/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6671695]

Every time there's a thread on vegitarian/veganism it just turns into greentext trolling. Can someone provide any actual arguments for not eating meat and counterarguments, from an ethical point of view. Personally I feel mildly bad about eating other animals like cows and chicken, but when I don't eat meat I feel like shit and am always hungry, but I don't actually have any strong position/arguments either way. so basically: do you think eating meat is ever ethical, always ethical, or is there some in between mean that you find acceptable (like if you work to hunt for food it's OK, but if you raise a billion chickens in terrible conditions it's not).

[Anonymous No.6671720]

>>6671695
Friendly reminder, there is a filter

I recommend adding the phrases vegan and "eating meat"

[Anonymous No.6671723]

>>6671695
>Can someone provide any actual arguments for not eating meat

Energy requirements required to farm meat is the only real answer.

I like meat and will continue to eat it. I don't personally care for hunting, not from an ethical or moral standpoint it's just a lot of work and often not very "sporting".

[Anonymous No.6671726]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/

I'm vegan by the way, and no, I don't think it's ever morally permissible to kill another sentient being for any reason beyond self-preservation.

[Anonymous No.6671729]

>>6671720
then how did you see this thread?

[Anonymous No.6671731]

>>6671695
the only real argument I have is for religious purposes. if anything read meat isn't that healthy but that doesn't rule out all meat. Choosing not to eat meat doesn't decrease meat production and thus doesn't decrease animal suffering. there's no real reason

[Anonymous No.6671736]

>>6671729
I'm riding the bus home, I'm on mobile right now

[Anonymous No.6671740]

>>6671720
>>6671736
i'm trying to make a less shitty thread about it, but thanks anyways

[Anonymous No.6671747]

>>6671731

Isn't the argument that "1 person doing x won't affect morally wrong thing y" known to be a fallacy of some kind?

[Anonymous No.6671754]

>>6671747
but like the meat industry doesn't care if I wat meat or not.

[Anonymous No.6671765]

>>6671754
sure they do, if you spent say $1000 dollars a year or whatever on meat, that's $1000 less in their pockets. If more people do it, it will be more. And unless you're a utilitarian, this kind of argument is a fallacy in moral philosophy, but I don't really know much about ethics so I'm not sure

[Anonymous No.6671774]

>>6671740
What does this have to do with literature

[Anonymous No.6671777]

>>6671774
it's a question of applied ethics, a sub-branch of philosophy. Philosophy is discussed on this board, no?

[Anonymous No.6671816]

I'm a vegetarian -- I originally stopped eating meat because I think the meat industry is gross and horrible, but I don't have any illusions that I'm making a difference by not buying meat to eat, especially when I still consume dairy and eggs myself, and those industries are equally horrific. I don't judge non-vegetarians because not everyone has time for every cause all the time, and I know that. I'm not going to check every article of clothing I buy to make sure it's not from a sweat shop, I'm not going to stop buying computers because they were probably made by Chinese slaves, and I'm not going to stop buying tomatoes because they were farmed by enslaved immigrants right here in the United States. If it were all about that, I'd be eating chicken nuggets right now, but honestly I just really like animals at this point and don't think of them as food. They're just other beings to me. It would just feel weird. To be completely honest, I'd think of it as an ideal future if people stopped eating meat, but I'm not foolish enough to think that is anywhere close to happening in the current cultural climate. People want everything to happen overnight. Just stick to your own moral standards, be reasonably vocal about things you think are important without making people's ears bleed, and don't bother whining about things on social media unless you are taking at least some small action in real life.

[Anonymous No.6671820]

>>6671726
You're killing sentient beings every day by being a human being in the civilized world. The focus on animals "used" for food it myopic. So many products we use every day will need killing of animals and their habitats in order to be produced or developed.

>>6671723
This. Meat consumption crates a large part of energy demand, pollution etc.

Another argument would be that the amount of meat we consume is entirely unhealthy and something that causes many of our civilizations unnecessary diseases (cardiovascular issues, obesity, etc). You could argue it's somewhat unethical or morally troubling to indulge in this. You could also argue that it's a symptom of a lifestyle of general indulgence - historically meat was eaten much less than now and on special occasions. In a way excessive meat consumption could be linked to excessive masturbation, Internet consumption, any form of valuing instant gratification over rhythm and pacing in life

[Anonymous No.6671854]

>>6671777
Since you got lucky 7s I'll concede

[Anonymous No.6671855]

Did somebody just say 'ethical'?

[Anonymous No.6671859]

>>6671820
>You're killing sentient beings every day by being a human being in the civilized world

I remember I once read an account of how many animals (rodents, birds whatever) are killed in just crop-farming, it was quite an astounding amount of mice and rodents but who cares about them.

>>6671816
>I'm a vegetarian -- I originally stopped eating meat because I think the meat industry is gross and horrible

I guess you can't really disagree with that. But is there any possible incarnation of a meat industry that would be acceptable to you?

