Why Veganism?

[crimethinker]

Ever get the feeling that these people are being intentionally daft when they pretend they don't see the significance of consciousness and ability to feel pain?

By the same criteria, there's no reason not to kill and eat humans, particularly children, of whom we are most protective precisely because of their weakness.

This is a poor rationalization for selfishness and self-satisfaction, nothing more.

[truthreality]

How do you know? How is this meaningful?



You miss his point entirely. You say wheat and corn do not have consciousness or perception. He is asking why consciousness or perception should matter.
Why should we base our ethics on that criteria? We could instead choose to assign moral importance based on containing chloroplasts, which animal cells lack but plant cells have. In this case only an anti-vegan diet would be ethical.
If you do not have a REASON why consciousness or perception are objectively important than you do not have a sound argument.

EDIT:



I of course agree that cows can feel pain. What I call into question is that the ability to "feel pain" is the criteria by which we determine that we have a moral responsibility to a thing.
Does a bee feel pain? Is a bee's pain at all the same as a cow's? Why does a bee not seem to mind killing itself to defend the hive? Does it experience sorrow or negative emotions/feelings in its own sacrifice?
We can't know. Even if we could, we still would have to have reasoning for why this matters in determining if an animal or object is morally significant.

I think it is ridiculous that some are arguing that consciousness and perception are not important. I understand both of your points quite well and I maintain that they are nonsensical. Why would you even argue if consciousness and perception are important if the only reasons you are aware of this arguments is because of consciousness and perception? This is not a question about purpose or meaning. It's basic human common sense. When a person is hooked up to a hospital bed because he or she is brain dead and doctors conclude that there is no way of saving him or her do we continue to keep that person on the machine? No. We assume he or she is dead. Brain death is the measure for true clinical death. One who is brain dead is dead and buried as a corpse who is not alive. Corn and wheat are permanently brain dead and even more brainless in the first place. There is no real argument. I suppose you were one of the Christians that would make a big deal about the termination of Terry Shivo due to her vegitative state while at the same time being perfectly fine with murdering a full, conscious and healthy cow for no reasons other than so you can enjoy an incredibly unhealthy big mac.

As for your comment about bees:

"Insects, in particular, were long thought to be simple, reflexive creatures with hardwired instinctual behaviors. No more. Consider the amazing capabilities of the honeybee, Apis mellifera.

Martin Giurfa of the University of Toulouse in France and Mandyam Srinivasan and Shaowu Zhang, both at the Australian National University in Canberra, trained free-flying bees, using sugar water as a reward, in a variety of complex learning tasks. The neuroethologists taught the bees to fly in and out of tall cylinders with one entryway and two exit holes. Each bee had to choose one of two exits to leave the cylinder and to continue her flight. (In bee colonies, males are a small minority and do only one thing—and that only during the virginal flight of the colony’s queen.)

These cylinders were staggered into mazes with multiple levels of “Y” branch points that the bees encountered before reaching the desired feeder station. In one set of experiments, the scientists trained bees to track a trail of colored marks, as in a scavenger hunt. The bees could then follow—more or less—the same strategy in a completely unfamiliar maze. Amazingly enough, bees can use color in an abstract manner, turning right, for instance, when the branch point is colored blue and left when it is colored green. Individual animals developed quite sophisticated strategies, such as the right-turn rule, that always led to the goal, though not necessarily by the shortest route...

Bees are highly adaptive and sophisticated creatures with a bit fewer than one million neurons, which are interconnected in ways that are beyond our current understanding, jammed into less than one cubic millimeter of brain tissue. The neural density in the bee’s brain is about 10 times higher than that in a mammalian ce­rebral cortex, which most of us take to be the pinnacle of evolu­tion on this planet."

Your brilliant questions suggest to me that you are not aware of how important animals and insects are too our world and why we should not simply chase and kill them like fucking barbarians/cavemen for food and instead be concerned about their well being.

[truthreality]

Ever get the feeling that these people are being intentionally daft when they pretend they don't see the significance of consciousness and ability to feel pain?

