Why vegan? (was: to convert or not to convert?)

[Guest guest]

Sarah wrote:

>just becuase some people use free choice as an excuse for bad behaviour does

not mean it should be

outlawed. people use hammers to kill people, are we going to ban hammers? no,

because they have a

greater use beyond what a small minority use them for.

 

The hammer is a tool, not a reason (or principle, idea, thought, etc) that backs

a person who engages in the killing of another person. It's not an analogy to

the issue at hand.

 

>but let's say that it became law over the world that no person was allowed to

eat anything from

animals, under any condition, which is what i think you are suggesting. the

underfed section of the

world (half? third? not quite sure of the proportions) would not have immediate

access to the food

that the western civilisation has. they would still be starving, and it might

take decades to ensure

that every person has access to as much food as any other person. are you going

to ban the starving

people from eating an animal that might keep them alive long enough to get other

food sources? other places in the world have poor soil and can not grow

sufficient crops to feed the popluation

and they have to rely on fishing or farming for food. are you going to let them

starve to death too?

 

Sorry, Sarah, my fault - didn't articulate the assumptions upon which I based my

arguments. I was referring to our society (i.e. where food is not directly

determined by nature, but by the markets). So, no, in those cases where the

concern for food is not variety but quantity, and people need SOME source of

food for survival then eating meat is not unethical. But that is only if

literally no other alternatives are available. And for those who are severely

malnourished, their nutritional needs would probably be best satisfied by plant

sources instead of meat. Now, what I just wrote was on the basis that it is

strictly for their own health interests, not the animals'.

 

>but if an animal has died a natural death, why would it be bad to allow people

to eat

its meat? we can't eat other humans as the spread of disease is far greater than

than spread through

animals. and if a human died naturally, an animal would not think for even a

moment it might be bad

to eat the human.

 

Again, I didn't bring this up because, well, I the meat industry doesn't wait

for the animals to die a natural death before they send the carcasses to the

butchers. So this case is inapplicable to the society, I assume, in which all

of us on this list live. NOT that what you mentioned is invalid, it is valid.

What I'm saying is it is not an animal's meat that need protection, but their

life. And, no, if a human died naturally, a hungry animal wouldn't think twice

(again, we caught ourselves in the debate as to whether or not animals have

beliefs, and will, etc. But let's not go into that...) If I were stuck in a

predicament where either I or another human would survive, and I wanted to

survive to the point where either one of us must be killed first to nourish the

other, I would not think it barbaric to engage in combat. The winner gets to

eat the loser. I'll get to the reasoning in a later part of this message

(marked with *).

 

>and seeing as you brought the topic up, plants are alive too. so should we not

eat plants and their

fruits and berries? after all that's alive and we don't want to harm any living

thing.

 

Survival - we all want to survive, I assume. Yes, plants are living things -

but they do not have a nervous system. No, the fact that they do not feel pain

does not make those who eat them 'innocent' (I use this term reluctantly...but I

use it because those who tend to propose this argument that 'plants are living

things, too' tend to see the issue of what to eat as a trial - are you innocent

or guilty? And I think this isn't the point. It's not about innocence or

guilt, it's about fair game. But then again, Sarah, I may have misinterpreted

what you wrote - if I did, nudge me in the right direction!). If I wanted to

protect the earth 100%, I would probably have to die first, as I am, after all,

depleting the earth's resources. But I won't do that because I want to survive.

But how can I survive yet cause MINIMAL harm? Weighing plants against animals,

I would eat plants on the basis that my consuming them, or preparing them for my

consumption, would not cause them unnecessary pain. It is on the basis of

trying to reduce physical suffering that I am vegan. Now don't interpret what I

just wrote as to mean all living beings that do not exhibit an evident sensory

system to feel pain, or just feel, means that I can exploit them. No. What I

am saying is that if I HAVE to kill something in order for me to survive (for

food, e.g.), I would first kill that which, as far as my limited human knowledge

stretches, I think would not feel pain. It's like the dilemma: if my mother and

my husband fell into the sea, and neither can swim, and I can ONLY save one (for

some odd reason), who would I save? By saving, say, my mother instead of my

husband does NOT indicate that I do NOT want to save my husband, but, that given

the restrictions, I HAVE to choose one over the other. We HAVE to choose one

thing over another at some point in our lives, and to make the claim that by

choosing to harm one thing and instead of another means that I have admitted the

absence of value or worth of that thing I chose to harm is...invalid.

