Enlightened Vegetarianism (and more)

[Blake]

Originally posted by Vesayen
If told about the human suffering, they all say it is bad, so clearly they condemn that too, however they won't do anything to stop it, because it is a lot harder then only eating vegetable and acting like a snob. It is hypocritical.

I tire of threadjacking, so have created a new thread.


Good action involves understanding the problem.

What is the problem with animal suffering?

The problem, is that people buy the meat.

The naive person looks at a piece of meat and thinks:
"The animal is already dead. I do no additional harm by buying the meat. And I'm only one person anyway, my actions don't make a difference to the grand scheme of things". They buy the meat.

The enlightened person looks at a piece of meat and realizes:
"The animal was killed, because there was demand to buy meat. This demand for buying meat, is created by individual people buying meat. There is no faceless collective, it's made entirely of individuals like me. My actions make a small difference and it's through the sum of those small differences that change in society happens". They don't buy the meat.

That is understanding the problem (people buy meat) and understanding the solution (don't buy meat).

You are correct that someone is a hypocrite TO SOME EXTENT if they shun meat and diary because of animal suffering, but proceed to buy sweatshop labor pants. However the fact that they shun meat doesn't necessarily mean they buy sweatshop labor pants, many vegetarians and probably most vegans are conscious of all suffering (most vegans must necessarily have moved beyond mere squeamishness about killing and realized what suffering is (hint: a dead animal can't suffer, suffering is living a life full of cruelty) but in truth some vegans are just weird fanatics, just like some of all people are weird fanatics...)

I'm led to suspect that you think anyone who isn't up in arms about child slavery (but does care about other things) is a hypocrite, however they are not a hypocrite as long as they understand and embrace the concept that the solution to the problem is in not buying the goods and raising awareness of this "understand the problem" concept so others also act that way... Taking up arms probably wont help anyway, I feel the best approach is nearly always a calm one - patience is good.

As for vocality. Bear in mind that no-one likes human suffering, but there are LOTS of people who simply don't give a toss about animal suffering, they put animals on an entirely different level to humans, where animal lives have zero value, zilch, nada, they only start to care when an animal life gains negative value due to a gruesome and visible death which disturbs humans ::grin::. So to some extent, being more vocal about animal suffering than human suffering is justified, to make up for this disparity - you don't have to believe that animals have more than zero right to a good life, but bear in mind, that the people who are vocal, DO believe this concept...

I was wondering something when I drove past a coastal town with large crayfish models displayed prominently on the stalls of crayfish vendors. I was wondering why the crayfish wasn't depicted with a knife from it's back, or being torn in half, or maybe trying desperately to climb out of a pot. Why depict a living crayfish rather than a clearly dead one.
And likewise, when advertising mammal meat, they often show happy animals. Why don't they show an animal being slaughtered, with blood gushing from it's throat. We are after all by nature staunch meat-eaters and the imagery of slaughter should evoke good feelings in us, speak to our savage instincts.
And when advertising chickens, why don't they show a chicken in a very small and uncomfortable cage. It is of course completely normal and acceptable for humans to treat animals that way.

"Out of sight, out of mind"
"out of mind"

"out of mind" sums up quite well many problems with society. People accept things because they don't think about them, or they think about things very shallowly, what I like to call thin rationalization, fearing any deep thinking, constantly distracting themselves to avoid this kind of thinking. As long as they are constantly distracted, life is okay! Out of mind.

[Blake]

"Meat"

Now to make something clear, unlike most vegs (who don't come from a background of Universal Compassion), I'm not squeamish about a single thing, meat, blood, pain, screaming, whatever! I could slit the throat of an animal - or a human for that matter, hey, even a human child, and chop them up. That wouldn't bother me in the least, if it were the right thing to do. Watch it, do it, both fine.

The thing is, it's almost never the right thing to do... one of the nice thing about Buddhism is you can ALWAYS find creepy stories, because Buddhists aren't shy when it comes to difficult questions.

A couple with a beautiful child are crossing a desert, they run out of food, are close to death. In order to survive, they kill and eat their beloved child.


Parable of course says something about morality; and the Buddha would say that it's okay to kill and eat another human if it's the only way to increase the number of humans who survive. You must of course choose with much care - for example having concluded that either one must die so two can live, otherwise all three will die, it is a difficult thing to decide which should die. Surely the man would die for his wife or child, and surely the mother would die for her child. Maybe they chose the child because they knew the child was a picky eater and would refuse to eat her parents, meaning that instead of one dying, two would die - the sacrificed parent and the child. Leaving a very lonely parent...

The moral of the story of course is; don't be picky about what you eat.

But do think about where it's coming from...