By the same criteria, there's no reason not to kill and eat humans, particularly children, of whom we are most protective precisely because of their weakness.

This is a poor rationalization for selfishness and self-satisfaction, nothing more.

Thank You. I completely agree. It's bizzarre hipocricy at it's finest and a perfect example of how humans are in fact poorly evolved and primitive mammals.

[LetThereBe]

I meant to say that animals make choices, they have desires, likes and dislikes and if left alone, they would live a 'life' so to speak independent of us.

But it still is not a binary thing. A cow's life on a farm prior to slaughter would be significantly different than "in the wild". A bee's life that is kept for honey probably wouldn't be discernibly different from one in the wild. Not likely within it's meager level of perception. To say "it is an animal, therefore it is a moral responsibility" vs "it is a plant, therefore it is not a moral responsibility" is a gross oversimplification.
You say that if left alone they would have a life independent of us. That is true of every organism. If we didn't cut corn's life short during harvest it would live out it's natural cycle. If we didn't cut a cow's life short it would live out it's natural cycle. In that regard they are again the same.

Corn does not exhibit those traits. Corn simply grows and then, if not maintained and harvested, dies.

Haha... how is this any different from a cow? Are you saying cows are immortal?
Everything grows, lives for a while, and dies. That is what life is. In both cases we are artificially cutting that life span short.

It does not sense pain, and it contains many of the nutrients our bodies need, so eating it does not pose a moral dilemma.

Since cows also provide many of the nutrients our bodies need you are again left with only pain as the differentiating factor.

[LetThereBe]

Ever get the feeling that these people are being intentionally daft when they pretend they don't see the significance of consciousness and ability to feel pain?

Not everyone believes it is the ability to feel pain. Some believe it is just being human that makes you a moral responsibility.
If it is just feeling pain and consciousness, then shouldn't it be fine to kill someone instantly and painlessly while they sleep? They have no perception or awareness of their death in that case.
Moreover, we still cannot even agree on what consciousness really is. While it is probably reasonable to guess that a cow experiences pain and awareness similarly to a human, it is absurd to say that a bee is similar.
That is why this ridiculous oversimplification of "kill any animal = bad, kill any plant = fine" is childish. Surely you would agree that torturing a chimpanzee to death is morally worse than stepping on an ant?

By the same criteria, there's no reason not to kill and eat humans, particularly children, of whom we are most protective precisely because of their weakness.

Well, we have the same reason as any other species has to protect its young... perpetuation of its genes. We are not most protective of them because they are weak, but rather because they are our children. A silverfish is weaker than a child, but I don't see too many being more protective of those pests than their own offspring.

This is a poor rationalization for selfishness and self-satisfaction, nothing more.

It is a line of questioning to attempt and determine exactly what is ethical. Pain and consciousness are not binary things, so there is no simple yes/no answer.

[LetThereBe]

I think it is ridiculous that some are arguing that consciousness and perception are not important. I understand both of your points quite well and I maintain that they are nonsensical. Why would you even argue if consciousness and perception are important if the only reasons you are aware of this arguments is because of consciousness and perception? This is not a question about purpose or meaning. It's basic human common sense. When a person is hooked up to a hospital bed because he or she is brain dead and doctors conclude that there is no way of saving him or her do we continue to keep that person on the machine? No. We assume he or she is dead. Brain death is the measure for true clinical death. One who is brain dead is dead and buried as a corpse who is not alive. Corn and wheat are permanently brain dead and even more brainless in the first place. There is no real argument. I suppose you were one of the Christians that would make a big deal about the termination of Terry Shivo due to her vegitative state while at the same time being perfectly fine with murdering a full, conscious and healthy cow for no reasons other than so you can enjoy an incredibly unhealthy big mac.

Haha... I am glad you provide the rebuttal for your own argument within your post.
You say it is not...
"...about purpose or meaning. It's about basic human common sense."

Yet you then go right on to bring up the hotly contested case of "Terry Shivo" [sic]. Terri Schiavo is in fact an excellent example that these questions of moral responsibility are NOT common sense. These are things for which there is no clear consensus.
Some people believe we are only morally responsible to other humans. Some people believe we are morally responsible to things that feel pain. Some believe we are morally responsible to life itself. How do you say who is right and who is wrong?