 

>your view is very absolutist. it would be hypocrisy to say animals are alive so

we can't eat them,

and plants are alive but i don't mind that we eat them. so what would be left to

eat then? nothing.

 

I think you're right, if that was my point. But it isn't. I'm not an

absolutist, really, because if I were, I would've died (or killed myself)

already.

 

>if the planet decides of its own accord to stop eating meat, then good, but it

shouldnt be forced

upon them.

 

No, it shouldn't be forced upon anyone. But my point is this*: what we have

done to even make animal rights an issue worth attention is by the fact that we

have taken control of animal breeding. If an animal were hunted down for food,

I really have no objection to that (whether or not I do it myself is another

story). (I am strongly against hunting as it is a GAME, however, that has

little, if any, value in ensuring one's survival). But we have not made it

fair. What do I mean by that? I mean that humans have convinced themselves to

believe that because WE bred these animals, thus WE were the ones who granted

them life in the first place, thus WE have every right to end their lives, too.

Now, do we? I wouldn't think so. It is intensive farming and agriculture that

I am against because nature's way has been disrupted by humans. I often hear,

" Chickens were bred to be eaten " from my aunts. I become enraged upon hearing

such comments because I know that it is not true. If the act of breeding

offspring would entail the breeder's right over them, then holy, we're in

trouble, aren't we? Our parents would tell us how to live our lives, their

parents told them the same and their parents' parents, too. This was the

situation that Chinese women found themselves tangled in - women were BRED to

become housewives who in turn were MEANT to breed children. This idea of

" destined " to do this and that because WE made it happened needs to be abolished

completely or else the talk of all rights would be a waste of effort and time.

What I'm saying is if chickens ran wild and every box of chicken nuggest sold by

McDonalds was made by its staff hunting wild chickens down, then sure, fine with

me. But the fact that McDonalds did not breed these chickens would also make

them understand the nature of cause and effect. You hunt ALL those chickens for

your restaurants, you WILL have NO MORE chickens. That was, I think, what

happened with the mammoth - the species was overhunted (someone correct me here

if I'm wrong!). Humans need to FEEL the effects of the causes that they have

put into play. If they overhunt, they better bear the consequences of never

tastin chicken again. All about playing it fair. And playing it with

moderation. Intensive farming and agriculture are NOT fair.

 

>you support an extension of animal rights, yes? then it is your cause. you

advocate it.

 

Can you elaborate on what is an extension of animal rights? If it's everything

that I've written, then sure, it's my cause. Yeah, I advocate it.

 

>yeah, i agree. but here's another situation for you. if we have an obligation

to animals to not

torture and kill them, do they have an obligation to us to not torture and kill

humans? and if not,

why not? what is the difference?

 

Like I was talking about, the whole talk about humans' relationship with other

animals would run forever without ever getting close to a solution because we

have slided into commercialism and overexploitation of nature. No, if nature on

its own handled everything, then there's no difference (I think). I would think

that being devoured by a tiger would be great torture - but if it was fair game

(i.e. I wasn't BRED to be fed to the tiger or I wasn't locked in a cage in order

to be eaten), the term 'obligation' wouldn't fit anywhere. We DO NOT have an

obligation to not torture animals - what we do have is the conscience that to

support a manmade industry inflicts torture beyond that would have ever been at

work the 'natural way.'

 

>a hungry wild animal would happily eat any wandering human it came across. that

is the nature of

animals. the fight for survival. so if the animals can not guaruntee they

wouldn't eat us, why

guaruntee them that we won't eat them?

 

Yep. The fight for survival, you nailed it. What we have in our privileged

society is not the fight for survival though, it is the fight for luxury, for

'taste.' It's needs vs. wants. I need to survive? Yes. Do I need meat to

survive? No. Can I survive on a diet derived only from plants and not

sacrifice my health? Absolutely.

