Guest guest Posted December 13, 1999 Report Share Posted December 13, 1999 Hello folks. I've been thinking about an issue that came up here recently, and I think I want to follow it up a bit. You may remember that Vik was mildly admonished for his pronounced lack of sympathy for dead hunters, and Paul made some very good points illustrating how it's better to be compassionate no matter what the situation. (I'm told that Ghandi forgave his assassin before he died and I see great merit in that). I know that we all know that Vik doesn't seriously think that death to a few hunters will make the world much better for animals. Nor can we seriously believe that Vik would go " Blair Witch " on some father-son hunting party and mount their heads on his wall. On the other hand (I've got a lot of hands) I think we all understand (and may even harbour) the anger and misanthropy that is a reaction to the ignorance and apathy of many meat eaters. The discussion seemed to really be about extending the zone of compassion beyond humans and pets and some wildlife to all creatures, even the ones that most people call food and even to the people who kill for fun. This may bring to light a few questions about self-contradiction amongst vegans who are not ultimately compassionate. For instance: " Can you believe that all life is to be respected and still maintain a morbid sense of humour? " " Is it hypocritical to advocate something like military action against tyrannical governments but still believe that animals should not be used for food purposes no matter how practical? " " Can you believe in the death penalty and still believe that animals have real rights that are to be protected? " While I think that some of these questions depict interesting issues, I don't think that they're fundamental to the merits of veganism. I don't think that you have to have a " radical " viewpoint or a " pure " ethical system or " extreme " opinions about compassion and morality to appreciate the value of veganism. On the contrary, THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE HERE is that I believe that one can easily have a strong appreciation of veganism (and make a bulletproof argument for it) using nothing more than common sense (even that of western culture) and by weighing " reasonable " ethical premises against each other. Example number 1: Most people believe that human life is more valuable than animal life and that humans are significantly superior to animals even if the difference is merely degree and not kind. You don't have to prove that a pig's life is as valuable as a human's life to show that veganism is a better choice of diet. If someone says that " animals don't respect the rights of other animals therefore they haven't earned rights of their own " , you don't have to prove that full rights are inherent to all creatures. Instead, you merely point out that even if animals don't deserve the same rights, that doesn't mean that they deserve suffering and to be subjugated to exploitation, and it's still a " better " choice to eat food that doesn't contribute to their torture. You can also show the banality of that argument (if your debater is intelligent enough) and further your rebuttal by asking " How can we claim to have the right to eat animals on the basis that they have fewer rights because they eat animals? " In other words, if animals have fewer rights than we do because they don't respect the rights of other animals, then we must fall into the same category if we eat animals too, so we have as few rights as they! Example number 2: You don't have to have a " superior " morality or ethical system to care about animals and to know that veganism is the best choice. You only have to NOT to the ridiculous pro-meat arguments that are rationalizations base on self-serving non-sequitors (leaps of logic) and circular reasoning. I had a long debate tonight about the ethics of meat eating with my two omnivorous roommates and an omnivorous friend of ours at an omnivorous restaurant. The discussion steadily moved past the malnutrition propaganda, and stupid things that people have heard from other vegans, and the environmental issues, and settled into the discussion based on ethics, as it inevitably does. I only agreed to talk about it if everyone at the table agreed that this is what they wanted to talk about, and the friend who is not my roommate made it clear that he was eager to engage in this discussion because he wanted to poke holes in my opinions. I eagerly accepted. I had to customarily shoot down the argument about our natural omnivorism being a justification for meat eating. FYI, my favorite rebuttal to this popular rational is that just because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. I certainly don't contend that humans farmed their way across the Bering Straight; they surely hunted their way to the americas and across europe, but that still doesn't make it okay to eat meat. Every one of us has an ancestor amongst our genetic contributors who committed a murder or a rape that directly positively influenced their reproduction. That certainly doesn't mean that rape and murder are actions that I condone. Just because dolphins have been witnessed committing gang rape, does not mean that it's acceptable to me. Also, if you want to live with electricity and automobiles and