Vegetarianism/Veganism and You

[Vouthon]

It's quite simple.

If one accords "personhood" status to something, logic demands that all "persons" deserve and need to be treated equally - not just under the law but morally. If they are not, then it is unacceptable discrimination which undermines the very efficacy of being a person with protected rights - including the right to life - in the first place.

So if one recognises plants as "people" but is in favour of eating them then that is morally reprehensible. Under that understanding, it should be OK to eat humans since there is no distinction or shouldn't be between the rights of persons.

If you do believe it's wrong to eat human persons but OK to eat plant persons then you are discriminating between persons and denying some persons rights while giving other persons more rights.

"Personhood" entails an equality of moral (and hence legal) status between beings. So one cannot recognise one person as having a "right" that another is denied.

Either you believe it's wrong to eat people or you don't.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's quite simple.

If one accords "personhood" status to something, logic demands that all "persons" deserve and need to be treated equally - not just under the law but morally. If they are not, then it is unacceptable discrimination which undermines the very efficacy of being a person with protected rights - including the right to life - in the first place.

So if one recognises plants as "people" but is in favour of eating them then that is morally reprehensible. Under that understanding, it should be OK to eat humans since there is no distinction or shouldn't be between the rights of persons.

If you do believe it's wrong to eat human persons but OK to eat plant persons then you are discriminating between persons and denying some persons rights while giving other persons more rights.

Either you believe it's wrong to eat people or you don't

I'm a moral nihilist. So, no - I don't find cannibalism "wrong".

 

[Vouthon]

I'm a moral nihilist. So, no - I don't find cannibalism "wrong".

Then henceforth I am going to put you on my ignore list because that is an inhumane, profoundly immoral, illegal and frankly insane position to believe: that cannibalizing another human person is acceptable. That is a serious offence - murder - against the person under every reasonable legal system.

I am truly shocked to hear you say this SF - to argue that cannibalism is OK because you regard yourself to be a "moral nihilist".

 

[Jainarayan]

I would love to know where it is that you (or your religious tradition) stand(s) on the topic of vegetarianism and veganism.

I'm trying. So far I've stopped eating anything with fur or mammary glands. Chicken may be next, though seafood will be a challenge; I loves me some salmon in any form. I don't eat eggs very often, but I do eat things that have eggs in them. The way I'm doing it is simply a matter of if I have a choice between a non-veg and veg Item, I'll opt for the veg item.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Then I am going to put you on my ignore list because that is an inhumane, profoundly immoral, illegal and frankly insane position to believe: that cannibalizing another human person is OK. That is a serious offence - murder - against the person under every reasonable legal system.

I am truly shocked.

Huh? We're having a philosophical discussion. I didn't promote eating people or murder. You asked for my viewpoint of a certain action and I gave it. I don't promote murder or cannibalism. A nihilist may not believe that things are inherently "wrong" or "evil", but that doesn't mean they actively support the activity in question. We just simply don't believe that there is inherent rightness or wrongness in anything, as moral nihilism tends to go hand and in hand with the rejection of the supposition that moral truth exists, can be known or is known. It's basically a type of skepticism. So just because a moral nihilist says that, say, cannibalism isn't inherently wrong, that does not mean that we believe that it is inherently good. We simply use other criteria to judge it by, such as harm and personal and social consequences, from which we can actually make very solid arguments against various actions, such as murder and cannibalism.

I would appreciate it if you would actually understand what I'm saying before you go off clutching your pearls and demonizing me based on a strawman. Frankly, I'm the one who should be offended.

 

[Quintessence]

I understand your point that plants can respond to external stimuli through a vegetative cognate to a nervous system - but they do not posses brains that can produce actual consciousness like living animals or thought processes. Thus, from a strictly biological perspective they are not people.

I'd just like to point out - since I am actually a biologist - that personhood is not addressed by biological sciences. It's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

 

[Vouthon]

I'd just like to point out - since I am actually a biologist - that personhood is not addressed by biological sciences. It's a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

I agree but biology is nonetheless an important reference point for concluding - morally, philosophically and legally - that an entity is a "person". It is a crucial part of the process - and hence the contemporary debate - to consider insights from biology when asking whether something should be legally defined to be a "person".

