of “converting” people… I am not a Christian missionary in Africa out to show people the errors of their ways. While I don’t believe that eating animals is right, I am not so pompous as to believe that I can shove my beliefs down other people’s throats. On the other hand, simply mentioning to people that I am vegetarian and explaining my reasons is enough to make people THINK and assess their choices…what they do with that new perspective is entirely up to them….no judgments on my part.
a scared idealist….. so you basically want to be in both the good end of the argument. Where 1. you dont judge… 2. you are a vegetarian.So morally you get the cake and are eating it. You say that its wrong but you arent willing to put in the fight nor do you believe your convictions are strong enough that you should be shoving it down peoples throat. How do you propose change if you dont put up a fight for it. Or at least some form of a struggle. YOU should be shoving it down peoples throat… after all it is life we are talking about… animal life no doubt! I mean if you are ready to compare it to the improvement of humanity, doesnt it deserve to be shoved down people throat. Do you think its not equally as important as eliminating the death penalty? In that scenario I think you would be shoving it down peoples throat. I mean its one thing to respect others wishes its another to have enough respect of your own ideals and believing that truly that is the right way. Unless of course you dont think it is completely the right way. In which case… i think you do believe that it is the right way, hence you have ever right to try and convince others esp. if you think its such a horrendous act to kill animals.
OMIGOD, y’all are writing research essays!!! I tried to become vegetarian once and succeeded for six months but then I realized I missed meat too much so I went back to being an omnivore.
Everybody brings up good points, however, another interesting point would be what would happen if the current livestock were left to be. You could technically say a lot of places would end up like India with millions of cows. Chickens would be worse. In India, there would probably be as many chickens as people if everybody was to turn vegetarian. I do realize that many Indians are vegetarians, but then how do you think the population of chickens don’t grow astronomically high? Obviously someone is eating them. :p
There is nothing wrong with eating meat. I agree with you the method of killing the animals is inhumane but would it make you feel better if they killed them in a more humane way?
chico , it will never end like india , less demand means less production that leads to less killing !
thus we all live happy ever after
Good point Nabih, except that the decrease in demand has to catch up with the current livestock, unless you propose we just kill them all and start afresh or perhaps let them all roam freely. Supply and demand… true… but everything takes time.
Are not plants alive? I mean, seriously. Vegetarians like to take the stance that it is okay to eat plants, because they appear to be less sentient or aware than animals, but does that change the fact that they live?
I mean, by a vegetarians logic, why can’t I eat a braindead human? They are also non-sentient.
“pleaseeee no smart asses coming up with the “ well aren’t plants alive??” argument cause that’s just weak and pathetic”
I’m sorry, but how is that pathetic? You are arbitrarily ranking one form of life below another. To me it sounds like you are being weak and pathetic; you can’t figure out an answer to it so you just say that it’s stupid and move on. If you answer me in a satisfactory answer, then Ill listen, but if you’re just going to dismiss my argument because it doesn’t fit in with your ideology, then you have some serious issues.
Peter,
Yes plants are alive, but they’re not “sentient” or “aware”. Animals, on the other hand, are sentient hence their ability to feel pain and to experience a state of well being. Again, something that plants are incapable of: feeling of any sort.
We’re not trying to rank one form of life below or above another, we’re just trying to make the point that animals are similar to humans in the sense that they’re made of flesh and bones and that they suffer just as we do when deprived of basic rights.
Cannibalism is a whole separate issue, personally I think if you can find a willing participant (before the brain damage) to eat then I don’t see why not, except maybe that it’s illegal.
http://mix.epicfu.com/forum/topics/699622:Topic:103051
You only ASSUME that plants aren’t sentient. However, they do in fact respond to stimulus.
But let me pose you this:
If the animal feels a minimum of pain (ie. kept in a [more or less] comfortable living situation) then is it okay to eat them?
Plants lack the nervous and sensory systems needed to feel, and responding to a stimuli is very different than perceiving, feeling and thinking so I think it would be fair to say that I’m not assuming.
Would numbing their pain make it okay, I guess if you can make a case for it for humans then we can take it from there…
“Plants lack the nervous and sensory systems needed to feel, and responding to a stimuli is very different than perceiving, feeling and thinking so I think it would be fair to say that I’m not assuming.”
