- Feedback
- View
Re:
Or moribund perhaps?
Or moribund perhaps?
Veganism
- Thread starter Harryburgundy
- Start date
highlandsflyer
Retro Wizard
- Feedback
- View
Re:
The healthiest people I know eat very little meat, if at all.
That has been the case for many years, and they look great on it.
Everything in moderation is my view, but some people eat a ridiculous amount of meat and processed food, and then find it a surprise when it hits home.
The healthiest people I know eat very little meat, if at all.
That has been the case for many years, and they look great on it.
Everything in moderation is my view, but some people eat a ridiculous amount of meat and processed food, and then find it a surprise when it hits home.
CassidyAce
Senior Retro Guru
Re: Re:
No. 'Nearly pregnant' is when the sperm are getting close to the egg and are about to fertilise it. No one is 'semi vegan' when the meat is getting close to their mouth and they are about to scoff it.
'Part time' vegan might be clearer, mind.
Harryburgundy":2zefbgww said:
No. 'Nearly pregnant' is when the sperm are getting close to the egg and are about to fertilise it. No one is 'semi vegan' when the meat is getting close to their mouth and they are about to scoff it.
'Part time' vegan might be clearer, mind.
- Feedback
- View
Vegans cant use their cars, all that oil from dead dinosaurs - and apparently carrots squeal when being pulled from the ground?
Veganism is a fashion step too far. You cant escape animal by-products in your home and work place. Being vegetarian is perfectly acceptable and understandable
Veganism is a fashion step too far. You cant escape animal by-products in your home and work place. Being vegetarian is perfectly acceptable and understandable
Harryburgundy
Gold Trader
- Feedback
- View
legrandefromage":3i7pigc3 said:
A fashion step - I guess someone was going to say it! Well done you.
- Feedback
- View
'Vegansim' is fashion led by the poor wee butterfly generation and you know it.
'Vegetarianism' is a good idea, it can be followed easily.
Veganism as an idea smacks of hypocrisy - you simply cannot say 'I'm a vegan' and genuinely live a life avoiding animal products. If you drive a car, the glues used in its production contain animal products, you cannot avoid it unless you completely eschew modern life and go live in a field.
'Vegetarianism' is a good idea, it can be followed easily.
Veganism as an idea smacks of hypocrisy - you simply cannot say 'I'm a vegan' and genuinely live a life avoiding animal products. If you drive a car, the glues used in its production contain animal products, you cannot avoid it unless you completely eschew modern life and go live in a field.
- Feedback
- View
But what about the trees that covered the field before it was cleared by the nasty humans for agriculture? Trees have feelings too you know?
Maybe go live in a tree?
Maybe go live in a tree?
CassidyAce
Senior Retro Guru
Re:
Surely there's scope for different possibilities here: some people probably do claim to be vegan because it's fashionable; some try to be vegan for health reasons; others try to be vegan for ethical reasons, and did so long before it became a celebrity fashion.
On the other hand, it probably is impossible to be truly vegan, especially in the modern world. But there is more than one response to that: either you can accept it and just try to live a relatively harmless life, but knowing that some animals will be harmed in the process; or you could take veganism as a 'regulative ideal' meaning that you try to be vegan, knowing that you will not completely succeed, but believing that you will cause least harm if the ideal of veganism regulates your actions. In other words, you set a goal you can never attain but you pursue it anyway because you believe it will produce better results than not trying to pursue it at all. Each one is a respectable approach.
The issue of whether plants should receive moral consideration is an interesting one and the point about carrots is not unreasonable. There are various aspects to the issue. On the one hand, it seems to make it easier to explain our consciousness if we can say that everything has some degree of consciousness, even if it is fairly minimal; otherwise, we have to explain how completely unaware matter can produce awareness in us, and that's not easy at all. On the other hand, even if plants are not conscious, we might say they deserve moral consideration because they are alive, and living things are fundamentally different from non-living things for reasons that would take too long to explain (telos). However, the problem with trying to argue for the moral consideration of plants is that their well-being is so easily, routinely and probably rightly overridden by other concerns, that the idea can appear daft. However, carrying little weight in our moral judgements is not the same as carrying no weight.
The point is, as I think LGF was suggesting, whether you try to be vegan, vegetarian or omnivorous, it's moral shades of grey, not black and white.
Lecture finished.
Surely there's scope for different possibilities here: some people probably do claim to be vegan because it's fashionable; some try to be vegan for health reasons; others try to be vegan for ethical reasons, and did so long before it became a celebrity fashion.