 

[Mindmaster]

It's nearly impossible to evade killing anything (thanks Mom <as in mother nature>), so with that I feel no need to develop a neurosis about the whole subject. To me, I consider all things and nearly the entirety of existence sacred and it's sort of missing the point for me to draw arbitrary lines. Kill the plant or kill the chicken and you still kill, but do you have a choice? As we are made, something must die and whether it is I or other humans who prompt the execution date these things were in the cards long before I came into being. Religiously, there is no food stance for me so I am left with my own ideas.

Mostly, I think you will find veganism and things like feminism 3.0 and other SJW bastions of holiness tied together at the hip. I respect life of all sorts, but personalizing things to such degrees literally puts on in a doomed-to-fail logic pattern -- it's only a matter of time. Morality is a silly thing , it doesn't exist outside of societal norms and it is obvious that different cultures have different ideas about these things.

There are also legitimate environmental concerns with too much argibusiness and if we as a whole switched entirely to such a diet we would literally treble our pollution problems. Ultimately, until we synthesize food we are better off promoting a mixture of farming methods to be more sustainable and lessen our impact.

 

[illykitty]

Well, I don't really have a religion, per say, at the moment. But I've always regarded the environment as important to me and I've always loved animals.

My position is that I wouldn't kill an animal, so why pay someone else to do it for me? A lot of farm animals live in cruel situations, are mass farmed, tortured and killed in brutal ways. It's unhealthy for the workers as well (which are often not thought of). They have to turn off their compassion to do their jobs, resulting in psychological damage.

Also it's extremely inefficient, as TONS of plants are needed to make very little meat. So if someone cared about plants, they shouldn't eat meat, as more of it is used in the process. And farming is polluting the environment in so many ways, from the dung polluting water causing dead zones, to cutting down rainforests to have cattle and soy production (which btw @vaguelyhumanoid , is mostly fed to farm animals, not humans). If fact, here's a nice big infographic about soy: http://wwf.panda.org/_core/general.cfc?method=getOriginalImage&uImgID=&*B<'!.K?

There's so much misinformation out there, it's ridiculous and a fantasy to think that meat, dairy and egg production come from this happy little farm from milk carton pictures. Anyway, I'd recommend to watch Cowspiracy for information on how damaging it is to the environment.

 

[Quintessence]

If one accords "personhood" status to something, logic demands that all "persons" deserve and need to be treated equally - not just under the law but morally.

Perhaps it's worth clarifying what personhood entails from an animistic perspective. I understand that the legal language of the United States packages a bunch of other things around that term "person," but this is not the case for the animist. When an animist says that something is a person, they do not mean that they are equal under the law, or that they have some sort of package of rights. What they mean is that the entity is an autonomous personality with its own wants and needs - that is, it is like a human person. This contrasts to what many are taught in Western culture - where nonhuman nature is seen in very mechanistic and impersonal terms.

If they are not, then it is unacceptable discrimination which undermines the very efficacy of being a person with protected rights - including the right to life - in the first place.

Perhaps, though I do not believe in this "right to life" for any person, human or otherwise. The concept does not make sense to me.

So if one recognises plants as "people" but is in favour of eating them then that is morally reprehensible.

Why? I do not understand how it could be "morally reprehensible" to kill to live. Change and transformation are fundamental aspects of our reality - there is no creation without destruction, there is no birth without death. One way or another, something is destroyed so that I may live. From my perspective, calling such behaviors "morally reprehensible" is the equivalent of saying one should commit suicide, as there is no avoiding destruction to sustain oneself.

Under that understanding, it should be OK to eat humans since there is no distinction or shouldn't be between the rights of persons.

It is okay to eat humans. Why wouldn't it be? Read a chapter in a work recently about this issue with respect to animism, and learned there are no documented cases of humans eating humans for the sole purpose of nutrition. When it is done, it is typically done as a way of honoring the dead - with sentiments similar to what I expressed in my first response to this thread. By consuming something, we are honoring the dead by taking them into ourselves. I might do some more research on this at some point, because I find the topic interesting. In Western culture, the "OMFGs cannibalism!" taboo is so automatic that we don't stop to actually think about what's going on there.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It is okay to eat humans. Why wouldn't it be? Read a chapter in a work recently about this issue with respect to animism, and learned there are no documented cases of humans eating humans for the sole purpose of nutrition. When it is done, it is typically done as a way of honoring the dead - with sentiments similar to what I expressed in my first response to this thread. By consuming something, we are honoring the dead by taking them into ourselves. I might do some more research on this at some point, because I find the topic interesting. In Western culture, the "OMFGs cannibalism!" taboo is so automatic that we don't stop to actually think about what's going on there.

