Is It Ethical to Eat Meat?

Over the last few years I have dramatically reduced my meat intake and over the last few months I have started to follow a strict vegetarian diet for moral, health and environmental reasons.

I would just like to start a discussion about how Ozbargainers view the topic.

This isn't an attempt to convert anyone or a means by which to make vegetarians and vegans feel superior. Rather I would be interested to hear peoples opinions.

Please lets keep the discussion rational and civil! :)

Comments

        • -1

          @Heracles26:

          But having even more vitamin deficiencies caused by avoiding meat would be even worse.

        • +8

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          But you're stating again that vegetarian = vitamin deficiency. It's a non starter

        • +6

          @Scrooge McDuck: Going vegetarian doesn't mean you miss out on nutrients. Where did you learn this?

        • @Mysterious:

          In Reddit, must be true.

      • +1

        No worries Heracles26. Don't think my comments are meant as an attack or anything like that either, it's just a response to a argument / theoretical position. The issue is not even remotely simple, there is just so much grey area and side-issues at play in a topic like this.

        • +5

          No not at all, we need to be able to have a rational discussion on these points! Thanks again for the response interesting stuff :)

    • +7

      Supplements are unnecessary apart from B12 - hardly propping up big pharma

    • +10

      HOW is a meat-free diet unhealthy? You do know that meat contains NUTRIENTS which you can obtain from any plant on earth. There are B12 fortified foods these days. B12 is originally found in water and soil. The only reason you get B12 from eating meat is because the animal consumes it on your behalf. Most vegans or vegetarians supplement B12 which is actually very cheap.

      Your argument is actually quite pathetic. There are so many reasonable arguments for or against this subject, but this was just mind boggling to read.

    • +17

      This is one of the worst arguments I've ever come across for pro-meat consumption. I'm smacking my head against the keyboard reading this BS. Are you telling me that two-thirds of Australians who are considered overweight are vegans? People with heart-disease? Increased risks of cancer? They're the burdens on taxpayers, not vegos.

      • +6

        Agree. This level of stupidity is scary.

    • +5

      Sorry, many of the worlds leading medical organisations have all scientifically proven that a vegetarian diet is better for the individual and economy. The supplement push is across the board and is another battle altogether.

    • How is he making himself unhealthy?

    • +9

      All the major dietetics and health organizations in the world agree that vegan and vegetarian diets are just as healthy as omnivorous diets. Here are links to what some of them have to say on the subject:

      Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

      • It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.

      Dietitians of Canada

      • A well planned vegan diet can meet all of these needs. It is safe and healthy for pregnant and breastfeeding women, babies, children, teens and seniors.

      The British National Health Service

      • With good planning and an understanding of what makes up a healthy, balanced vegan diet, you can get all the nutrients your body needs.

      The British Nutrition Foundation

      • A well-planned, balanced vegetarian or vegan diet can be nutritionally adequate … Studies of UK vegetarian and vegan children have revealed that their growth and development are within the normal range.

      The Dietitians Association of Australia

      • Vegan diets are a type of vegetarian diet, where only plant-based foods are eaten. They differ to other vegetarian diets in that no animal products are usually consumed or used. Despite these restrictions, with good planning it is still possible to obtain all the nutrients required for good health on a vegan diet.

      The United States Department of Agriculture

      • Vegetarian diets (see context) can meet all the recommendations for nutrients. The key is to consume a variety of foods and the right amount of foods to meet your calorie needs. Follow the food group recommendations for your age, sex, and activity level to get the right amount of food and the variety of foods needed for nutrient adequacy. Nutrients that vegetarians may need to focus on include protein, iron, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.

      The National Health and Medical Research Council

      • Alternatives to animal foods include nuts, seeds, legumes, beans and tofu. For all Australians, these foods increase dietary variety and can provide a valuable, affordable source of protein and other nutrients found in meats. These foods are also particularly important for those who follow vegetarian or vegan dietary patterns. Australians following a vegetarian diet can still meet nutrient requirements if energy needs are met and the appropriate number and variety of serves from the Five Food Groups are eaten throughout the day. For those eating a vegan diet, supplementation of B12 is recommended.