[Anonymous No.6671871]

>>6671736
man, I get self conscious as fuck when I browse 4chan in public

[Anonymous No.6671873]

>>6671855
>implying an aversion to ethical thinking and experience isn't just as spooky as moralism

[Anonymous No.6671874]

>>6671855
Why do I find this so funny God damn

[Anonymous No.6671877]

>>6671731
>You're killing sentient beings every day by being a human being in the civilized world...

There's a moral distinction between incidents and accidents.

[Anonymous No.6671884]

why are you only interested in the ethical point of view?

[Anonymous No.6671887]

>>6671855
Isn't it in the egoist's best interest to keep egoism to himself and take advantage of all those spooked people?

[Anonymous No.6671888]

>>6671871
Me too, I don't do it. I saw a 4chan shortcut on some dude at my college's phone, what a fag.

[Anonymous No.6671898]

>>6671777
You're referring to a tertiary topic

Veganism has literally nothing to do with the idea of literature

Go to /fit/ or /ck/ for fucks sake

[Anonymous No.6671900]

>>6671859
>But is there any possible incarnation of a meat industry that would be acceptable to you?
It's my own opinion that animals shouldn't be used for food, but I realize that's laughable in our current culture. So yes, I'd be very impressed if an effort were made to treat food animals with reasonable respect and care. I don't have any illusions that my ideal and peaceful magic land is actually viable, even in hundreds of years. One thing I think would definitely help is if meat weren't treated as so ubiquitous and necessary in every meal. If you go to any restaurant today and look at, for example, the salad menu, every single item is likely to have meat on it. It's possible to eat meals without meat sometimes. I think reducing the amount of meat we eat would be a great step. It doesn't need to be all chicken and bacon, all the time.

[Anonymous No.6671904]

>>6671820
>>6671859
>You're killing sentient beings every day by being a human being in the civilized world.

I've never really understood the logic of this, let me give you a similar scenario.

Being a human being in the civilized world requires electricity, which is primarily generated by coal. Coal mining causes 5,000 people to die every year in mining accidents. So it seems that just being alive requires other people to die.

But that can't possibly justify killing people to eat them, can it?

[Anonymous No.6671905]

>>6671877
I don't see it. Not sure I get your point. If you're aware, you have a choice. You can not buy that soap that was produced from plants grown where rainforest used to stand.

What I don't see is why you would prioritise not eating animals over not buying that soap or similar stuff when your concern is not to pay for, hence further enable, the killing of animals.

My guess is most people simply aren't aware. I any that's stupid.

[Anonymous No.6671918]

>>6671887
Yes. Spook posters are simply spooked to the point where sounding smart and superior is more rewarding to them because they still cling to previous spooks.

They're fucking dumb. I'd include myself in that but I'm not really an egoist.

[Anonymous No.6671925]

>>6671905
That's a red herring, and I don't consider ecologically devastating products like Palm Oil vegan

[Anonymous No.6671950]

>>6671904
I don't see the parallel here. Coal minors dying is an accident, whereas animals being killed in the process of removing vast (and I mean VAST) habitats is absolutely part of the plan and something we choose rather than something that happens.

I'm not talking about the odd mouse being killed by corn farming machinery, I'm talking about systematic destruction of environments, on purpose, for the end of something not really necessary for us.

To use your own example: let's say both scenarios are fully intentional rather than accidental.

Scenario one: The coal miners have to certainly die so we can eat them
Scenario two: the coal miners have to certainly die (for whatever reason, let say there's a need for x miners to die per amount of coal) for us to get energy.

Here I'd say both scenarios are equally problematic. We neither necessarily need to eat coal minors, nor do we necessarily need coal energy. There's alternatives to both.

Does that make any sense?

[Anonymous No.6671954]

>>6671887
My shitposting pleases the Ego and reduces it egoism to a mere meme, meaning that all those who hear of Stirner from now think of it as a bad joke and ignore it. This leaves more room for my egoism to run free and de-spooked.

[Anonymous No.6671965]

>>6671925
Well fair enough then, but I often feel like there's too much of a focus on food and obvious products with vegan alternatives and little interest in more complex problems like the ecological footprint of technology, entertainment, etc

[Anonymous No.6671970]

>>6671887
"To preach egoism is to practice altruism." - GK Chesterton.

[Anonymous No.6671975]

>>6671950
They're both part of the plan, though. We know that coal mining is risky enough that thousands of people are going to die every year. Insurance companies certainly know that.

>We neither necessarily need to eat coal minors, nor do we necessarily need coal energy.
Isn't that the same with animals? We don't necessarily need to eat animals, nor do we necessarily need animal products.

[Anonymous No.6671982]

>>6671887
>implying egoism isn't the ultimate spook

[Anonymous No.6671996]

>>6671975
I'm not saying not eating animals isn't a good idea, just that vegans in my experience focus on that while ignoring other problems that are often equally or more responsible for the death of animals.

I'm all for consuming less meat.

[Anonymous No.6672780]

I'm a veggiefag. I just came to a point where I decided it wasn't cool to eat other animals for pleasure or convenience when the human body does just fine on a vegetarian/vegan diet.

[Anonymous No.6672807]

>>6671695
I support animal testing so there's no reason for me to be against meat eating.