other modern technology, you can't limit your ethical system to what is " natural " in the quaintest sense of the word. One of the final questions that I was asked was whether I thought that my friend should not swat flies when they pester him, and *** this is where I make the real point of example number two ***. I told him that he should weigh the consequences of killing the fly and make an ethical " a priori " decision about that act, even though I expect it to be an easy decision for him to make. The point is that no actions are exempt from ethical examination (including breathing), and to be sure, meat eating is such a big issue with all of the 9 BILLION animals at any given time being tortured (and everyone would call it torture if human was treated as such) that it certainly could not be exempted from extremely critical ethical examination. Most people justify eating meat by finding some way of exempting the action from their ethical system (if they have a system at all). They say such silly things as " it's okay to eat *these* animals because that's what they were intended for, and they wouldn't even exist at all if we didn't raise them for food " . In fact, one of the people at the table even said " I'm not sure that diet should be subject to ethics. I think diet is different " and tried to tell me that the onus is on me to prove that diet is subject to ethics because this person " can't be expected prove a negative " . Whatever that means. I quickly pointed out that our dietary choices are not different from any other kinds of choices that we make as sentient beings, so if you buy a steak or bacon, there is no denying you are contributing to torture and unacceptable treatment of animals even if you (erroneously) believe that mistreatment only happens occasionally. All this leads to my final conjecture. You don't have to adopt or promote a mentality that is very different from the rest of society in order to have a vegan ideal that is meaningful, complete and not self-contradictory. By advocating against such things as swatting flies and mocking death, you can alienate your friends or be ostracized or ridiculed pretty quickly and that doesn't help veganism very much. I think that the vegan movement may be most successful if it goes with the flow a little and grows to fit cultural consciousness as it expands. I know that Paul wasn't implying the contrary, and as a matter of fact, I also choose to embrace compassion wherever I can and that includes not swatting flies anymore, but I thought it necessary to show that veganism stands strongly on its own. Ciao for now, Anthony ps. After the discussion with the three friends tonight, I asked the friend who is not a roommate if he thought that there were holes or inconsistencies in what I presented to him, and I'm glad to report that he says that he thought that the argument that I presented was very complete. Added to that, when my roommate asked her husband (the other roommate) why he eats meat (because she values his opinion), he conceded that it was only because that's what he always did, and he never really put enough thought to it. This makes me happy because I think that this means that they all might start to give some more thought to the animals that they're eating. I also noticed lots of Yves veggie products in the fridge when I got home late tonight. :-) Vikas Sharma wrote: > > " Vikas Sharma " <carnival > > Paul ... you are absolutely right ... the ideal would be a non-violent means > to all oppression ... and I hope that day will come. > Like I said in one of my previous messages, I aspire to one day share that > feeling intrinsically. I would hate to tell all of you guys > that I am opposed to that ending animal persecution via affirmative action, > when I don't feel it in my heart. > > I think the ALF, for example, uses the measures it uses because people won't > listen to our appeal for animal liberation because we are talking about, > well, animals, as opposed to other humans. A lot of animal liberation > supporters, myself included, probably feel that in order to perpetuate the > process of animal liberation, a non-violent means will not make it happen in > our lifetime. And perhaps it has something to do with our ego's and > us wanting to see an end to animal suffering in our lifetime, but we just > can't sit back and watch animal suffering go on. > > I agree that there is some really bad Karma involved in what I am talking > about, and I apologize to all animal liberation supporters deep from within > my heart. As I know my feelings give animal liberation supporters a bad > name. > > Yes, we all feel pain, but, Paul, we have to make choices and decisions in > life, and if someone is going to die, it shouldn't be the deer. > > You are right, Gandhi would have been mortified at this whole situation, and > you know what, he was smart enough and was such > an altruist, he would have been able to go to that family of the hunter's > and probably talk his whole town into becoming vegetarians and > civil disarmament and the whole thing. > > You are right, it's (ahimsa - non violence) a long, involved process which > requires, as you put it, much more " thinking and less doing. " It's a > question as whether I will ever be able to take part in that process ... I > know it will make me a better person if I do. > > Peace to you, brother! > > Vikas > > > > Post message: > Subscribe: - > Un: - > List owner: -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 1999 Report Share Posted December 14, 1999 Anthony, You possess a wonderful, awe-inspiring, and all too rare combination of intelligence and unconditional kindness. Your knack for articulation coupled with your compassion makes you a huge asset to all the animals who are still suffering. What I was thinking by the end of your mail was - why does the argument even have to get that far? I mean as far as I can tell there are only a few points to consider: 1. Animals feel pain and suffer. Specifically, animals raised for food by modern animal agriculture industry are subjected to pain and suffering. 