      The Mayo Clinic

      • A well-planned vegetarian diet (see context) can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women. The key is to be aware of your nutritional needs so that you plan a diet that meets them.

      The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada

      • Vegetarian diets (see context) can provide all the nutrients you need at any age, as well as some additional health benefits.

      Harvard Medical School

      • Traditionally, research into vegetarianism focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses.
      • Here they come… nothing decisive here

    • Hahaha.. that gave me a good laugh .. thank you :D

      You might want to check the leading health related causes of death each day and what THAT is costing tax payers, each and every day.

      Also, it's been proven time and time again that children can (and have been) raised vegan after weaning with no detrimental effects at all, quite the opposite.

  • +12

    If you don't eat meat, farmers will breed less cows, therefore you are denying cows the potential of life.

    • +13

      Thanks for the reply!

      Non-existence is not a state of being though - if something doesn't exist then its not in a position to be denied life.

      It would be a valid argument if cows (or their consciousness rather) were sitting in limbo waiting to be born - but this isn't the case.

      Thank you!

      • +36

        You're only saying that because you exist.

        • +7

          Was that a joke or an argument haha

        • +4

          @Heracles26: LOL, don't worry, he's just existist…. :)

        • +2

          Damn existential privilege

      • This is quite an obscure thought experiment but interesting nonetheless.

        If we all stopped consuming meat, excessively domesticated animals like cattle or pigs could go extinct. It would be difficult to reintroduce them to the wild due to their reduced survival instincts and the potential of them damaging eco-systems. The destruction of species may be a consideration - though a strong counter-argument to this is the destruction of the environment from cattle grazing which can place significant pressure on other species.

        • +10

          I think it is a completely stupid argument for not eating meat.

          1. The cows, piges, etc. would obviously far rather not be born into a cruel and short life (especially for factory farming) where they are not allowed to do the normal things that are the point of their lives (socialising, exploring the world around them). Allowing domesticated farm animals to go extinct would be far more moral than continuing to create them and force them to live a cruel life for our pleasure.

          2. They wouldn't go extinct, because there are plenty of people who enjoy these animals for themselves, not for their flesh. So all of these animals would continue to exist as pets - cows, pigs, sheep, chickens, anything.
            I am vegetarian and I have pet chickens, my dad had pet sheep, my mum has pet pigs.

          3. Continuing and increasing large scale farming of animals is reducing actual wild biodiversity around the world at an alarming rate. We actually know how to breed farm animals to keep them alive for future generations, the same can't be said for the thousands of animals now extinct or on their way due to the huge amount of land needed for extensive animal farming, and the toxic outputs from intensive animal farming.

        • +2

          @Biance: I don't think you can say "obviously" in reference to what an animal would prefer. It's not obvious at all.

          I don't think anyone has established the preferences of pigs with regard to existential matters.

        • +1

          @sparkanum:

          Nor are they aware of what "normal things" are,

          nor can we say what the "point" of their lives is.

        • @sparkanum: I might be pushing it but I'm going to take a stab in the dark and guess that pigs would rather not not be born at all than be treated like shit and killed.

        • +2

          @Mysterious: How do you feel about kids that are born with debilitating / terminal illnesses?

          They can live short, tortured lives. Would they be better off not existing?

          I'd certainly rather exist than not, even if it meant a horrible existence. Although I appreciate not everyone would think the same way.

        • @sparkanum: Have you see a cow or sheep being jabbed into the slaughtering machine? I will give you a hint.. they are NOT doing a Samba line!!!

        • +1

          @sparkanum: Our opinions are based on the life that we have lived till now, taken for granted the freedom and healthy living and not the life of the actual victim suffering from illnesses, only when you are in anothers shoes,see it through in their eyes, day in and day out experiencing the torture can you truly answer that you would rather exist than not. Not a simple question to answer a blind yes with.

