This turned out to be a very interesting discussion. All these hard questions made me think... 

We are trying to rationalize ethics, and this is possible in my opinion. Though opinions are just like hats the truth is the truth...

Atheistextremist has a point:

There was a fly on my PC screen just now (really). The bitch was bugging me so I kill her and I didn't even eat her or have sex with her... I guess this doesn't add up to my taste for meat (yummi) or support of animal rights. The fly is not part of my social contract.

Really Blake, we have to be balanced here. Extremism is often a poor choice for moral values (Atheistextremist no offense intended ).

If the rabbit hole went far enough I should waste time trying to push the fly outside. Also, I should never use pesticides against mice, ants or cockroaches. Are these insects lesser than a chicken, an octupus or a crab? Why? I should even be carefull when cleaning my bed sheets because I would be killing Acari.

Because life is all about breaking eggs and live with it. Animals kill to stay alive, animals kill to practice their killing instincts and don't have any moral problem with it. Animals even have sex with other species without their consent! Sure we humans can survive by only eating things from the Plant kingdom, but that's not our nature for we are omnivorous. Probably one of the reasons of our success as a species is our adaptability in food choice. However one of the key diference between animals and humans is that we have a moral conscience (this damn intelligence seems to be more of a problem than a gift sometimes )

 When opinions are backed up by rationality they may have an imposing effect or at least reality grounds independent of one's opinion.

It is true that many good intentions ended up in bad deeds but if one's mind is open and ponders the problems, those mistakes are valuable information for improvement. But this doesn't invalidate the fact that there is a qualitative difference between "whacking an octopus with a racket and offing little octopi for tako salad". Does this matter to the octopus? Well... it may... Do you rather die by burning on a stake or by a lethal painless injection?

Moral is much about intentions and choosing the lesser evil in situations! This is why science has a problem with moral, so it shows in this interesting discussion. We can't be like all or nothing because if I'd have to ask the Octopus for consent to be in my eating plate I would also have to ask the Acari for consent to drown them in my washing machine.

 

True... but you're only seeing the face value of things. CJ wrote: "there are good and valid societal gains from giving all adult persons the right to consent or refuse. There are good and valid biological and psychological reasons for insisting on "adult"." So in a moral decision one has to se the side of the abuser and the abused.

Again, when an Indian (native American) goes out and kills a deer, he say a prayer and thanks the deer for giving food to him and his family. We rationalize and mass production meat as a comoditty. We don't have to say a prayer or thank anyone because we are Gods ourselfs. Selfish and all-powerfull. I think some indian cultures are morally superior to ours in many respects.

So it's all a question of respect. If a person respects the animals, can fight for their rights and still eat them. A respectfull person doesn't do things selfishly but his actions add value to a system as a whole.

Wether we like it or not we are on top of the food chain and are the most advanced species on the planet. With this, also comes great responsability, and we are abusing this responsability by treating life as objects independent from us that we can use and exploit at our pleasure.

I also think that there are differences between living things. A Chipanzee has more independence and is more self aware than a fly so it must have a diferent social contract with humans.

My utopia is like the life of Elfs in Tolkien. Living in communion with a fruitfull and beautifull nature... and still eating it.

 

Apparently, Einstein became a vegetarian in his last year of life. Here is a page with more info.

Just to spice up the bestiality thing:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/03/070314-hybrids.html 

Link doesn't work...

Only if I fail to draw a (arbitrary) line between humans and animals.  Why wouldn't I?  All I have to do is assume that human suffering is important, and animal suffering is not.  With those assumptions my morality can be consistent.

 

Also, this thread is fantastic.

This:  http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/21269?page=2#comment-317969

Followed by this: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/21269?page=2#comment-317979

Is pure gold.

@Blake: What *is* your basis for choosing to respect animal welfare?  Is it just empathy?  If you get specific about this in your response to someone else, just ignore this.

 

My question is always, "What's in it for me?"