2. We do not need to eat animals to survive, in fact the opposite is true, we are healthier when we do not eat animals products. 3. We therefore have a CHOICE whether to eat them or not and with choice comes responsibility, as humans, to make ethical decisions. 4. When we purchase the flesh of dead animals we are directly supporting the torture and killing of animals for NO REASON. WHAT PART OF THIS IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? It's not complicated. It's like, pick one... I support torturing and killing animals for no reason, or I don't, and then walk your damn talk. I get so tired of these long drawn out pseudo-philosophical conversations with meat-eaters who have no choice but to complicate things in order to divert from the 4 very simple concepts I mentioned above. Vegetarianism is a boycott, plain and simple. You support cruelty or you don't. I like describing my food choices as a boycott because (that's what it is, and) it tends to take away from preconceived ideas surrounding the idea of vegetarianism. I am not a bambi-loving, tree-hugging, granola-eating, communist, or a bomb-making radical ski-masked terrorist. In regards to previous discussions about the dead hunters... though I may feel glad in a way that there are 2 less ignoramus hunters in the world, I feel it is ill-advised for me, as an example of veganism, to go around and say " Ya right on! Death to hunters! " because any window of opportunity I may have had to spread the good word about veganism will be lost from that point on. And concealing my rage is a small price to pay for open ears in the future. Vik did say today that there's a place for all types of animal advocates and I think he's right. Direct action has it's place and has brought about genuine successes and public awareness for the movement in the past. It's just so important not to alienate potential veggies no matter how much humans in general piss you off. -anji Recommended reading - to be prepared at all times for the myriad of nonsensical arguments presented by meat-eaters: Animal Rights and Human Wrongs http://www.etsu-tn.edu/philos/faculty/hugh/animals.htm The Origin of Speciesism http://www.etsu-tn.edu/philos/faculty/hugh/species.htm Util-izing Animals http://www.etsu-tn.edu/philos/faculty/hugh/utilize.htm (by Hugh LaFollette, Professor - Philosophy Department - East Tennessee State University, PhD Vanderbilt University - Ethics, Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Law) The Debate About Animal Properties - A Suggested Methodology http://www.sunyit.edu/~millerd1/PROP.HTM#THE SUGGESTION (by David Lee Winston Miller, AI programmer, genius, artist, and all around nice guy) Taking Animals Seriously Mental Life and Moral Status (by David DeGrazia) http://www.hedweb.com/animals/degrazia.htm An interview with Dr. Gary Francione, professor of law at Rutgers http://www.life.ca/nl/44/animals.html Animal Rights FAQ http://arrs.envirolink.org/Faqs+Ref/ar-faq/ And no mail of mine would be complete without a good quote... " Do we, as humans, having an ability to reason and to communicate abstract ideas verbally and in writing, and to form ethical and moral judgments using the accumulated knowledge of the ages, have the right to take the lives of other sentient organisms, particularly when we are not forced to do so by hunger or dietary need, but rather do so for the somewhat frivolous reason that we like the taste of meat? In essence, should we know better? " Peter Cheeke, Professor of Animal Agriculture Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture, 1999 > > Anthony Wong <anthony > > Hello folks. > > I've been thinking about an issue that came up here recently, and I > think I want to follow it up a bit. You may remember that Vik was > mildly admonished for his pronounced lack of sympathy for dead hunters, > and Paul made some very good points illustrating how it's better to be > compassionate no matter what the situation. (I'm told that Ghandi > forgave his assassin before he died and I see great merit in that). I > know that we all know that Vik doesn't seriously think that death to a > few hunters will make the world much better for animals. Nor can we > seriously believe that Vik would go " Blair Witch " on some father-son > hunting party and mount their heads on his wall. On the other hand > (I've got a lot of hands) I think we all understand (and may even > harbour) the anger and misanthropy that is a reaction to the ignorance > and apathy of many meat eaters. The discussion seemed to really be > about extending the zone of compassion beyond humans and pets and