On the other hand, it probably is impossible to be truly vegan, especially in the modern world. But there is more than one response to that: either you can accept it and just try to live a relatively harmless life, but knowing that some animals will be harmed in the process; or you could take veganism as a 'regulative ideal' meaning that you try to be vegan, knowing that you will not completely succeed, but believing that you will cause least harm if the ideal of veganism regulates your actions. In other words, you set a goal you can never attain but you pursue it anyway because you believe it will produce better results than not trying to pursue it at all. Each one is a respectable approach.
The issue of whether plants should receive moral consideration is an interesting one and the point about carrots is not unreasonable. There are various aspects to the issue. On the one hand, it seems to make it easier to explain our consciousness if we can say that everything has some degree of consciousness, even if it is fairly minimal; otherwise, we have to explain how completely unaware matter can produce awareness in us, and that's not easy at all. On the other hand, even if plants are not conscious, we might say they deserve moral consideration because they are alive, and living things are fundamentally different from non-living things for reasons that would take too long to explain (telos). However, the problem with trying to argue for the moral consideration of plants is that their well-being is so easily, routinely and probably rightly overridden by other concerns, that the idea can appear daft. However, carrying little weight in our moral judgements is not the same as carrying no weight.
The point is, as I think LGF was suggesting, whether you try to be vegan, vegetarian or omnivorous, it's moral shades of grey, not black and white.
Lecture finished.
- Feedback
- View
To borrow and adapt your phrase:
However, the problem with trying to argue for the moral consideration of animals is that their well-being is so easily, routinely and probably rightly overridden by other concerns, that the idea can appear daft.
Not my point of view but probably that of many across the world with far less luxury of choice and stability of food supply than we have.
My view is that we have the freedom of choice due to our over-supplied, over-fed over-indulged society. This is not to say that consideration for the welfare of all things living should be ignored.
I try to eat products produced from 'happy', ethically reared animals wherever I can manage it. And give a nod to the beast on my plate and am thankful for the opportunity to choose to eat that way. A very 'first world' view afforded by living in it.
However, the problem with trying to argue for the moral consideration of animals is that their well-being is so easily, routinely and probably rightly overridden by other concerns, that the idea can appear daft.
Not my point of view but probably that of many across the world with far less luxury of choice and stability of food supply than we have.
My view is that we have the freedom of choice due to our over-supplied, over-fed over-indulged society. This is not to say that consideration for the welfare of all things living should be ignored.
I try to eat products produced from 'happy', ethically reared animals wherever I can manage it. And give a nod to the beast on my plate and am thankful for the opportunity to choose to eat that way. A very 'first world' view afforded by living in it.
CassidyAce
Senior Retro Guru
Re:
You are correct: the fact that we live in relatively wealthy, industrialised societies means that we have a luxury of choice that many people do not. And for many, the choice to be vegan or vegetarian will seem less like a moral choice than a foible of the rich.
The tragedy is that so many who have that luxury use their ability to make a choice to eat factory farmed, plumped-with-water, low quality meat in such quantities that they end up unhealthy. Let's face it, many consumers can't even tell whether what they're eating is beef or horse! And it's in such large quantities that the Earth would need to be about seven times larger for everyone to eat as much meat as Europeans do. It's those with less choice that actually eat less meat.
But there really isn't any reason for vegans and vegetarians to be self-righteous (not that many seem to be). Modern arable farming has led to soil erosion, decline of wildlife and many, many 'food miles', with all that entails. In the worst cases, as on some South American banana plantations, crop workers have lived so close to the crop spraying that their health has suffered, foetuses have suffered abnormalities, etc. The worst case I heard about was a foetus with two heads (late nineties Fair Trade report).
I choose to be vegetarian but I'm not knocking you for eating ethically-sourced meat. On the other hand, I still find factory farming deplorable.
You are correct: the fact that we live in relatively wealthy, industrialised societies means that we have a luxury of choice that many people do not. And for many, the choice to be vegan or vegetarian will seem less like a moral choice than a foible of the rich.
The tragedy is that so many who have that luxury use their ability to make a choice to eat factory farmed, plumped-with-water, low quality meat in such quantities that they end up unhealthy. Let's face it, many consumers can't even tell whether what they're eating is beef or horse! And it's in such large quantities that the Earth would need to be about seven times larger for everyone to eat as much meat as Europeans do. It's those with less choice that actually eat less meat.
But there really isn't any reason for vegans and vegetarians to be self-righteous (not that many seem to be). Modern arable farming has led to soil erosion, decline of wildlife and many, many 'food miles', with all that entails. In the worst cases, as on some South American banana plantations, crop workers have lived so close to the crop spraying that their health has suffered, foetuses have suffered abnormalities, etc. The worst case I heard about was a foetus with two heads (late nineties Fair Trade report).
I choose to be vegetarian but I'm not knocking you for eating ethically-sourced meat. On the other hand, I still find factory farming deplorable.
Similar threads