 

When talking about humans, I think you can make a case that respecting some human rights is a good enough general rule to adopt in universally.  Things don't tend to go well when you don't respect basic rights, and so you can at least have a basis for making that moral assumption in differentiating between humans and non-humans.  However, nothing bad seems to happen when we treat animals badly, and there certainly isn't anything in our nature that makes harming animals a bad thing...most research I've seen indicates the only reason we have empathy for animals is more or less a case of our subconcious anthropomorphizing non-humans in such a way that our human-empathy starts to cover other species as well...typically easier the cuter they are. (If you have data that suggests otherwise, I'd love to read about it, btw)

 

I'm not hostile to the idea of changing my moral compass about critters, but my two questions are: 1) Why bother?  2) How do we decide what deserves protection and what doesn't?

 

I never understood that either.  Sure, bestiality is 'icky' to most people, but it isn't to everyone (obviously!), but generating a logical argument against it just falls flat.  Besides, I am 100% certain a human can get 'consent' from an animal anyway, and I am 100% certain a human could get the animal to enjoy it and come back for more, so even that arbitrary rule is useless to prove a point.

And you've still not given a reason for either one of those opinions that holds up to scrutiny.

Mind you, I get where you are coming from.  But by using your thought process we can justify imposing any behavior we feel strongly about, whether it is rational or not.  You can't apply your reasoning without getting some kooky beliefs.

If someone came on here and said, "Most people think Atheists are bad and shouldn't ever be in positions of authority, and I feel that way too...when I see an atheist, they make me so mad!  As long as atheists keep to themselves that is fine, but if they ever run for public office they should be jailed!"

Or how about if a person from PETA says, "Anyone who eats meat deserves to be locked up!" and then gives, word for word, the *exact same reasoning you have given here* to justify that action?  Why are they wrong, but you're right?  Repeating that there is an obvious difference between food animals killed for your taste buds and a dog killed for someone's wallet doesn't cut it.

 

What would you say to that?  All I'm trying to do is get you to apply that same kind of thinking to your own beliefs.  Using what you've given us, the only arbiter for what constitutes punishable animal abuse vs. acceptable animal harm is...your opinion.  Which your are willing to send people to jail over, or kill them outright.

To me, that is actually a little terrifying.  Allowing that kind of rationality is how those in the minority are abused by those in the majority.  When 'common sense' is the basis of morality, bad things happen.

 

You don't have to respond though, we're just repeating ourselves.  I appreciate how level headed you've been, in any case.

No, I'll respond...I just need to think about it for a while first.

I see what you're getting at now (I think) and I enjoy a challenge. If I can learn to express my 'opinions' in a more logical way, I'm all for that. You're a good teacher.

 

Y'all might get a kick out of this...remember, this morning I decided to be vegetarian? Well, guess what was waiting at the post office for me this afternoon from my brother in NY for my birthday- two pair of suede & two pair of leather pants, a leather jacket and a suede shirt.

I don't care what you say, Blake, I'm wearing them!!! Not only do they look good but, they smell good, too (you know, kind of like that 'new car' smell?)  

 

@Sandy:

Just don't feel like you need to work too hard to justify your existing opinions.  If you can't justify them, maybe they aren't justifiable.  That isn't a horrible thing, all of us have opinions that don't make sense.

People, including me, have a strong psychological need to justify our choices after we've made them, whether we're right or wrong.  Trying to be rational means we need to try and analyze our own beliefs and decide if they are consistent without given in to the desire to have knee-jerk defensive reaction about our existing or past decisions/ways of thinking.

 

Besides, it isn't all bad.  If you decide the meat eating is 'worth it' all it means is you give up voting for legislation that sends abusers to jail.  It doesn't mean you can't campaign for animal welfare or that you have to start kicking puppies, it means you would be restricted to 'talking about', instead of 'legislating', your morality.

 

If you decide the other way, well, the you've got to decide how far to go.  Vegetarian, Vegan, shooting yourself to keep from harming insects (but then the bacteria in your body would die, oh no....but youid feed new bacteria too, oh, the choices!)