some > wildlife to all creatures, even the ones that most people call food and > even to the people who kill for fun. > > This may bring to light a few questions about self-contradiction amongst > vegans who are not ultimately compassionate. For instance: " Can you > believe that all life is to be respected and still maintain a morbid > sense of humour? " " Is it hypocritical to advocate something like > military action against tyrannical governments but still believe that > animals should not be used for food purposes no matter how practical? " > " Can you believe in the death penalty and still believe that animals > have real rights that are to be protected? " > > While I think that some of these questions depict interesting issues, I > don't think that they're fundamental to the merits of veganism. I don't > think that you have to have a " radical " viewpoint or a " pure " ethical > system or " extreme " opinions about compassion and morality to appreciate > the value of veganism. On the contrary, THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE > HERE is that I believe that one can easily have a strong appreciation of > veganism (and make a bulletproof argument for it) using nothing more > than common sense (even that of western culture) and by weighing > " reasonable " ethical premises against each other. > > Example number 1: > Most people believe that human life is more valuable than animal life > and that humans are significantly superior to animals even if the > difference is merely degree and not kind. You don't have to prove that > a pig's life is as valuable as a human's life to show that veganism is a > better choice of diet. If someone says that " animals don't respect the > rights of other animals therefore they haven't earned rights of their > own " , you don't have to prove that full rights are inherent to all > creatures. Instead, you merely point out that even if animals don't > deserve the same rights, that doesn't mean that they deserve suffering > and to be subjugated to exploitation, and it's still a " better " choice > to eat food that doesn't contribute to their torture. You can also show > the banality of that argument (if your debater is intelligent enough) > and further your rebuttal by asking " How can we claim to have the right > to eat animals on the basis that they have fewer rights because they eat > animals? " In other words, if animals have fewer rights than we do > because they don't respect the rights of other animals, then we must > fall into the same category if we eat animals too, so we have as few > rights as they! > > Example number 2: > You don't have to have a " superior " morality or ethical system to care > about animals and to know that veganism is the best choice. You only > have to NOT to the ridiculous pro-meat arguments that are > rationalizations base on self-serving non-sequitors (leaps of logic) and > circular reasoning. > I had a long debate tonight about the ethics of meat eating with my two > omnivorous roommates and an omnivorous friend of ours at an omnivorous > restaurant. The discussion steadily moved past the malnutrition > propaganda, and stupid things that people have heard from other vegans, > and the environmental issues, and settled into the discussion based on > ethics, as it inevitably does. I only agreed to talk about it if > everyone at the table agreed that this is what they wanted to talk > about, and the friend who is not my roommate made it clear that he was > eager to engage in this discussion because he wanted to poke holes in my > opinions. I eagerly accepted. I had to customarily shoot down the > argument about our natural omnivorism being a justification for meat > eating. FYI, my favorite rebuttal to this popular rational is that just > because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. I certainly > don't contend that humans farmed their way across the Bering Straight; > they surely hunted their way to the americas and across europe, but that > still doesn't make it okay to eat meat. Every one of us has an ancestor > amongst our genetic contributors who committed a murder or a rape that > directly positively influenced their reproduction. That certainly > doesn't mean that rape and murder are actions that I condone. Just > because dolphins have been witnessed committing gang rape, does not mean > that it's acceptable to me. Also, if you want to live with electricity > and automobiles and other modern technology, you can't limit your > ethical system to what is " natural " in the quaintest sense of the word. > One of the final questions that I was asked was whether I thought that > my friend should not swat flies when they pester him, and *** this is > where I make the real point of example number two ***. I told him that > he should weigh the consequences of killing the fly and make an ethical > " a priori " decision about that act, even though I expect it to be an > easy decision for him to make. The point is that no actions are exempt > from ethical examination (including breathing), and to be sure, meat > eating is such a big issue with all of the 9 BILLION animals at any > given time being tortured (and everyone would call it torture if human > was treated as such) that it certainly could not be exempted from > extremely critical ethical examination. Most people justify