This assumes that plants respond to stimulus in the same way that we do. Plants do actually respond to outer stimulation, such as a sunflower, turning towards the sun. The mechanisms are different, though.
“Would numbing their pain make it okay, I guess if you can make a case for it for humans then we can take it from there…”
I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here. My point is thus:
Life hurts sometimes, so even a cow that will not be eaten will feel pain sometimes, and it’s death will probably involve sickness, which can be very uncomfortable. So, if we keep the cow in suitable conditions prior to consumption, and then use painless killing methods, is it okay? Yes we are eating a living organism, but plants are also alive.
I don’t believe that we should torture our animals, but I don’t see anything fundamentally wrong with eating them either.
And cannibalism can have some negative physiological effects (think mad cow disease, but for people), so that’s why that is a problem, if that’s what you were suggesting.
Sorry, misunderstood you a bit. But still, we assume that things can only perceive their surroundings using a nervous apparatus similar to ours. However, plants can also grow poorly in poor living conditions. They don’t scream, but that doesn’t mean that you aren’t hurting them. They may well feel “pain” in a way that is very different from ours and we would never know.
Animal rights groups took great pain in proving or arguing that all animals are sentient, and for that reason deserving of some rights. For anyone to advocate for some sort of “plant rights” they would need to go through the same process I suppose.
I simply believe that moral worth comes with sentience or the ability to suffer, but my main problem with eating meat is not so much the pain we inflict on these animals during the process as much as the fundamental belief that we have no right to eat another living, breathing, sensing and perceiving being. I just think that since animals share with us so many attributes like consciousness, then for the sake of justice, we owe them at least some rights, and not eating them would be one of those rights.
Plants on the other hand merely react to their physical environment but have no mental or emotional states, and while we should be gentle with mother earth, the same rules wouldn’t apply to plants.
“the fundamental belief that we have no right to eat another living, breathing, sensing and perceiving being”
1) Why are we arbitrarily drawing the line at sentience, especially if the animal feels a minimum of pain?
2) But yet you have no problem when a lion eats a gazelle.
1) Where do you draw the line and on what basis? What about grains and fruits?
2) I just love it when humans compare themselves to animals living in the wild. They do it for survival, whereas we have a choice: to kill or not to kill, which one is it? If I had no choice and was stuck in the middle of nowhere, then I’m gonna do everything possible in order to survive and that would include eating an animal, and I would probably have no problem with fishing for example.
1) Hey, I have absolutely no problem with eating anything, I’m asking you. I mean, we drink the milk from cows and eat the eggs from chickens, so I have no problem with eating fruits and grains.
2) So basically you draw the line for “moral” behavior at necessity?
Because, if we go by the common idea of a “moral standard” then what holds true for lions holds true for us. “Ignorance of the law is not an excuse from it”.
But yes, it is a luxury, but I still don’t see the actual killing to be wrong.
I would like to mention, at this point, that I am not trying to convince you guys to eat meat, I’m just asking you to get off my back about what I do.
- I’ll quote Darwin first: “In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment” and generalize that statement as a reference to our struggle for existence and survival.
Moral behavior has to be adapted to extreme cases, so yes it is somewhat flexible and a luxury. The line is somewhat drawn at “necessity”; for example, I think that most of us can agree that killing or harming another human is wrong but if faced with a threat then I would venture to say that self-defense would not be a morally reprehensible act even if the end result is death.
- The human is the dominant animal of the sentient world, and with that he gets to enjoy the benefits but also has to assume the responsibilities of caring for those with less power as opposed to abusing his status of privilege. I think we already established that animals, like a lion, have similar mental and emotional capacities that makes them worthy of rights but seeing that they don’t have the same rational brain and judgment capabilities then what holds true for them on a moral standard wouldn’t necessarily apply to humans.
I can speak only for myself when I say that I’m not a missionary for the vegetarian “cause”, and since I don’t believe in absolute truth I am not in a position to say what is wrong or what is right for everyone else. If eating meat causes no moral problems for you then I hope you’re enjoying whatever diet you’re following, but it does pose some serious concerns for me and contradicts my moral views so I make the conscious choice not to eat animals…I think we might have the same views on militant vegetarians.