----------------------

Are you a biker, or do you just have a leather fetish?

Edit: Happy birthday.

 

Then you have to justify that compromise somehow.  Under what conditions is it OK to treat animals like property?  Why?  Under what conditions is it wrong to treat them like property?  Why?  What happens when we follow the logic of those answers to an unspecified situations?

You can't just say, 'compromise'.  Some people in this thread have said animal abuse should be punishable by imprisonment or death.  That means the question has enormous moral weight (or the value of human life is just as trivial as that of an animal, but that is a different problem!).  I think asking that people justify this is....justifiable.  If someone thinks these questions are *that* important, you can't just hand-wave it away, not and live with yourself anyway.  Have you ever heard the phrase, "Meat is murder."?  That is what many people think.  If meat is murder, you can't compromise and consider yourself a moral person.

 

And why would option 1 include condoning animal abuse?  That's just a straw man.  Option 2...well, yea, I think that is the rational conclusion of believing animal pain and life has non-trivial importance.

All good points to consider...

I know! We had Chinese for lunch and every bite of shrimp gave me a twinge of guilt!!  I couldn't help but wonder if they suffered before they died. But, they were delicious!

 No, not a biker but, my friend is, sort of. He bought me the vest about 10 years ago for a birthday and I've never felt comfortable about wearing it out (keep in mind where I live). BUT, now that I have matching pants, how could I not??? Oh! Got to give these bible-thumpers something good to gossip about every once in a while.

Thank you.

My 2 favorite coats are 1) a vintage (70's) suede with shearling trim and lining and a 2) vintage (40's) Mouton lamb fur coat. Trouble is, it rarely gets cold enough here to wear them.

All this talk reminds me of a Jerry Seinfeld skit:

 

I once had a leather jacket that got ruined in the rain. Why does moisture ruin leather? Aren’t cows outside a lot of the time? When it’s raining, do cows go up to the farmhouse, “Let us in! We’re all wearing leather! Open the door! We’re going to ruin the whole outfit here!”

 

 

 

 

Certainly the strongest, but only because the rest are non-existent.  This would only be a good argument if our laws actually removed those humans, or if our prison systems actually reformed and corrected psychopathy instead of (in many cases) arguably making it more pronounced.

There is an argument for simply killing people off (or permanently imprisoning those) who enjoy hurting animals for fun, because of the odds that their brains are wired in such a way to make them a danger to society.  There's not an argument for fining them or sending them into a lock-up for a few months, which merely makes them more careful about not getting caught, or bottles up that rage and frustration to be (possibly) later released on others.

It is a question of the brain chemistry of the person who is committing these acts which is the most likely causation behind the correlation- not as likely a matter of learned behavior, unless that learned behavior is a matter of social deviancy, and then the argument applies to any social deviant- or making society better conform to animal cruelty to provide an outlet for this aggression.

 

 

 

As deep as you feel like digging.  I didn't prescribe a depth deliberately- that's a matter of personal conviction.

Personally, I have conviction to kill mosquitoes and other parasites, and lack distinct moral concern for anything that doesn't have two brain cells to rub together (Generally things too small to see, plants, fungi, sponges, and the like).  The matter at hand is consistency, however far you want to take that personally.

 

Want to eat anything with under a 50 IQ?  Go for it, but don't complain when somebody else decides to eat babies (or whatever else happens to be under 50 IQ).

 

Morality is only a slippery slope if you make it into one (and it does have some limits to how far it can go).  However, unless you're going to argue for nothing more than the barest form of social contract, you can't make the slippery slope argument against another opinion of morality while holding your own all the same.

 

One presumes a functional morality to permit at least the bare minimum of action required to keep oneself alive- though the margin of comfort is one in question.  One could ask the question "what's the least harm I can do to keep myself alive?"- but as far as harm goes, there are limits to that, too.