 

>you couldn't put a lion in court for murder. what defense would it have? " it's

the lion's nature to

eat humans, your honour! " " very well but he should still have abided by the law

of the land. " you

can't have one law for animals and one for humans or again it's hypocrisy. the

law must be the same

for everyone.

 

Indeed. It is every living being's nature to survive - lions are carnivores,

humans CAN live as herbivores. Needs vs. wants. So the lion would be

acquitted, because its body needs the meat.

 

>the rights and laws have to be decided by the society as a whole, not by a

small selection of

people, no matter how well meaning they are. take ireland for example. yesterday

they had a

referrendum on whether or not it should remain legal for women to go abroad for

abortions and

whether or not threat of suicide is a valid reason for abortion. to me it seems

obvious that women

should have the right to abortion in those circumstances, but (i don't know the

result of the

ballot) if the country decides that this isn't acceptable in their society then

we have to accept

their decision, no matter how abhorrant it appears.

 

Agree. The laws have to be decided by all those involved. The reason why the

debate of abortion is still so hot is because it involves a being cannot speak

for him/herself just yet - the baby. But it is also so difficult to draw a line

because the person who ultimately gives birth to the baby is the carrier of the

baby. I personally feel abortion needs to be judged on a case by case basis

because the satisfaction of the mother's interests cannot guarantee the baby's

interests. However, in our case, we ourselves don't physically give birth to

the animals we consume, we merely breed them. As far as physicality goes, these

'food' animals are separated far from us enough, to even think that we have ANY

say over their lives is absurd.

 

>who says it is rational? as i said in a previous mail, i can think of some very

rational arguments

for eating meat. we should not preach *anything*. answer questions fully when

asked but not

preaching. being told that your methods are wrong when it is a matter of choice

(and whether or not

meat eating is outlawed in the future, today it is still a choice) is what needs

to be avoided. just

becuase i think it is rational that women should have access to abortion does

not mean someone else

would agree.

 

By 'rational' I mean it not by personal logic, but by universal logic. Y'know,

all those schools of philosophy that have made this thing called law possible.

 

Now, I'm not saying the law is always fair, I know it isn't. But it tries its

best. And despite the fact that (although I do not know directly) there must

have been, must be, and will be unfair trials, it has done (and will do) its

best at eliminating unfairness. And I say this based on the assumption that

structure with freedom (though apparently contradictory, without structure,

absolute freedom would entail no freedom as people infringe others' freedom...so

we have to draw a base line) is amongst our primary concerns, thus I'm not

applying this to countries that have poor soil or food is a dire problem.

 

Sarah, yeah, you're still amicable. (Am I?)

 

Honor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-

sarah monster

vegan-network

Friday, March 08, 2002 7:39 AM

Re: [100% veg*n ] to convert or not to convert?

 

 

honor's mail:

 

> Freedom or chaos - you pick.

 

i don't see that they are irreconciable opposites, or that you must always

have one or the other.

with issues like this, extremism will generate extreme views so a middle

ground needs to be found

that is acceptable to all.

 

 

> So much can be done in the name of free choice and in the name of

" open-mindedness. " Should

> free choice be THE 'personal rule' people live by, and if the judicial

system is still in effect,

we

> wouldn't have enough prisons.

 

just becuase some people use free choice as an excuse for bad behaviour does

not mean it should be

outlawed. people use hammers to kill people, are we going to ban hammers? no,

because they have a

greater use beyond what a small minority use them for. what it boils down to

is would you rather be

able to decide for yourself how to live your life or would want the government

to dictate it to you?

this seems to me to be what you are suggesting. because if all of a sudden

we're not allowed to eat

meat, what is there to suggest it would stop there? it would become as bad as

the jewish laws two

thousand years ago.

 

 

> Look carefully, to respect ONLY the rights of humans is, to me, the epitome

of narrow-mindedness.

 

no, i respect the rights of more than just humans. all creatures have a right

to quality of life and

standards of living and this should be enforced more rigidly. however they

also have a right to

decide on their way of life, as illustrated in the human rights act.