[onodera]

There's a novel by Gogol called Taras Bulba a phrase from which I usually apply to animals. (The eponymous character says it before killing his son who became a traitor.)
"I gave you life, and I will take it from you."
Killing wild animals is bad. I do not approve of hunting and fully endorse environmental protection. But modern domestic animals are our own creation. It is we humans who give them food and shelter and who lets them reproduce. This, for me, means their life belongs to them, just like mine belongs to my parents. We are free to do anything to them, including slaughtering for meat, for without us they wouldn't exist.
Fishing is an ethical problem for me because of that. Fish farms are okay (and I like trout), but I'm not so sure about fishing. I know herring is an important, if not staple food for Nordic countries, but can't they do anything to justify eating wild fish?

[Kuciwalker]

This, for me, means their life belongs to them, just like mine belongs to my parents. We are free to do anything to them, including slaughtering for meat, for without us they wouldn't exist.

[BeBMan]

Indeed. Let's hope his parents aren't exceptionally hungry.

[Heraclitus]

Well, he does have a point. Domesticated animals are our creations...

[onodera]

Originally posted by BeBro
Indeed. Let's hope his parents aren't exceptionally hungry.

We live in Russia, not North Korea.

[Japher]

:rolleyes"

Thinking you are taking the moral high horse because you don't eat meat IS acting like a snob. You have pretty much told all meat eaters that they are morally inept of they eat meat. I don't belittle you because you CHOSE to not eat meat.

Eating meat is human nature, it's why God gave us the teeth we have; we don't have incisors to shred lettuce. If you wish to deny this and take SUPPLEMENTS and buy fake bacon and veggie burgers so you can pretend to NORMAL than go right ahead. Just don't expect that I am going to agree that you are better than me in any way.

IMO, the only vegetarians I agree with are those who claim that they chose not to eat meat for their health. If properly supplemented so you don't get anemia then it is a healthier diet with less fat and preservatives.

[Heraclitus]

*

[Darius871]

Re: Enlightened Vegetarianism (and more)

Originally posted by Blake
The naive person looks at a piece of meat and thinks:
"The animal is already dead. I do no additional harm by buying the meat. And I'm only one person anyway, my actions don't make a difference to the grand scheme of things". They buy the meat.

Wrong, 99.99% of the naive people give it no more thought than "mmm... tasty."

There's no occasion to rationalize.

[Vesayen]

*prepares to sink his teeth into the topic*

The animal is already dead. I do no additional harm by buying the meat. And I'm only one person anyway, my actions don't make a difference to the grand scheme of things". They buy the meat.

I just want to clarify if you were attributing that to me, I do NOT agree. I agree with your other statement. If something has a demand on a continual basis, stopping to purchase that thing will reduce demand. Buying it increases demand.

However the fact that they shun meat doesn't necessarily mean they buy sweatshop labor pants, many vegetarians and probably most vegans are conscious of all suffering (most vegans must necessarily have moved beyond mere squeamishness about killing and realized what suffering is (hint: a dead animal can't suffer, suffering is living a life full of cruelty) but in truth some vegans are just weird fanatics, just like some of all people are weird fanatics...)

I never said all vegetarians do this, but if you SEE THEM wearing the products of companies which use slave-shop labor, well, you know for a fact on the spot heh. In fact, I have met some vegans or more committed vegetarians who take a strong stance against human suffering too and they have my respect. I see no moral problem with eating meat, however if I did, it would take a big lifestyle change to go vegan and also, refuse to profit from human suffering either. It takes a lot of cahojnes to do that.

[Cort Haus]

I spent five years once upon a time as a vegetarian. Eventually I decided to take a principled stand against misguided principled stands and returned to the way of the omnivore.

they put animals on an entirely different level to humans

This in particular was the principle that I changed my mind about. Lowering humans to the level of animals was, I decided, degrading to humans. Once the animals could sit round a dining table discussing ethics, perhaps it would be time to re-evaluate.

[BeBMan]

I'm all for animal rights as long as they also fulfill the duties that come with those rights

[GePap]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
This in particular was the principle that I changed my mind about. Lowering humans to the level of animals was, I decided, degrading to humans. Once the animals could sit round a dining table discussing ethics, perhaps it would be time to re-evaluate.

Nothing could degrade humans more than their own behavior. The same qualities that allow us to sit around a table to discuss ethics allow men to build extermination camps, or utterly degrade their own evironment to the point that they then die.

Humans are animals, we are simply the most sentient of animals on the planet. That level of sentience may make us special, but in the end we are no more or less valuable in any absolute sense than say a yak, and we are centainly far less imporant to the continuation of life on this planet than say the algea of the oceans.

being sentient allows us to take choices other animals don't, for good or ill. Some people chose to then not eat other animals if they know it is unnecessary for their own survival. good for them if they chose to. They have valid and strong arguments. Personally I am a omnivore because that is what humans naturally are, and I enjoy my humanity, but I am not to vain as to think our setience makes us anymore than what we are, large,,, relatively hairless apes.

[Provost Harrison]

Piss off