 

Regarding a basis of empathy for morality- which is one of the more reasonable ones, given that is the actual response that elicits the most primitive moral impulses (aside from that which is built up memetically from arbitrary experience), there are some very important additional considerations:

 

First, empathy is founded in projected self interest- so it's technically both imprecise and inaccurate to empathize based on assumptions (such as a child empathizing with a teddy bear when said child assumes the toy doesn't want to be sat on).  In order to make it more precise and accurate (which would seem to be a practical goal if one wants one's actions to reflect reality), we need to understand the targets of our empathy better.

It is important to note that if a person has no interest in making their morality consistent with reality, then that that person really doesn't have any real interest in morality- that is to say, if they don't care what's really happening, but just about what they think is happening, that is an expression of apathy, not morality.  Any attempt at making morality consistent with reality- particularly if we use empathy as the basis- must, as such, have considerations for the precision and accuracy of that measurement- and as I'm sure you already know, any genuine attempt to actually understand what's going on in reality is based on science rather than whim or mythological tradition.

So, with regards to actual understanding of the subjects, a little more reason (and science) can come into play- such as the very premises of empathy requiring self-interest, which requires some sense of self awareness, and that the foundation of that self interest is expressed first though the avoidance of pain, by way of fear, and second in pursuit of pleasure, by way of hopes, dreams, ambitions, etc.

Due to this, empathy (and the morality it implies), must necessarily be rationally limited to those creatures with, as you put it, 'higher' awareness and the ability to feel pain; plants are fundamentally excluded from this, because they don't have any central awareness to regulate their perception and response to any stimuli- just local production of chemicals in a reflexive response which lacks any hallmarks of self awareness.  They lack a system of mind to comprehend the chemical signals, which instead of being processed, just go right to work- they may produce responses to damage, but it isn't pain in the sense of how we use the word, and so it should have no bearing in an empathy directed to  reflect the actual reality at hand.

As animals become simpler, there may be a point where they, too, cross that line- for example, organisms such as sponges.

So, there are certain things that are "right out" if one takes the basis of morality to be empathy (which is one of the only non-arbitrary things we can take it as).

If people want to empathize with plants, or stuffed animals, they are welcome to do that on their own time- but there is no rational argument that can be made to suggest that others also do so, or that it should be moral to do so.

 

After plants, fungi, and other simple organisms, though, we get a finer gradation from minuscule insects up to talking birds, pigs/hippos, elephants, cetaceans, and the great apes.  It is within that range that we find myriad opinions on which animals possess which qualities that bestow upon them various moral rights relative to various moral systems.

 

 

As I expanded upon above, plants are not a consideration for anybody who is being rational beyond the implications of production/harvesting, as far as those adversely affect local animal ecology.  There are people called "fruitarians"- those people are not founding their morality upon reality wherein they hold that it is immoral to harm plants.  Wherein they hold that fruiting plants are more environmentally sound, that's another matter entirely.

As far as animals go, that's a matter of opinion, as far as degree of likeness/qualities that account for moral consideration.  I don't eat any animals that are large enough for me to see and avoid eating.  I kill small arthropods both accidentally and deliberately (such as mosquitoes)- as do most vegetarians.  There are some insects that I don't kill despite them being in my personal space and a potential threat (I usually won't kill wasps), but I can't necessarily judge anybody else for doing so because my not killing wasps is arbitrary compared to my killing mosquitoes (wasps arguably being more painful), unless I can come up with a good reason for not doing it.  That's not saying that I *do* judge anybody for killing insects in any situation, just that I couldn't judge them in that situation, even if I wanted to, because it would be inconsistent if I did so.

Anyway, what I do or think is pretty much irrelevant provided I'm not imposing it upon others (and I tend not to; or at least not even remotely to the degree that Sandycane does)- the driving point is consistency with personal beliefs/actions, and that which we impose upon others.

 

I hope that answers some of your questions.