eating meat > by finding some way of exempting the action from their ethical system > (if they have a system at all). They say such silly things as " it's > okay to eat *these* animals because that's what they were intended for, > and they wouldn't even exist at all if we didn't raise them for food " . > In fact, one of the people at the table even said " I'm not sure that > diet should be subject to ethics. I think diet is different " and tried > to tell me that the onus is on me to prove that diet is subject to > ethics because this person " can't be expected prove a negative " . > Whatever that means. I quickly pointed out that our dietary choices are > not different from any other kinds of choices that we make as sentient > beings, so if you buy a steak or bacon, there is no denying you are > contributing to torture and unacceptable treatment of animals even if > you (erroneously) believe that mistreatment only happens occasionally. > > All this leads to my final conjecture. You don't have to adopt or > promote a mentality that is very different from the rest of society in > order to have a vegan ideal that is meaningful, complete and not > self-contradictory. By advocating against such things as swatting flies > and mocking death, you can alienate your friends or be ostracized or > ridiculed pretty quickly and that doesn't help veganism very much. I > think that the vegan movement may be most successful if it goes with the > flow a little and grows to fit cultural consciousness as it expands. > I know that Paul wasn't implying the contrary, and as a matter of fact, > I also choose to embrace compassion wherever I can and that includes not > swatting flies anymore, but I thought it necessary to show that veganism > stands strongly on its own. > > Ciao for now, > Anthony > > ps. After the discussion with the three friends tonight, I asked the > friend who is not a roommate if he thought that there were holes or > inconsistencies in what I presented to him, and I'm glad to report that > he says that he thought that the argument that I presented was very > complete. Added to that, when my roommate asked her husband (the other > roommate) why he eats meat (because she values his opinion), he conceded > that it was only because that's what he always did, and he never really > put enough thought to it. This makes me happy because I think that this > means that they all might start to give some more thought to the animals > that they're eating. I also noticed lots of Yves veggie products in the > fridge when I got home late tonight. :-) > > > Vikas Sharma wrote: > > > > " Vikas Sharma " <carnival > > > > Paul ... you are absolutely right ... the ideal would be a non-violent means > > to all oppression ... and I hope that day will come. > > Like I said in one of my previous messages, I aspire to one day share that > > feeling intrinsically. I would hate to tell all of you guys > > that I am opposed to that ending animal persecution via affirmative action, > > when I don't feel it in my heart. > > > > I think the ALF, for example, uses the measures it uses because people won't > > listen to our appeal for animal liberation because we are talking about, > > well, animals, as opposed to other humans. A lot of animal liberation > > supporters, myself included, probably feel that in order to perpetuate the > > process of animal liberation, a non-violent means will not make it happen in > > our lifetime. And perhaps it has something to do with our ego's and > > us wanting to see an end to animal suffering in our lifetime, but we just > > can't sit back and watch animal suffering go on. > > > > I agree that there is some really bad Karma involved in what I am talking > > about, and I apologize to all animal liberation supporters deep from within > > my heart. As I know my feelings give animal liberation supporters a bad > > name. > > > > Yes, we all feel pain, but, Paul, we have to make choices and decisions in > > life, and if someone is going to die, it shouldn't be the deer. > > > > You are right, Gandhi would have been mortified at this whole situation, and > > you know what, he was smart enough and was such > > an altruist, he would have been able to go to that family of the hunter's > > and probably talk his whole town into becoming vegetarians and > > civil disarmament and the whole thing. > > > > You are right, it's (ahimsa - non violence) a long, involved process which > > requires, as you put it, much more " thinking and less doing. " It's a > > question as whether I will ever be able to take part in that process ... I > > know it will make me a better person if I do. > > > > Peace to you, brother! > > > > Vikas -- _____________ Free email services provided by http://www.goodkarmamail.com powered by OutBlaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 14, 1999 Report Share Posted December 14, 1999 yeah!!! peace, Bliss. " anji b " <vegan Tue, 14 Dec 1999 08:39:22 +0500 Re: You can swat flies and laugh about death > > > " anji b " <vegan > > Anthony, > > You possess a wonderful, awe-inspiring, and all too rare combination of intelligence and unconditional kindness. Your knack for articulation coupled with your compassion makes you a huge asset to all the animals who are still suffering. > > What I was thinking by the end of your mail was - why does the argument even have to