"Insects, in particular, were long thought to be simple, reflexive creatures with hardwired instinctual behaviors. No more. Consider the amazing capabilities of the honeybee, Apis mellifera.

Martin Giurfa of the University of Toulouse in France and Mandyam Srinivasan and Shaowu Zhang, both at the Australian National University in Canberra, trained free-flying bees, using sugar water as a reward, in a variety of complex learning tasks. The neuroethologists taught the bees to fly in and out of tall cylinders with one entryway and two exit holes. Each bee had to choose one of two exits to leave the cylinder and to continue her flight. (In bee colonies, males are a small minority and do only one thing—and that only during the virginal flight of the colony’s queen.)

These cylinders were staggered into mazes with multiple levels of “Y” branch points that the bees encountered before reaching the desired feeder station. In one set of experiments, the scientists trained bees to track a trail of colored marks, as in a scavenger hunt. The bees could then follow—more or less—the same strategy in a completely unfamiliar maze. Amazingly enough, bees can use color in an abstract manner, turning right, for instance, when the branch point is colored blue and left when it is colored green. Individual animals developed quite sophisticated strategies, such as the right-turn rule, that always led to the goal, though not necessarily by the shortest route...

Bees are highly adaptive and sophisticated creatures with a bit fewer than one million neurons, which are interconnected in ways that are beyond our current understanding, jammed into less than one cubic millimeter of brain tissue. The neural density in the bee’s brain is about 10 times higher than that in a mammalian ce­rebral cortex, which most of us take to be the pinnacle of evolu­tion on this planet."

Basic pattern recognition hardly demonstrates a meaningful level of cognitive self-awareness. We could build robots to do the same thing.

Your brilliant questions suggest to me that you are not aware of how important animals and insects are too our world and why we should not simply chase and kill them like fucking barbarians/cavemen for food and instead be concerned about their well being.

Insects are extremely important from an ecological standpoint. An insect has essentially no importance from an ecological standpoint.
If I kill a grub while I am out gardening, please explain how that grub was "important". Why should I be more concerned about that grub's well being instead of the well being of my peas and carrots?

[truthreality]

Haha... I am glad you provide the rebuttal for your own argument within your post.
You say it is not...
"...about purpose or meaning. It's about basic human common sense."

Yet you then go right on to bring up the hotly contested case of "Terry Shivo" [sic]. Terri Schiavo is in fact an excellent example that these questions of moral responsibility are NOT common sense. These are things for which there is no clear consensus.
Some people believe we are only morally responsible to other humans. Some people believe we are morally responsible to things that feel pain. Some believe we are morally responsible to life itself. How do you say who is right and who is wrong?



Basic pattern recognition hardly demonstrates a meaningful level of cognitive self-awareness. We could build robots to do the same thing.



Insects are extremely important from an ecological standpoint. An insect has essentially no importance from an ecological standpoint.
If I kill a grub while I am out gardening, please explain how that grub was "important". Why should I be more concerned about that grub's well being instead of the well being of my peas and carrots?

Actually I haven't defeated my own argument. I am saying that this discussion is so basic the deeper questions of meaning do not have to be invoked. You believe that we are only morally responsible for humans because your book teaches that animals don't have souls or something ridiculous akin to that. At least that's the near consensus amongst Christians I have interacted with. You know very well that arguing that killing a brainless corn, wheat or grub is not the same as killing a cow with a brain. Yes Terry Shivo is a perfect example because here is a human in literally a vegetative state. She is now just a corpse and there is moral uproar while a healthy innocent cow is slaughterer. Why should Terry Shivo be valued more then a cow? Need I go over all the important resources that cows provided. During her vegitative state Terry Shivo had become more useless then a cow. I am not sure why meat eaters didn't eat her, or if they ever thought about eating her. Grubs, carrots and peas are not the same as cows and insects. You completely misread the article if you thin in anyway that it is implying that insects do not have consciousnesses. In fact it is stating that it is quite possible that they do. Why not just give them the benefit of the doubt? Or do people feel an intrinsic need to kill insects. I don't know it won't take much out of your time to show concern for other living creatures WITH BRAINS.