Thanks Sandy, sorry if we got off on the wrong foot.  I'm just not very patient with explaining things to people, as mellestad mentioned

Sorry if I can be abrasive.



Right, and that's really my whole point.  As humans, we can make a choice and choose to do the least amount of harm that's necessary.

Anything more than necessary, whether it's eating meat, or using animals in another way that hurts them, all seem the same to me: unnecessary harm.




Actually, dogs don't require any animal protein in their diets- they can be vegan.

Cats require taurine, because unlike dogs and humans (and most animals), their bodies can't synthesize it.  That makes them obligate carnivores.

However, there is vegan cat food which has man made taurine added (it's just a small change to some amino acids- same stuff that's in red bull, I believe- it's *probably* done by some kind of fungus or bacteria; anyway, it's chemically identical), and that is suitable for cats.

The only caveat to that is that sometimes male cats are better off eating a little bit of animal protein.

The reason is that animal protein makes the urinary tract more acidic, and cats are prone to developing problems- particularly male cats.  There are other things you can add to the male cat's diet to increase the acidity, but it can be quite complex and might be risky for the cat.

Vegan cat pet sites advise only using vegan cat food for female cats, and *part* of the male cat's diet, and introducing small amounts of animal protein to the male cat's diet to treat the urinary tract condition.

See:  http://www.vegancats.com/veganfaq.php#1070


So, if it's necessary, it's necessary- for male cats, it might be that they really need a little bit (not much) meat.  And in those cases, we can try to be as humane as possible in the production of that meat (or even get ahold of free meat that would have gone to waste).

In the future, hopefully veterinary nutritional science can solve the problem and make vegan cat food healthy for male cats too.


The same is the case for humans when sick people need organs from animals to live, and some other situations.  There are some cases where other animals need to be killed to save human life- but those are 'one in a million' (maybe not actually one in a million, what I mean is uncommon), and becoming less common every year as medical science advances in its ability to regenerate organs and produce medications without using animals.

I would never protest animal use to save somebody's life (can't criticize somebody for self preservation, after all- that's practically the definition of 'need').

Consistent with what?  A morality that is known to be inconsistent with reality is not a morality.

If you believed that reality justified that by word or a god, or souls that only exist in humans thus making animals p-zombies, then you could plead ignorance here.

Human-ness has no objective bearing on capacity to experience suffering, which in turn is required to justify empathy, which is the only basis we can give a morality in excess of the raw social contract that is founded in reality (others are purely memetic, and only work as a basis for morality if you're ignorant of that fact).

You could say 'human suffering is the only one that matters'- but you fail to provide a basis for that claim contrary to knowing better.  As you have said yourself, it's arbitrary, and you yourself know that it isn't consistent with any realitistic capacity to suffer- otherwise you just could have equally defined it as capacity to suffer.

If a Muslim doesn't know the Quran is fiction, he or she can base a moral system upon it.  If he or she does know that it is at odds with reality, then he or she can not legitimately do this.

You're not getting out of this that easily, don't think I don't know your tricks :P  Your own intelligence is your enemy here.



I went into this a little in my response to Atheistextremist- please let me know if that doesn't go into enough detail.




You can only make that argument with regards to arbitrary violations or ammendments to the social contract.

The things that you can make a practical argument for are covered by social contract- and this simply does not include those who are not inherently part of the social contract (babies, slaves, etc).

This does *not* differentiate between humans and non humans, because it doesn't include all humans.  Where they can actually be argued, they are not human rights, but elements of the social contract for those members that are in power.




That's absolutely why we empathize with other species of animals, AND it's also why we empathize with people from other tribes which are not closely related to us, and with members of other clans/families, and with progeny that is not our own.  And it's also why children empathize with toys.

You aren't suggesting that we cull all empathy that is not strictly practical in an evolutionary sense, are you?  Because it's only directly relatives we need to be empathizing with; the rest can come about by pragmatism out of a pure social contract.  If you're advocating that, then we're back to tolerating the baby sex farm- as long as they aren't your babies the person is taking (and as I explained, that's covered by theft, treating the babies as property).
 