        • @sparkanum:

          How do you feel about kids that are born with debilitating / terminal illnesses?

          That's not what I was talking about. Those babies were intended to be born healthy and live a free life, where as these cows are being intentionally bred to be treated like shit and killed. There's a difference between the intentions.

        • @Biance: Never seen a boar or wild buffalo? It could go the dingo way. Good thought experiment though

        • @wchau: It's not exactly a blind yes, but I totally agree with you.

          For the same reasons we both can't make the determination whether a life in torture is better than non existence, so too can't we make a blanket assumption that those in torture wouldn't want to have existed in the first place.

        • @Mysterious: So kids with terminal illnesses born to parents who never intended to get pregnant and carried to term for reasons other than the child's interest, they shouldn't exist?

          I mean, this is ignoring the concept that farmers almost exclusively intend to treat animals terribly, but it's interesting nonetheless. Debating "intentions" as a mechanism for ethics can lead to some great discussions.

          Yay, philosophy!

        • @sparkanum: Your comments are contradictory.

          You say that " we both can't make the the determination" but then you also say "I'd certainly rather exist than not, even if it meant a horrible existence".

          I agree we both can't make the determination ( hence I didn't say yes or no or made any assumption, just merely pointing out more thoughts are needed ) on the other hand you have already decided that you rather exist.

        • @wchau: I don't think it's contradictory. We can't make a determination based on all info, but I can definitely have a preference in spite of that. And I do. To exist.

          It's kind of like how I have a preference for not ever watching 'Keeping Up With the Kardashians', in spite of not having watched it / gathering enough info to make a determination about whether I like it or not.

          Although based on your latest comment, maybe we've both been saying the same thing all along.

        • @sparkanum: Everyone would have a different viewpoint I guess - but I back up my viewpoint of "animals shouldn't be brought into the world to live a short, tortured life" with the same viewpoint that babies with a similar prognosis shouldn't.

      • -3

        Non-existence is not a state of being though - if something doesn't exist then its not in a position to be denied life.

        So you would have no ethical issue with simultaneously nuking the entire surface of the Earth and instantaneously vaporising the entire biosphere?

        • I don't understand your argument, please elaborate for me thanks!

        • -1

          @Heracles26:

          If non-existence is ethical versus existence,

          then is ceasing to exist ethical versus existence?

          If a thing ceases to exist it no longer exists ergo it conforms to your argument:

          if something doesn't exist then its not in a position to be denied life.

        • +2

          @Scrooge McDuck:
          We are existing now though, so nuking us would be denying us life. The unborn cows have never existed.

        • -2

          @Devils Advocate:

          But if in the present we don't exist then we aren't denied life. The past is irrelevant.

      • +1

        You don't know that cows Aren't sitting in limbo. How can you categorically rule that out ?.

    • therefore you are denying cows the potential of life.

      I eat all meats but this argument is not a genuine one. I just accept that the meat I eat comes through torture of animals and everyone must live with that or stop eating it.

      This is quite a pro-birth type of argument but not pro-life because anyone can be born but living in misery, pain and torture, brutalisation by others, no freedom and submissiveness is not desirable to anyone and hence is is better to not be born at all. Denying the cows the potential of torture from birth till death is something everybody should be denying.

    • +5

      If you don't eat meat, farmers will breed less cows, therefore you are denying cows the potential of life.
      .. You mean like how we're denying billions of chickens an awesome life of sitting in a caged mesh about 30x30cm wide their entire lives? You should try that one day, sit in your toilet for 24 hours to get the awesome lifestyle.

      • +1

        Just like holidaying in bali

      • +3

        I try but the boss keeps on telling me to get back to work. ;)

    • +1

      If you use condoms, you are denying humans the potential of life.

    • Oh yeah you're actually right. If there are less cows being bred by farmers, then they will die anyway because apparently they can't survive on their own like any other creature on this planet. So, let's just breed and kill more cows because that's obviously the only sustainable option we have.