[LetThereBe]

Actually I haven't defeated my own argument. I am saying that this discussion is so basic the deeper questions of meaning do not have to be invoked.

Yet this "basic" question is disagreed upon by millions. This "basic" question has no consensus for the answer.

You believe that we are only morally responsible for humans because your book teaches that animals don't have souls or something ridiculous akin to that.

Where did I say that?

At least that's the near consensus amongst Christians I have interacted with.

Why is someone saying "I believe this because this is what my book says" any worse than "I believe this because it is so basic"?
In both cases you have no justification for your belief.

You know very well that arguing that killing a brainless corn, wheat or grub is not the same as killing a cow with a brain.

Grubs have brains. They are the larval form of certain insects, and thus are on par with the complexity of a bee.

Yes Terry Shivo is a perfect example because here is a human in literally a vegetative state. She is now just a corpse and there is moral uproar while a healthy innocent cow is slaughterer. Why should Terry Shivo be valued more then a cow? Need I go over all the important resources that cows provided. During her vegitative state Terry Shivo had become more useless then a cow. I am not sure why meat eaters didn't eat her, or if they ever thought about eating her.

Most people don't think "usefulness" is what makes something a moral responsibility. Prior to her death she was not completely non-responsive. She certainly had more function than a bee.

Grubs, carrots and peas are not the same as cows and insects.

Ha. Again, grubs are the larval form of certain insects... so yes they are. In fact, bee larva are called grubs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larva
I am well aware that a bee is not the same as a cow, and corn is not the same as a bee. I am asking what makes a bee and a cow ethically equivalent, but corn completely discounted.

You completely misread the article if you thin in anyway that it is implying that insects do not have consciousnesses. In fact it is stating that it is quite possible that they do. Why not just give them the benefit of the doubt? Or do people feel an intrinsic need to kill insects. I don't know it won't take much out of your time to show concern for other living creatures WITH BRAINS.

The study shows basic pattern recognition, no more. They lack the number of neurons to have anything close to consciousness as we understand it. If a bee thinks nothing to throw it's life away in stinging someone I don't think so much of swatting one.

[truthreality]

Yet this "basic" question is disagreed upon by millions. This "basic" question has no consensus for the answer.



Where did I say that?



Why is someone saying "I believe this because this is what my book says" any worse than "I believe this because it is so basic"?
In both cases you have no justification for your belief.



Grubs have brains. They are the larval form of certain insects, and thus are on par with the complexity of a bee.



Most people don't think "usefulness" is what makes something a moral responsibility. Prior to her death she was not completely non-responsive. She certainly had more function than a bee.



Ha. Again, grubs are the larval form of certain insects... so yes they are. In fact, bee larva are called grubs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larva
I am well aware that a bee is not the same as a cow, and corn is not the same as a bee. I am asking what makes a bee and a cow ethically equivalent, but corn completely discounted.



The study shows basic pattern recognition, no more. They lack the number of neurons to have anything close to consciousness as we understand it. If a bee thinks nothing to throw it's life away in stinging someone I don't think so much of swatting one.

I have to apologize in advance. I have friends who use the word grub to describe food. Lol. I was unaware that you referring to the insects though it is nice to hear that you are knowledgeable on them. Yes I stand up for the rights for larva.

[chessguy]

I know that being bred for slaughter is a poor existence, but at least it's an existence.

Who are you to speak for the shortcomings of non-existence? Can you explain to us what non-existence feels like, and precisely why its inferior to existence?

[seyorni]

Insects, it can be argued, are not sentient and lack self-interest. I can see where their ability to experience suffering might be questioned, too, as well as their capacity to anticipate futurity. A good case could be argued for excluding them from moral consideration.

Cows are a different kettle of fish, though. They exhibit the qualities people actually use in granting moral consideration, but are oblivious to.

[Charlatan]

Don't forget! Metals are good for you!

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_th..._in_human_body