1) Consistency?  Why do be bother being atheists?

2) Aside from rationally excluding plants and other such things, any line we draw is a judgement call- recognizing people who extend that moral protection farther as more self-sacrificing and empathetic.

You could start by considering what kind of people are O.K. to harm or kill- brain dead people?  Those who are retarded past a certain level?  A certain age of child?- and draw the line there, and have a look at what falls over or under that line, and adjust it as needed to mesh with your particular degree of empathy

You could consider other factors, like whether they are generally a threat to you or are harming you (Moqsuitoes, Extremist Muslims?) and raise or lower their protected stature based on that on the basis of self defense (defending your own autonomy).

The latter doesn't necessarily change their ability to feel pain or their self awareness, but it is a justification in terms of self defense.

If you accept a more subjective justification like, "It's ugly and it was assaulting my sense of sight", just bear in mind that somebody might use the same justification against you if they don't like the look of you, and you can't complain

That is, self defense or protection of personal autonomy is an important one, and it's covered in any social contract- not liking what somebody looks like is not.


So, if you want to protect dogs and not Earth worms, then draw a line in between them based on some objective standard relating to empathy or the social contract- and just be consistent with respect to other animals on either side of that same line.  If you consider IQ and draw the line just below dogs, it may mean that you can't eat pork anymore, but that you can still eat most fish, for example (I don't know the IQs of enough animals to give a very good list here, but I'm sure you could find one).

Shit.  Blake, you prick, I don't want to be a vegan.  

 

We'll see how I justify my dissonance tomorrow after I'm rested.

That's okay, I know I have of gift of bringing out the worst in people. So, it wasn't entirely your fault. Another 'problem' I have is that I seek out the company of people who are smarter than I am - I never considered how frustrating my inferiority could be to them. Last night I seriously considered bowing out of this forum because I realized I am in way over my head but, I can't do that because I like learning new things...so, y'all will just have to put up with me.



So, basically you're saying, doing harm to another creature comes down to protecting yourself or your property, right? If this is true, what do you consider as 'your property'? I pay federal income taxes so, technically, the entire US is 'my property', right? And, how do you define 'necessary harm'? If a mosquito bites me, is his intent to cause harm or just to get a meal? Do I have the right to inflict necessary harm to get a meal or, only if my life is being threatened? Should the necessary harm inflicted only be equal to the perceived threat?



Is there any subject you know nothing about?  Exactly my problem: I have 7, male, neutered house cats and three of them (one is deceased now) have had to have surgery for urinary track blockage - that's why I pay more for their 'special' cat food. The European Starling, too, requires the chicken protein and the taurine in his diet. While I don't like the usual source of the meat in these feeds, I have no other choice but to buy them as is. That is why I harp on raising and slaughtering animals in a humane way - I've seen the video where they drop the live peeps in the grinder.

 

"We should not give (crappy) food to the poor but ask why the poor have no food"

I eat meat but I don't have the courage to kill most animals I eat... I guess I'm an hypocrite...

Fast food companies do unfortunately have somewhat of a monopoly on food, and because of that they can drive their prices down lower than they aught to be.

A large part of what makes this food cost so little is, unfortunately, government subsidies on feed and water- in no natural economy are vegetables more expensive than meat (in most of Asia, it's the other way around in a big way)- and that's a political obstacle that needs to be addressed.

That point aside, though, when the public at large is making these kinds of demands, that ends up being what's most visibly available- but if you know how to shop smart, you can eat vegetarian much cheaper than fast food.

When I'm living in the states, I spend about $2 a day on food, sometimes a little bit more, and I guarantee you that it's healthier than anything Sonic sells

One just has to know what to buy- onions aren't it (wonderful as they may be, they're almost always over priced for what you get).

You can purchase whole grain flour and make your own fresh bread for pennies (using a sourdough culture you keep everyday is a great way; you only need a few minutes of kneading in your routine for the day- which is good exercise anyway).

