The (un)Ethics of Veganism (moral, choice, communion, moral)

[Quoth The Raven]

Originally Posted by Booko

Anyway, I know from my family's experience that when one set of my grandparents came over from the Netherlands it was customary to get meat on Sunday mostly. When the Dutch immigrants got over here, it was a sign of great wealth to have meat at every meal, and even in my mother's generation it seems well nigh impossible to call it "dinner" unless there's a meat course.

I'm very fond of my vegies, and I'm happy to skip meat every so often, but my other half says he feels cheated if he doesn't get a chop or something.

[BrandonE]

The point I was attempting (apparently poorly) to make in the OP was that the elevation of veganism to the ideal state for all of humanity was equivalent to "relegat(ing) all but the most robust, healthy, privileged to a position of moral inferiority."

However, due to general muddle-headedness, I've managed to express myself poorly and aggravate folks that I wish I hadn't. I clearly did not think this through nearly as well as I thought I had before posting . Yay me.

Chalk this up to my limited experience with vegans being with those who ARE self-righteous about it, who believe that anyone who eats meat is morally repugnant, and are convinced that strict veganism is the ideal for all of humanity, period. Thus, I was primed to respond to the blog post in the (now) obviously short-sighted manner that I did.

Originally Posted by Jaiket

There are two reasons I've encountered so far that persuade people of truth in this assertion; the behaviour of a tiny fraction of moralistic veggies, and a previous exposure to egoism as expressed by the likes of Ayn Rand that argue that anything altruistic is evil.

Hit me on both causes, though I discounted the bulk of Ayn Rand a few weeks after finishing Atlas Shrugged. What can I say, I process things slowly, and didn't recognize it as such until after I'd had a chance to think about it for a (long) while.

Originally Posted by MidnightBlue

I can tell you from experience that eating organic, local, humanely raised meat is far more expensive than many people (us included) can afford. It's feasible for us to reduce our consumption of meat. It's not feasible for us to eat meat at every meal when that meat costs $6 a pound and up. Kathryn Paxton George may have the luxury of choosing the best meat, but not everybody does. If her ideas are accurately reported in that blog, she sounds like an elitist herself.

Correct as usual. Having not read Ms. George's book, I'm not sure if her ideas are accurately represented or not, but I'm pretty curious about it now.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I have never understood how one can categorise something has natural and unnatural. What are the specific attributes that something must have in order to be natural?

You're right of course, and I'm frankly pretty embarrassed to have used this argument. Especially when a similar argument is used against homosexuality so often, and I think the folks that do that are incredibly wrong.

So, despite the fact that I've "opened my mouth and removed all doubt", thanks to everyone for making their points without just coming out and calling me the names I probably deserved.

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by BrandonE

The point I was attempting (apparently poorly) to make in the OP was that the elevation of veganism to the ideal state for all of humanity was equivalent to "relegat(ing) all but the most robust, healthy, privileged to a position of moral inferiority."

However, due to general muddle-headedness, I've managed to express myself poorly and aggravate folks that I wish I hadn't. I clearly did not think this through nearly as well as I thought I had before posting . Yay me.

No worries, the OP said vegan ideal and people seemed to translate that to "All vegan people are..."

Alright, people have been asking how the vegan ideal could be sexist, racist, ageist, and classist, and I will attempt to rack my brain and come up with examples...

Sexist: Racked my brain and actually can't think of anything...
Racist: If everyone was a vegan many racial traditions would have to be done away with...
Ageist: Children have a harder time being vegan than adults... espically if your parents are not vegan.
Classist: Veganism is more expensive than eating meat products and using animal products... If someone does not have a car and they do not live close to an area where they can get all that they need that did not come from an animal this would be real bad... People living from paycheck to paycheck do not have the money, usually, to go around making sure they do not eat meat and do not wear clothes coming from animals.

So I can see someone making the argument that if you believed a vegan person was more perfect than another person then that vegan person could be racist, ageist, and classist (still not sure on sexist though.)

[Ciscokid]

I like my steak, I'd die an early death for it. Just knock the horns off the animal and run it through a warm room and I'm ready to eat.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by BrandonE

However, due to general muddle-headedness, I've managed to express myself poorly and aggravate folks that I wish I hadn't.

A gift we share.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by BrandonE

Now, I haven't read the referenced book, but the idea that the vegan ideal is tantamount to self-righteousness really struck me in a way that few statements due - the immediate penetration of a previously unseen, but self-evident truth. I've never understood vegans, as I see humans' omnivorous state as natural and thus, part of the natural order. I think this statement is dead on, though I don't think that most vegans consciously make this choice out of self-righteousness or condescension.

With all the above in mind, I do understand that today's industrial farms treat animals in abominably inhuman ways, but I think that a more moderate response, as the blog writer made (eating closer to the source), is closer to the ideal.

What do you think?

Funny; the one vegan I know is self-righteous, but in an endearing sort of way.

Since when you buy from a supermarket there is no way to know how the particular animal you buy was treated while it was alive, it seems foolish to boycott a product or an entire industry on the possibility that there may have been abuse. I seriously don't think it is a common practice, at least not in Canada. Even if I knew for a fact that the animal had been abused, that is no reason not to eat it; a few people boycotting the farmer's product will not change the farmer's behavior.

I am more concerned about kinder practices, ones that still result in my food being filled with chemical additives and poisons. I shop organic.

I don't see boycotting bad behavior as a morally superior stance. It may make the shopper feel better about themselves for not contributing to a bad action, but that's not moral superiority, that's selfishness.


On another note, there is a moral aspect to eating meat, though I don't know if it represents any modern-day religions. The earth Mother provides sustenance from her belly for all her children, each to their needs and nature. Her children, both creature and plant, feed off each other in a never-ending cycle of life and death. It is our nature as humans to eat meat as well as vegetables, and even today some modern cultures thank the Mother for her gift of sustenance by returning a portion of their food to the earth.

[Ciscokid]

Willamena, if you don't mind me posing a personal question. Is your idea of "agnostic theist" far from "Deist"? I'm just curious...I have a feeling we have similar worldviews.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Ciscokid

Willamena, if you don't mind me posing a personal question. Is your idea of "agnostic theist" far from "Deist"? I'm just curious...I have a feeling we have similar worldviews.

Do you want to start a thread on agnostic theism?

Some of us can join you there, then.