Philip Wollen : Animals Should Be Off The Menu

[barts]

In my view, Philip Wollen's ethical and practical arguments for not killing animals are unassailable. Having said that I don't doubt that most people will remain unmoved and their immediate need to satisfy their taste will prevail regardless of the harm done to themselves, animals, other people, and the planet.

With few exceptions, eating animals is fundamentally immoral.

[Dieval]

Stop making them taste so good then!!

[barts]

Stop making them taste so good then!!

To a large extent, I think you're expressing the majority opinion, which says much about the majority, don't you think? Or, in your view, do the consequences of eating animals have no currency in ethics?

[Angry Citizen]

In my view, Philip Wollen's ethical and practical arguments for killing vegetables are assailable. Having said that I don't doubt that most people will remain unmoved and their immediate need to satisfy their taste will prevail regardless of the harm done to themselves, plants, other people, and the planet.

With few exceptions, eating vegetables is fundamentally immoral.

[barts]

With few exceptions, eating vegetables is fundamentally immoral.

You've asserted this many times, but it seems to me that apart from your assertion your case is devoid of merit. You argue for a fruit-based diet but have yet to demonstrate, it seems to me, that such a diet is plausible.

Furthermore, it seems to me, you suffer the problem of pursuit of perfection, a futile pursuit, that is used for rhetorical purposes exclusively.

Even if eating certain plants is immoral, it is a better ethical option than eating animals, because less harm is done overall.

I think, AC, you're merely being pedantic and that you really can't adequately defend your position.

[LetThereBe]

Meh, blatant fallacious appeals to emotion.

Suffering is an inescapable aspect of life. The only way to end those "tortured screams" is to drive the species to extinction.


For sake of argument, let us say that an animal raised for meat was raised in pleasant conditions and slaughtered quickly without much pain. Why is this worse than if the animal had died in the wild? Would it be better that this individual had never existed?

[Angry Citizen]

You argue for a fruit-based diet but have yet to demonstrate, it seems to me, that such a diet is plausible.

Among the more notable followers of fruitarianism are Gandhi and Steve Jobs.

Even if eating certain plants is immoral, it is a better ethical option than eating animals, because less harm is done overall.

Such human arrogance. Why are pigs more valuable than peas? Is it because they're more like us? Sounds like you're just passing the buck down. Carnivores say humans are off-limits because they're exactly like us. Vegetarians and vegans say animals are off-limits because they're kinda like us. Who cares? Life is life. Fruitarianism is the only diet that not only doesn't destroy life, but actively creates it. You either respect life or you don't.

[seyorni]

Meh, blatant fallacious appeals to emotion.

Suffering is an inescapable aspect of life. The only way to end those "tortured screams" is to drive the species to extinction.

For sake of argument, let us say that an animal raised for meat was raised in pleasant conditions and slaughtered quickly without much pain. Why is this worse than if the animal had died in the wild? Would it be better that this individual had never existed?

For the sake of argument, lets say Hottentots are raised in pleasant conditions and humanely slaughtered.....

[barts]

Among the more notable followers of fruitarianism are Gandhi and Steve Jobs.



Such human arrogance. Why are pigs more valuable than peas? Is it because they're more like us? Sounds like you're just passing the buck down. Carnivores say humans are off-limits because they're exactly like us. Vegetarians and vegans say animals are off-limits because they're kinda like us. Who cares? Life is life. Fruitarianism is the only diet that not only doesn't destroy life, but actively creates it. You either respect life or you don't.

Your entire position is inconsistent with the biological fact that all living things (including humans), with the exception of perhaps a few primitive plant species, survive by consuming or displacing other life. Because humans can sometimes choose what life they consume or displace in order to live, ethics is involved, or should be. To be "good" we should choose to consume or displace the least necessary to sustain ourselves and where possible do it in a way that enhances other life. And, this is possible.

It's simply ill-informed and myopic to suggest the issue is narrowly characterizes as about why "pigs [are] more valuable than peas". Your notion is nonsense and specious.

Equally nonsensical is your notion about confining the human diet to fruits, rather than, preferably, perennial plants and where necessary annuals. Clearly, human beings can create a sustainable agriculture that enhances life. By simply cultivating fruits, as you suggest, that's not possible.

I suggest that if you would take a more holistic and ecological view of human interaction with non-human life you would see the nonsense intrinsic to your argument.

[barts]

For sake of argument, let us say that an animal raised for meat was raised in pleasant conditions and slaughtered quickly without much pain. Why is this worse than if the animal had died in the wild? Would it be better that this individual had never existed?

The issue is broader than pain, but includes all aspects of raising and slaughtering animals. Please review the video again, if you haven't already, for a more complete explanation.

[BlackSheep]

You've asserted this many times, but it seems to me that apart from your assertion your case is devoid of merit. You argue for a fruit-based diet but have yet to demonstrate, it seems to me, that such a diet is plausible.

I don't think that was his point. He was not saying anything was possible, he was saying what is as logically immoral as your claim.

Furthermore, it seems to me, you suffer the problem of pursuit of perfection, a futile pursuit, that is used for rhetorical purposes exclusively.

We are here for rhetoric.

Even if eating certain plants is immoral, it is a better ethical option than eating animals, because less harm is done overall.

Why? Support that?

I think, AC, you're merely being pedantic and that you really can't adequately defend your position.

Again his point was where does one draw the line at what life to take morally?

[BlackSheep]

Your entire position is inconsistent with the biological fact that all living things (including humans), with the exception of perhaps a few primitive plant species, survive by consuming or displacing other life. Because humans can sometimes choose what life they consume or displace in order to live, ethics is involved, or should be. To be "good" we should choose to consume or displace the least necessary to sustain ourselves and where possible do it in a way that enhances other life. And, this is possible.

Are you sure it is only his position that is inconsistent? Why should we do this?

It's simply ill-informed and myopic to suggest the issue is narrowly characterizes as about why "pigs [are] more valuable than peas". Your notion is nonsense and specious.

Explain how then. Your response sounds remarkably like homophobic people saying of course it is unnatural to be gay.

Equally nonsensical is your notion about confining the human diet to fruits, rather than, preferably, perennial plants and where necessary annuals. Clearly, human beings can create a sustainable agriculture that enhances life. By simply cultivating fruits, as you suggest, that's not possible.

clarify enhances life please.

I suggest that if you would take a more holistic and ecological view of human interaction with non-human life you would see the nonsense intrinsic to your argument.

The holistic view of life is that life competes and destroys other life to survive and thrive. I am unsure what morals we can claim objectively guide us here. We have and will alter the world and the world will adapt as will we, because we are part of the world.