Soy beans can be bought in large bulks on the internet, a good protein and fiber source, and making soymilk is simple, and yields additional fiber bulk that you can put into the bread for an additional dose of fiber that you don't even notice.

Whole grain noodles are a great base for a meal, and you can make those yourself too (pasta grinders are an initial investment, but if you get a good one it pays for itself quickly- whole grain noodles sold at stores are just marked up so high).

Healthy food isn't expensive because it needs to be, but because:

1.  Fewer people buy them, so the healthy foods spend more time on the store shelves, taking up valuable shelf real estate.

2. Because fewer people buy them, they also manufacture and move in lower bulk, limiting the negotiating power of the retailers, and the efficiency of manufacture and distribution.

3. People after healthy food are usually in a higher income bracket, so the stores and manufacturers can mark them up for additional profit by marketing their healthy value.

As far as vegetables, it's all about the frozen aisle- buy the less popular greens like collards in large bags, and you can save a bundle.  Spinach is usually over-priced.

Carrots are a great go-to root vegetable, and you'll almost always get your money's worth there.

And then, of course, nuts- you can buy raw nuts in large bulks online (no extra oil or salt, and they taste better)- they make a great healthy snack with good fats and loads of protein and minerals.

Sometimes you can find it locally at a health food store, but you can also buy crystalline citric acid, which works in a pinch instead of lemon juice (which is expensive) on greens with a bit of salt.

You can also get flax seeds (highly recommended) and keep them in the freezer.  Use a coffee grinder and put them on anything (they taste good if they're fresh- if they're old they aren't good) and they offer good fatty acids.

And, of course, can't forget the olive oil, and the giant bulk cans of tomato paste (I never buy tomato sauce, it's never worth it).

A good assortment of beans, grains, and the right kinds of vegetables and seasonings (the kind that you get the most bang for your buck with), will keep *me* in high-protein, high-fiber food for a couple dollars a day.




Depends, do you count the medical bills from eating the burgers everyday and no vegetables?

Such a significant decision is never an island unto itself.

If you shop smart, though, you might find healthy vegetarian food is cheaper (I've lived pretty much all over, and I've never found anywhere I couldn't eat for about that).


I have to go now,
Will post more tomorrow.

Eating vegetables doesn't get you out of killing. You still have to kill insects and rodents so they don't eat it first. So, one person raises a pig and kills it for food and another plants a garden and kills a wild pig that digs under their fence. Both people killed a pig.

Now you might say that is the difference between killing because you want to and killing because you have to, but if killing is a foregone conclusion then the choice is illusory.

 

Are fish, with their 7 brain cells and scrumptious flanks, considered sentient beings or are they (ahem) lambs for the slaughter?

And kangaroos? We have 50,000,000 of them scampering about and they are culled to keep their numbers down. Can the carcases of the government sponsored dead be eaten given they would go to waste otherwise?

 

 

I think I know what Blake will say: Choose whatever you are comfortable with and be consistant in applying that choice, to yourself and to others.

Am I close, Blake?

And I'm asking Blake how you justify a middle ground choice.  If I'm not willing to be a hermit because it isn't convenient, then is there any reason to bother with any of it, beyond what I find personally distasteful?

 

That still puts me back to where I started, only now with acknowledged hypocrisy.  Blake has been arguing that you can be internally consistent, so I'm wondering how he personally avoids the problem.

What about the idea that as you eat so shall you be eaten? In my opinion it's much more hypocritical to have your body cremated than to eat other animals. It's like being an elitist. Usually though the system seems pretty reciprocal to me.

There are barely any standards for the term...organic milk can come from doped cows fed grain mulch and chicken guts while being beaten with barbed wire 18 hours a day.

That's all I mean.

 

That doesn't mean your organic milk is evil, it just means that you shouldn't put any trust in the word organic to accomplish your moral due diligence about food choices.