On ignore you go, Quint!

 

[Quintessence]

I agree but biology is nonetheless an important reference point for concluding - morally, philosophically and legally - that an entity is a "person". It is a crucial part of the process - and hence the contemporary debate - to consider insights from biology when asking whether something should be legally defined to be a "person".

That's one of the things we could use as a marker, yes, though the arguments all ultimately hinge on philosophy (e.g., putting "consciousness" on a value pedestal, for example). In practice, we don't seem to pay much attention to the sciences at all, though. Were the truth otherwise, confinement feeding operations would already be illegal. Those are the sorts of issues that concern me... how food is being produced. Industrial food is all kinds of bad, for the plants and the animals (humans included).

 

[Quintessence]

On ignore you go, Quint!

LOL... unfortunately for you all, I have staff immunity to ignore lists. MUAHAHAH!

At any rate, it's important to get that I'm not saying we should start making human for food consumption. To me, the key issue comes down to relationships, and honoring the relationships we have with various things around us. The relationship we have to food is very, very important. It's something that has very much gotten lost in my country since industrialization and urbanization. I love my little garden space outside because it lets me cultivate (hah, pun!) that relationship with food again. It's a learning experience, a sort of sacred communion.

 

[Riverwolf]

I think it does boil down to whether Death is something that is considered Absolutely Bad and to be postponed for as long as absolutely possible, if not outright avoided altogether, at all other costs.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yet another example of unjustified discrimination between persons You get exempted but the little folk have to endure eternal "ignorance"!

Regardless, SF is under my ignore function and will remain so for the foreseeable future. Whomsoever I have the power to ignore and who makes a statement supporting "eating persons"/"cannibalism" will be placed under the said injunction.

And that IS a promise folks. I am ready and willing to "ignore" any prospective cannibals or serious offenders against the dignity of legally recognised persons.

I would appreciate it if you would stop lying about me. Apparently lying and posting libel isn't something you find against your prodigiously developed "moral" sensibilities.

If SF retracts or further clarifies his position on cannibalism/eating persons up to a level deemed satisfactory by the reasonable person, I will remove the 'ignore' injunction - so I would ask other people here to inform me should he do this.

But I do not want to read justifications for cannibalism/serious offences against the dignity of persons if I can avoid them.

You are at least attempting to further explain and clarify your position (even if I don't agree).

You put me on ignore before I could respond to your slander of me. Stop being a coward and read my posts yourself. I'm very angry with you right now. Maybe the staff will tell you.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That is within my rights as an RF poster.

It is not within your rights to post libel and insult me, especially while hiding behind the ignore feature like a coward!

 

[crossfire]

<...>
It is okay to eat humans. Why wouldn't it be? Read a chapter in a work recently about this issue with respect to animism, and learned there are no documented cases of humans eating humans for the sole purpose of nutrition. When it is done, it is typically done as a way of honoring the dead - with sentiments similar to what I expressed in my first response to this thread. By consuming something, we are honoring the dead by taking them into ourselves. I might do some more research on this at some point, because I find the topic interesting. In Western culture, the "OMFGs cannibalism!" taboo is so automatic that we don't stop to actually think about what's going on there.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but there is evidence that Neanderthals practiced some sort of ritual cannibalism as part of their burial rites. It seems to be a very, very ancient practice.

 

[Vouthon]

I don't know if you are aware of this, but there is evidence that Neanderthals practiced some sort of ritual cannibalism as part of their burial rites. It seems to be a very, very ancient practice.

Whether the evidence found is substantiated or not, that of course would not make it morally acceptable in advanced human societies or for that matter a respectful way of treating the terminally ill/deceased.

 

[crossfire]

Whether the evidence found is substantiated or not, that of course would not make it morally acceptable in advanced human societies or for that matter a respectful way of treating the terminally ill/deceased.

Agreed.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

As a Pagan, I'm not subject to any food taboos. In practice, I only eat meat a couple of times a week, but that's a matter of taste. Beef pie tonight!

The treatment of animals is a different matter. All my meat and dairy produce comes from free-range animals. I never ate chickens (or their eggs) from battery cages when that was legal in Europe, as it still is in the USA. This is not because I believe animals have rights (I don't believe that humans do) but because I have duties. If I make use of lower animals, I am responsible for the consequences of the way in which I do it: noblesse oblige.