    • LOL well said

  • Yes, yes it is.

    • /thread

      Haha care to elaborate? :)

      • +6

        Well, you seem to question the ethics of eating meat/flesh of a nother living creature.
        The thing you have to know is that energy can not be created, it can only be transformed.

        So for you to actually live, you need to consume an energy source.
        Humans are designed to eat food for this purpose, in particular, meat.

        But take a step back from the matter, and you'll realise how stupid this preposition is.
        A little lamb (as "innocent" as it is) can bite, kick, scream, ram, and run away from predators such as wolves… or in this case Humans.
        However, think about a carrot.
        It is a living creature. You pull its flesh out of its home/dirt. It cannot run. It cannot defend. It cannot even threaten you.
        Morally or Ethically…. it is much more evil for you to eat a carrot than to eat lamb.

        I'm not saying you should be psychotic.
        But just realise you are not evil because you need to survive. It's not selfish. It's nature.

        The worst things [ethically] you can do in this context is:
        - Be disrespectful (ie torturing animals for no reason)
        - Wasting food (remember the sacrifice the carrot made, and think of other creatures that could've benefited from your wastage)

        This whole thing comes back to the cycle of life. It is your turn to eat and survive, until it isn't.
        But it's better said in the words of Mike deGrasse Tyson:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih7SJt_-Q1o#t=0m39s
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ndj5KjKyr3E&spfreload=10

        • +4

          That's silly, a carrot cannot experience pain or suffering, it is not sentient not sapient.

        • +2

          @SympleService:
          Firstly, plants can "feel" but we are unable to determine if they can experience suffering.
          Which is why I addressed it in my post about being disrespectful or torturing creatures for eating.

          But the point of the matter is still unchanged; you are sacrificing a living creature for your sustenance.

          It is perhaps morally wrong to say which creature deserves to live more than another, or put its value differently. So if you ponder these foundation questions you realise, its really not about good vs evil, vegan, or skewed "ethics".

          It's about the circle of life.
          Death is a one-way trip, so we must make the most of what we have today and be at peace of the decisions and sacrifices that we take for granted. There's really no sane way to go about it than this.

          (I wouldn't eat an endangered creature, for instance, but that is a slightly different matter as well)

        • +1

          @Kangal:

          Firstly, plants can "feel"

          Like Kombis?

        • +1

          You're saying a whole lot of nothing. You sound pretentious, and seem to be wholly unaware that carrots and other vegetables do not have the nerves capable to feel pain stimuli. They are no more alive than a chopstick or bark.

          They can certainly react based on environmental stimuli, but that is pretty much just simple survival mechanisms that are entirely non-conscious responses.

          So no, it isn't more evil to eat a carrot (as per the typical agreed upon defining of evil goes anyway).

          But I would argue that it IS unethical to kill a creature that can experience pain and suffering unless it was attacking you.

          Eating it doesn't really matter after it's dead because it cannot feel or do anything at that point.

        • +2

          @SympleService:
          I only come across as pretentious because I'm usually lighthearted.
          I don't take things serious, and its hard to try to say something about this topic without either resorting to jokes (see below comments) or offending someone.

          Well, so you're basically saying it is worse to kill an animal than a plant because the plant in general doesn't feel and won't experience suffering.

          That's a good point, but I want to put forward that killing animals doesn't have to be cruel.
          They can be well fed, cared, and killed without suffering.
          So the point really boils down to, how do you value the life of an animal compared to a plant or fungi?

          As an animal/human, we tend to sympathise with animals naturally.
          But is that proper justification?
          I mean nature doesn't hold any biases like we do. Life clings to survival at every opportunity, and it can be remorseless.
          Should we just take cues from nature?

          You're saying quite a lot of things, but nothing is really adding up.
          I'm simply saying the whole idea of vegan is preposterous and have tried to put some ideas out there to rationalise this argument.
          I already stated that the idea of killing something for survival is not inherently evil. I want to rebuke that entirely, because many vegans and vegetarians use the excuse that killing animals is evil as their base of justification. We feast on living plants and animals, and take granted other living things for ourselves on a daily basis…. that fact cannot change. What we can change is our perception and attitude towards it; respect where things come from and not be wasteful. Because all men must die, and our deaths will only be the continuation in the cycle of life.