get that far? I mean as far as I can tell there are only a few points to consider: > > 1. Animals feel pain and suffer. Specifically, animals raised for food by modern animal agriculture industry are subjected to pain and suffering. > > 2. We do not need to eat animals to survive, in fact the opposite is true, we are healthier when we do not eat animals products. > > 3. We therefore have a CHOICE whether to eat them or not and with choice comes responsibility, as humans, to make ethical decisions. > > 4. When we purchase the flesh of dead animals we are directly supporting the torture and killing of animals for NO REASON. > > WHAT PART OF THIS IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? It's not complicated. > > It's like, pick one... I support torturing and killing animals for no reason, or I don't, and then walk your damn talk. I get so tired of these long drawn out pseudo-philosophical conversations with meat-eaters who have no choice but to complicate things in order to divert from the 4 very simple concepts I mentioned above. > > Vegetarianism is a boycott, plain and simple. You support cruelty or you don't. > > I like describing my food choices as a boycott because (that's what it is, and) it tends to take away from preconceived ideas surrounding the idea of vegetarianism. I am not a bambi-loving, tree-hugging, granola-eating, communist, or a bomb-making radical ski-masked terrorist. > > In regards to previous discussions about the dead hunters... though I may feel glad in a way that there are 2 less ignoramus hunters in the world, I feel it is ill-advised for me, as an example of veganism, to go around and say " Ya right on! Death to hunters! " because any window of opportunity I may have had to spread the good word about veganism will be lost from that point on. And concealing my rage is a small price to pay for open ears in the future. > > Vik did say today that there's a place for all types of animal advocates and I think he's right. Direct action has it's place and has brought about genuine successes and public awareness for the movement in the past. It's just so important not to alienate potential veggies no matter how much humans in general piss you off. > > -anji > > > Recommended reading - to be prepared at all times for the myriad of nonsensical arguments presented by meat-eaters: > > Animal Rights and Human Wrongs > http://www.etsu-tn.edu/philos/faculty/hugh/animals.htm > The Origin of Speciesism > http://www.etsu-tn.edu/philos/faculty/hugh/species.htm > Util-izing Animals > http://www.etsu-tn.edu/philos/faculty/hugh/utilize.htm > (by Hugh LaFollette, Professor - Philosophy Department - East Tennessee State University, PhD Vanderbilt University - Ethics, Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Law) > > The Debate About Animal Properties - A Suggested Methodology > http://www.sunyit.edu/~millerd1/PROP.HTM#THE SUGGESTION > (by David Lee Winston Miller, AI programmer, genius, artist, and all around nice guy) > > Taking Animals Seriously > Mental Life and Moral Status > (by David DeGrazia) > http://www.hedweb.com/animals/degrazia.htm > > An interview with Dr. Gary Francione, professor of law at Rutgers > http://www.life.ca/nl/44/animals.html > > Animal Rights FAQ > http://arrs.envirolink.org/Faqs+Ref/ar-faq/ > > > And no mail of mine would be complete without a good quote... > " Do we, as humans, having an ability to reason and to communicate abstract ideas verbally and in writing, and to form ethical and moral judgments using the accumulated knowledge of the ages, have the right to take the lives of other sentient organisms, particularly when we are not forced to do so by hunger or dietary need, but rather do so for the somewhat frivolous reason that we like the taste of meat? In essence, should we know better? " > Peter Cheeke, Professor of Animal Agriculture Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture, 1999 > > > > > > Anthony Wong <anthony > > > > Hello folks. > > > > I've been thinking about an issue that came up here recently, and I > > think I want to follow it up a bit. You may remember that Vik was > > mildly admonished for his pronounced lack of sympathy for dead hunters, > > and Paul made some very good points illustrating how it's better to be > > compassionate no matter what the situation. (I'm told that Ghandi > > forgave his assassin before he died and I see great merit in that). I > > know that we all know that Vik doesn't seriously think that death to a > > few hunters will make the world much better for animals. Nor can we > > seriously believe that Vik would go " Blair Witch " on some father-son > > hunting party and mount their heads on his wall. On the other hand > > (I've got a lot of hands) I think we all understand (and may even > > harbour) the anger and misanthropy that is a reaction to the ignorance > > and apathy of many meat eaters. The discussion seemed to really be > > about extending the zone of compassion beyond humans and pets and some > > wildlife to all creatures, even the ones that most people call food and > > even to the people who kill for fun. > > > > This may bring to light a few questions about self-contradiction amongst > > vegans who are not ultimately compassionate. For instance: " Can you > > believe that all life is to be respected and still maintain a morbid > > sense of humour? " " Is