Veganism?

Post Reply New Topic

Eggs are unfertilized. Additionally, many species of birds will eat their own eggs if they start laying and realize that they don't have a safe place to nest. After all, laying eggs is draining and if they can't procreate which is the #1 objective, they can at least get the nutrients back. So I don't think I'd ever have a moral problem with eggs.

i hear you on the line of "cows are cute but delicious too" and its so well-put.

i dont know... if someone wants to turn vegan, all fine with me (as long as they dont put their kids on a vegan diet - its really hard getting everything a growing kid needs that way). i also dont care for the reasons people have not to eat meat - from "moral issues", finding animals too cute or simply not liking the taste - it only needs to be a valid reason for them, not for me. what gets me riled up is the moral kind of vegetarian or vegan who tries to agressively convert me. bottom line is that there is no objective moral point in not eating meat or meat products - hence they can choose for themselves and i choose for myself. the artist moby wrote in one of his essays "could you look an animal in the eyes and say to it, 'my appetite is more important than your suffering'?" - my answer would be a clear "yes". other people may answer differently.

so, my advice to you is to do as you feel is okay for you. i myself prefer buying meat i know where and how the animals grew up, for example - also because it absolutely tastes better. if you feel you dont need as much meat, why not make that your choice? why the need to conform to a preset standard like vegetarianism or veganism or this-and-that vegetarianism or whatever they call it.
i just eat what i feel like eating. that includes fluctuating meat consumption on my part, preferences for different things or whatever.

I think as humans we've done more unatural than natural esp. to our ecosystem even though there are those who still debate on this issue. It's a fact though we won't have fossil fuel forever. So, I think for us, we can make a difference it just comes in small changes and the way we view these changes. For example, our lifestyle, I think that's why there's so much obbesity in America. Our lifestyle revolves around food and we don't need as much as we used to. I mean in earlier times, food was used for survival. Now, and I myself am guilty of it, food is just used for taste and leisure. I'm not totally against it but I often wonder how many of those animals were slaughtered just for waste. To me, and hearing my brother in law, it's a little bothersome. That's mainly why I brought this topic up.

The sad thing is being a vegetarian isnt without its own slaughter of animals. The methods for harvesting vegetables kills a large amount of animals too. Bunnys dont look too good once they been through a combine harvester and nor do a lot of small animals, The little mole who digs a safe home in the ground when big bad farmer comes along with his plough will be lucky to escape with its life. But these are accidents so we can try ignore that these things happen but farmers dont like the rabbits and will shoot them to stop them from eating your vegetables. Not even going to go into detail on how many insects die, they are only insects.

I recommend not eating at all if you dont want animals to die for it. Or stick with eating the cute cows because 1 cow can feed a lot of hungry mouths!

kalister: im not nihilistic, i just accept that in a strictly moral sense, there are no objective values (if they are there, they hid well for the last millennia) and what remains is rules delineating usefullness and functionality. in a strict moral sense, all there is, is my own moral code, because its undoubtedly there.

according to my moral code, its absolutely okay to eat animals. period.
according to rules of functionality, eating meat isnt bad either.
so, there you are.

when i move out and live independently, im eating nothing but subway vegan sandwiches for all of my meals

well, i wouldnt say my moral code is absolute... its for me, and only me. other than that, its no valid argument against a moral code that it could be used for all and everything - its not part of morals that they get certain, useful, things done or prevent other, less useful, things from happening. morals are concerned with good and bad ONLY. thats basically where utilitarianism fails big time: by defining good and bad as degrees of usefulness, they miss the point of good and bad as qualities.

and yeah... i share basic influences with existentialism in that regard, because its what makes sense: phenomenology.
now, im all ears for attempts to refute the obvious/intuitive: values exist, but no trace of objective values. since i accept the existence of values, i can not be a nihilist.

also, i guess what you mean with non-intrinsic objective values is intrasubjective values. at least thats the only interpretation that makes this discrimination make sense. re intrasubjective values. they exist, too, but they are not moral values but functional values, like laws.

I don't know Kalister, people just aren't good for eachother.