        • +1

          @SympleService:

          Just because you do not perceive it as conciousness. Does not mean it isnt.

          Plants have a desire for survival. That to me shows consciousness

          The definition of consciousness is the state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings. If plants are reacting based on external stimuli as you say then they certainly fit that criteria for conciousness

          http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/plants-feel-pai…

        • +4

          That's why I prefer to hunt humans with a knife and fork.
          Carrots don't put up any kind of a fight

        • @Kangal:

          That's a good point, but I want to put forward that killing animals doesn't have to be cruel.
          They can be well fed, cared, and killed without suffering.

          Certainly. But in reality, most animals are cruelly killed. They are not well fed, not well cared for, and killed with suffering.

        • @c4lming:

          Well in that case, wouldn't you rather research into which meat sources are "ethical" and buy and eat from there? It would be much less hassle then being a vegan and worrying people when it comes to food and monitoring yourself.

          [Bad] Analogy:
          It's like if you found out a lot of small name and one large chain petrol supply stations source their fuels through slave labour.
          You don't want to support them. Yet, you need petrol to drive home/work/family/shops because no other means are available to you.
          You can do the responsible thing, and research which companies offer fuel without such controversy.
          Or you can convert your car to accept bio-diesel and start manufacturing your own fuel… but it requires you to buy used oil from across the town, and greatly limits you on where you can go, which also limits the people around you like your kids if they want to go to the mountains with you.

          I don't know, I'm a very straight-logic thinker, and the disputes that vegans/vegetarians have put forward doesn't make any sense to me….
          …and that shouldn't mean I'm a psychotic animal killer.

  • +9

    Is it ethical to clean a mouldy cup?

    • +2

      Definitely not, penicillin was discovered because of mouldy petri dishes. If Dr. Fleming cleaned his mouldy petri dish, millions of people's lives would've been lost.

      • You say that like it's a bad thing.

        • +9

          It is, I don't want to do the dishes.

    • mould/ penicillin is not sentient. Animals clearly are.

  • +12

    My position on this matter has varied over the many years.

    I used to be anti-meat eating for the sake of the animals. The cruelty I felt in killing something to feed myself.

    As I got older I understood things more and on a wider scale, so my anger was directed at the modern day food industry and mass production of things, as well as the whole process of farming meat for an ever hungrier growing society. I was saddened and disgusted by large scale farming practices. The suffering by the animals while they exist purely to grow big enough to be slaughtered for food. The horrible conditions they are kept in. The abuse they endure. It's all horrific.

    So morally, ethically, I am still against eating commercially produced meat, but I am a hypocrite and DO eat meat (albeit not routinely - my main diet consists of fruit/veg). Why? Because it's easy, and pretty tasty. It's pathetic to admit but there you go. If I was single and there was no social pressure, I'd still avoid meat.

    However I think I'd have much less of an issue with eating meat of animals who grew up happily on farms, with plenty of space and grass and good food and fresh air and sunshine, and the other typical things an animal deserves like having other animals to socialise with. All that hippy shit just makes me think ahhhh, that's how it should be. If those animals came to the end of their lifetime and needed to be euthanised or whatever they do (soz, I am a city slicker, noob to farm life), I see no problem with consuming it - at least the animal doesn't go to 'waste'. Circle of life and all that crap.

    But yeah. Controversial topic. I still genuinely enjoy non meat foods over meat foods. I also hate cooking meat. So as ridiculous as it sounds, I feel like I am supposed to be a vegetarian.

    • +4

      I think most people are aware to some degree of the suffering that animals go through in factory farm settings but still choose to eat meat and ignore these facts - I was like this for many years. We are kept in the dark as much as possible and most of us are happy to be in the dark in order to eat yummy meat and not feel bad.