it hypocritical to advocate something like > > military action against tyrannical governments but still believe that > > animals should not be used for food purposes no matter how practical? " > > " Can you believe in the death penalty and still believe that animals > > have real rights that are to be protected? " > > > > While I think that some of these questions depict interesting issues, I > > don't think that they're fundamental to the merits of veganism. I don't > > think that you have to have a " radical " viewpoint or a " pure " ethical > > system or " extreme " opinions about compassion and morality to appreciate > > the value of veganism. On the contrary, THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE > > HERE is that I believe that one can easily have a strong appreciation of > > veganism (and make a bulletproof argument for it) using nothing more > > than common sense (even that of western culture) and by weighing > > " reasonable " ethical premises against each other. > > > > Example number 1: > > Most people believe that human life is more valuable than animal life > > and that humans are significantly superior to animals even if the > > difference is merely degree and not kind. You don't have to prove that > > a pig's life is as valuable as a human's life to show that veganism is a > > better choice of diet. If someone says that " animals don't respect the > > rights of other animals therefore they haven't earned rights of their > > own " , you don't have to prove that full rights are inherent to all > > creatures. Instead, you merely point out that even if animals don't > > deserve the same rights, that doesn't mean that they deserve suffering > > and to be subjugated to exploitation, and it's still a " better " choice > > to eat food that doesn't contribute to their torture. You can also show > > the banality of that argument (if your debater is intelligent enough) > > and further your rebuttal by asking " How can we claim to have the right > > to eat animals on the basis that they have fewer rights because they eat > > animals? " In other words, if animals have fewer rights than we do > > because they don't respect the rights of other animals, then we must > > fall into the same category if we eat animals too, so we have as few > > rights as they! > > > > Example number 2: > > You don't have to have a " superior " morality or ethical system to care > > about animals and to know that veganism is the best choice. You only > > have to NOT to the ridiculous pro-meat arguments that are > > rationalizations base on self-serving non-sequitors (leaps of logic) and > > circular reasoning. > > I had a long debate tonight about the ethics of meat eating with my two > > omnivorous roommates and an omnivorous friend of ours at an omnivorous > > restaurant. The discussion steadily moved past the malnutrition > > propaganda, and stupid things that people have heard from other vegans, > > and the environmental issues, and settled into the discussion based on > > ethics, as it inevitably does. I only agreed to talk about it if > > everyone at the table agreed that this is what they wanted to talk > > about, and the friend who is not my roommate made it clear that he was > > eager to engage in this discussion because he wanted to poke holes in my > > opinions. I eagerly accepted. I had to customarily shoot down the > > argument about our natural omnivorism being a justification for meat > > eating. FYI, my favorite rebuttal to this popular rational is that just > > because something is natural doesn't mean that it's good. I certainly > > don't contend that humans farmed their way across the Bering Straight; > > they surely hunted their way to the americas and across europe, but that > > still doesn't make it okay to eat meat. Every one of us has an ancestor > > amongst our genetic contributors who committed a murder or a rape that > > directly positively influenced their reproduction. That certainly > > doesn't mean that rape and murder are actions that I condone. Just > > because dolphins have been witnessed committing gang rape, does not mean > > that it's acceptable to me. Also, if you want to live with electricity > > and automobiles and other modern technology, you can't limit your > > ethical system to what is " natural " in the quaintest sense of the word. > > One of the final questions that I was asked was whether I thought that > > my friend should not swat flies when they pester him, and *** this is > > where I make the real point of example number two ***. I told him that > > he should weigh the consequences of killing the fly and make an ethical > > " a priori " decision about that act, even though I expect it to be an > > easy decision for him to make. The point is that no actions are exempt > > from ethical examination (including breathing), and to be sure, meat > > eating is such a big issue with all of the 9 BILLION animals at any > > given time being tortured (and everyone would call it torture if human > > was treated as such) that it certainly could not be exempted from > > extremely critical ethical examination. Most people justify eating meat > > by finding some way of exempting the action from their ethical system > > (if they have a system at all). They say such silly things as " it's > > okay to eat *these* animals because that's what they