 

but let's say that it became law over the world that no person was allowed to

eat anything from

animals, under any condition, which is what i think you are suggesting. the

underfed section of the

world (half? third? not quite sure of the proportions) would not have

immediate access to the food

that the western civilisation has. they would still be starving, and it might

take decades to ensure

that every person has access to as much food as any other person. are you

going to ban the starving

people from eating an animal that might keep them alive long enough to get

other food sources?

 

other places in the world have poor soil and can not grow sufficient crops to

feed the popluation

and they have to rely on fishing or farming for food. are you going to let

them starve to death too?

 

 

> Other beings are seen and treated as commodities, not lives - anyone

openminded would see that

animals, including humans, are lives.

 

yes, i agree. but if an animal has died a natural death, why would it be bad

to allow people to eat

its meat? we can't eat other humans as the spread of disease is far greater

than than spread through

animals. and if a human died naturally, an animal would not think for even a

moment it might be bad

to eat the human.

 

and seeing as you brought the topic up, plants are alive too. so should we not

eat plants and their

fruits and berries? after all that's alive and we don't want to harm any

living thing.

 

your view is very absolutist. it would be hypocrisy to say animals are alive

so we can't eat them,

and plants are alive but i don't mind that we eat them. so what would be left

to eat then? nothing.

 

if the planet decides of its own accord to stop eating meat, then good, but it

shouldnt be forced

upon them.

 

 

> You make it sound as if I said the actions that follow a person's

interpretation of their religion

cannot be brought before the court. I said the CHOICE itself is an

individual's business. When

THAT choice goes so far as to infringe the rights of another being it is NOT

acceptable.

 

playing devil's advocate, the rights of humans are very clearly set down in

law, and the rights of

animals are too. so if someone infringes on the rights of an animal, is that

the legal rights or

other rights, which are subjective and differ in strength from person to

person? because you may

think it would be wrong to keep an animal with the intent to eat it at some

point, does not mean

other people do. and until the law says that animals do not have the right to

not be kept in such

way, then there is no right to violate.

 

the rights and laws have to be decided by the society as a whole, not by a

small selection of

people, no matter how well meaning they are. take ireland for example.

yesterday they had a

referrendum on whether or not it should remain legal for women to go abroad

for abortions and

whether or not threat of suicide is a valid reason for abortion. to me it

seems obvious that women

should have the right to abortion in those circumstances, but (i don't know

the result of the

ballot) if the country decides that this isn't acceptable in their society

then we have to accept

their decision, no matter how abhorrant it appears.

 

 

> No, Sarah, it is NOT MY cause - I don't feel the physical pain that the

animals go through.

 

you support an extension of animal rights, yes? then it is your cause. you

advocate it.

 

 

> We must accept other people for what they have chosen to be - 100% with you.

That we must accept

other people for the actions they choose to perform - I'm cool with that

until...yeah, I am

repeating myself, but just in case I haven't made it clear enough...it robs

the rights of another

living being.

 

yeah, i agree. but here's another situation for you. if we have an obligation

to animals to not

torture and kill them, do they have an obligation to us to not torture and

kill humans? and if not,

why not? what is the difference?

 

a hungry wild animal would happily eat any wandering human it came across.

that is the nature of

animals. the fight for survival. so if the animals can not guaruntee they

wouldn't eat us, why

guaruntee them that we won't eat them?

 

you couldn't put a lion in court for murder. what defense would it have? " it's

the lion's nature to

eat humans, your honour! " " very well but he should still have abided by the

law of the land. " you

can't have one law for animals and one for humans or again it's hypocrisy. the

law must be the same

for everyone.

 

>

> To preach WHAT is the question. Are we preaching something that is personal

and thus subjective?

Or are we preaching something rational and thus objective? I preach the

latter.

 

who says it is rational? as i said in a previous mail, i can think of some

very rational arguments

for eating meat. we should not preach *anything*. answer questions fully when

asked but not

preaching. being told that your methods are wrong when it is a matter of

choice (and whether or not

meat eating is outlawed in the future, today it is still a choice) is what

needs to be avoided. just

becuase i think it is rational that women should have access to abortion does

not mean someone else

would agree.

 

is this clear or am i getting my words muddled? i'm not sure. i want to be

coherant.

misunderstandings are very frustrating.

 

sarah (hopefully still being amicable)