      I can see what you mean about it being easy. I love the taste of meat and it is very hard sometimes - I occasionally eat meat when the situation calls for it even.

      I think it makes the argument difficult when you think of organic, "happy" animals but it still raises the question for me if it is ethical and moral to kill for food - even if the animal is happy. Would there be any difference to kill all humans at age 80 in order to harvest their much needed organs for transplants?

      Thanks, great reply!

      • Would there be any difference to kill all humans at age 80 in order to harvest their much needed organs for transplants?

        It opens the question for will.

        The animals are not capable of communicating us but one can be fairly certain that they are not willing to die for our momentary satisfaction of taste buds. It is a closed argument.

      • These cattles belongs to the farmer. So in that sense, yes you should be allowed to kill and harvest the organs of your own younglings.

    • +2

      On the same boat as you, I cannot come to any reconciliation hence I have reduced meat consumption. Having pets and caring for them made me more empathetic to all animals. I also would like to keep my diet without any deficiencies and I do not have much knowledge about nutrition as it is very complex science with many opinions.

  • Yes, the world is not setup for the whole population to be vegetarian, vegan or some variation. So it is currently necessary for a large portion of people to still be eating meat otherwise you would have a food crisis and therefor it is completely ethical for people to eat meat still.

    I'm sure I could come up with other reasons why it is ethical to eat meat but that seems like a good reason that won't change for a while.

    • Thanks for the reply!

      I agree, but should there be a move for those that can to start reducing and eventually cutting out meat from their diet?

      I don't think anyone of sound mind would want everyone to switch over to being a vego tomorrow for the reasons you mentioned plus many more.

      • I agree, but should there be a move for those that can to start reducing and eventually cutting out meat from their diet?

        As in is it ethical that people aren't reducing meat from their diet?

        Short answer is yes, it would be more ethical to reduce meat from their diet but that doesn't make it unethical to eat meat.

        • Thanks for the response!

    • +5

      Actually the world isn't set up for everyone to eat meat. At least it is not sustainable. 1/3 of the worlds grain is used to feed live stock (side note: meat production also accounts for 1/3 of the worlds fresh water consumption, it takes 15000L of water to produce 1kg of meat as opposed to 1250L for a kilo of grain).
      - so there would be more than enough food for everyone. The copious amounts of land and labour used for meat production can then be used for other crops too.

      • I didn't say the world was setup for everyone to eat meat either. Just that it is setup so a significant portion still eat meat.

        Also I never said producing meat didn't require more natural resources just that currently if everyone switched to a vegetarian or vegan diet supply would be an issue.

        You don't go around eating fodder do you? The resources spent on producing live stock is not necessarily fit for human use.

        You need to ramp up production on vegetarian or vegan products and that is definitely a long term thing. In other words, the world is not (currently) setup for the whole population to be vegetarian.

    • +2

      It takes more food to feed live animals than to completely eliminate world hunger. It is actually better to go vegetarian for the world and for the environment. It is not a technical problem of distribution and supply but a systemic political problem why there is still hunger in the world and third world countries that produce abundance of food in countries like India still has malnutrition and extreme hunger problems. I eat meat but again this argument is not correct as per my knowledge.

      • It was a short answer without going into the nitty gritty.

        But it is a technical problem as well as a systemic political problem.

        You can't suddenly turn around to a meat producer and tell them to start growing crops or tell the supporting industries to switch support crops. It's not a one to one conversion and it would take time a significant amount of time.

        In 2002 China consumed 52.4kg of meat per person. Which means if the world was to begin going vegetarian, vegan, etc you would need to start producing an equivalent amount of alternative food. This doesn't happen instantly and it would take a significant amount of time.

    • Actually @spd the world is more set up for whole population to be vegan that anything else. Meat is a third order form of energy to sustain life.entropy dictates that vegan population is better for universe than other options( in that order).

      • You don't go around eating fodder do you? The resources spent on producing live stock is not necessarily fit for human use.