were intended for, > > and they wouldn't even exist at all if we didn't raise them for food " . > > In fact, one of the people at the table even said " I'm not sure that > > diet should be subject to ethics. I think diet is different " and tried > > to tell me that the onus is on me to prove that diet is subject to > > ethics because this person " can't be expected prove a negative " . > > Whatever that means. I quickly pointed out that our dietary choices are > > not different from any other kinds of choices that we make as sentient > > beings, so if you buy a steak or bacon, there is no denying you are > > contributing to torture and unacceptable treatment of animals even if > > you (erroneously) believe that mistreatment only happens occasionally. > > > > All this leads to my final conjecture. You don't have to adopt or > > promote a mentality that is very different from the rest of society in > > order to have a vegan ideal that is meaningful, complete and not > > self-contradictory. By advocating against such things as swatting flies > > and mocking death, you can alienate your friends or be ostracized or > > ridiculed pretty quickly and that doesn't help veganism very much. I > > think that the vegan movement may be most successful if it goes with the > > flow a little and grows to fit cultural consciousness as it expands. > > I know that Paul wasn't implying the contrary, and as a matter of fact, > > I also choose to embrace compassion wherever I can and that includes not > > swatting flies anymore, but I thought it necessary to show that veganism > > stands strongly on its own. > > > > Ciao for now, > > Anthony > > > > ps. After the discussion with the three friends tonight, I asked the > > friend who is not a roommate if he thought that there were holes or > > inconsistencies in what I presented to him, and I'm glad to report that > > he says that he thought that the argument that I presented was very > > complete. Added to that, when my roommate asked her husband (the other > > roommate) why he eats meat (because she values his opinion), he conceded > > that it was only because that's what he always did, and he never really > > put enough thought to it. This makes me happy because I think that this > > means that they all might start to give some more thought to the animals > > that they're eating. I also noticed lots of Yves veggie products in the > > fridge when I got home late tonight. :-) > > > > > > Vikas Sharma wrote: > > > > > > " Vikas Sharma " <carnival > > > > > > Paul ... you are absolutely right ... the ideal would be a non-violent means > > > to all oppression ... and I hope that day will come. > > > Like I said in one of my previous messages, I aspire to one day share that > > > feeling intrinsically. I would hate to tell all of you guys > > > that I am opposed to that ending animal persecution via affirmative action, > > > when I don't feel it in my heart. > > > > > > I think the ALF, for example, uses the measures it uses because people won't > > > listen to our appeal for animal liberation because we are talking about, > > > well, animals, as opposed to other humans. A lot of animal liberation > > > supporters, myself included, probably feel that in order to perpetuate the > > > process of animal liberation, a non-violent means will not make it happen in > > > our lifetime. And perhaps it has something to do with our ego's and > > > us wanting to see an end to animal suffering in our lifetime, but we just > > > can't sit back and watch animal suffering go on. > > > > > > I agree that there is some really bad Karma involved in what I am talking > > > about, and I apologize to all animal liberation supporters deep from within > > > my heart. As I know my feelings give animal liberation supporters a bad > > > name. > > > > > > Yes, we all feel pain, but, Paul, we have to make choices and decisions in > > > life, and if someone is going to die, it shouldn't be the deer. > > > > > > You are right, Gandhi would have been mortified at this whole situation, and > > > you know what, he was smart enough and was such > > > an altruist, he would have been able to go to that family of the hunter's > > > and probably talk his whole town into becoming vegetarians and > > > civil disarmament and the whole thing. > > > > > > You are right, it's (ahimsa - non violence) a long, involved process which > > > requires, as you put it, much more " thinking and less doing. " It's a > > > question as whether I will ever be able to take part in that process ... I > > > know it will make me a better person if I do. > > > > > > Peace to you, brother! > > > > > > Vikas > -- > > > _____________ > Free email services provided by http://www.goodkarmamail.com > > > powered by OutBlaze > > --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ---------------------------- > > GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU! > Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in > forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free coupons! > <a href= " http://clickme./ad/gator4 " >Click Here</a> > > ------ > > Post message: > Subscribe: - > Un: - > List owner: -owner > > Shortcut URL to this page: > /community/ > > > -- _____________ Free email services provided by http://www.goodkarmamail.com powered by OutBlaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.