        As it currently stands the world is setup to produce meat even though it is more costly in resources to produce an end product.

        You still need to go through the process of turning things that support creating livestock into things to grow edible crops. Until that process is over then it is perfectly ethical for people to eat meat.

  • +1

    I am interested in how you came to prioritise your diet over other areas where our actions are questionable ethically/morally?
    I eat meat, and don't have too many concerns over Australian produced beef, lamb and chicken. Pork is a flesh I am more uneasy about for reasons largely around the quality of life available to lot raised pork. Similarly, I avoid caged eggs, but don't have qualms about hens kept for egg production or bees for honey.
    I tend to feel that my meat consumption is but a small part of my personal impact on the world, and tend to prioritise my concerns toward human suffering/development rather than animal.
    But I am a constant hypocrite so can't claim any moral authority. This song presents a reasonably good compromise, I think: https://paul-spencer.net/2012/03/18/be-a-crap-vegan/

    • +1

      "Man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills"

      I cant pinpoint a certain event, it is just through reading and learning about farming practices, the environment, the nature of consciousness etc. that I have slowly developed these concerns and subsequently changed my ways.

      We are all hypocrites to some extent in many matters so you're not alone! I like to think of myself as living a somewhat ethical/moral life but it is important, I think, to always strive to live in a manner that is ethical/moral and that minimises suffering for other beings.

      Thanks!

    • +2

      The argument essentially boils down to why care about x (animals) when there is bigger problems for y (humans).

      But its not a great argument in practice. Just because there is one injustice that is 'worse' then another doesnt mean nothing needs to be done about the former.

      Its kinda like me saying 'Oh your worried about Trump deporting Mexicans? Politicians taking too much travel allowance? Doping in sports? …. There are children dying of thirst and hunger!!! Those issues arent important!'

      • +1

        Well, no.
        I think it is quite reasonable to pursue multiple agendas, but my question was about priority, and Heracles26 answered it quite succinctly.
        I am assuming most people participating in this discussion start from a position of consuming meat, so to become vegetarian takes specific action, and I am curious why people choose to do this.
        My sister, for example, became a vegetarian because she is concerned about animal welfare, and unhappy about their killing, and she felt it was a daily thing she could do to validate that concern. Pete Singer, famously, suggested it was more ethical to eat a human with reduced mental capacity that precluded their awareness of what was happening, than a healthy animal. Note I don't think Singer started eating the long pork, and I understand the point he was trying to make, I just don't find it convincing.

        I don't particularly have any issues with animals who are raised for meat being slaughtered and butchered for food from an animal welfare perspective, assuming they are not mistreated while alive. I don't particularly class that as an injustice, although I am sure my sister would.
        As a result, I don't prioritise that issue over others, although I do accept the environmental impact of meat consumption is a magnitude higher than non-meat. And I do seek meat that is more humanely raised, although I am not precious about it. So I will choose grass fed Australian beef over imported Wagyu, for example, but I wouldn't decline somebody offering me a Wagyu steak as the main course at a dinner party.

  • +1

    I know of this Facebook group called "Vegans r US". Check it out.
    The emphasis is on meat alternatives for Vegans. There are so many alternatives for meat I could not believe.

    • Thanks!

    • Do they have an alternative for water?

      It drives me mad when vegans drink water, for goodness sake that's where the fish live!

  • +13

    Q. How do you tell if a person is vegan?
    A.Start talking with them on any subject, and they will bring it up within 30 seconds…..

    • Haha this is often the case!

    • -3

      Q. How do you tell if a person is a meat eater?
      A. New animal killed, for his every other meal.

      • +1

        only works when you're making fun of vegans.

        We dont discriminate food, its all delicious.

        • Love this comment so much.yup we don't discriminate food. Although i prefer meat over vegies

      • What if you killed an elephant? I don't think you could eat one per meal.

  • +4

    As Monty Python once said "if God didn't want you to eat meat, he would never have invented butchers, would he"

Login or Join to leave a comment