Veganism: Moral Superiority?
- Thread starter BenFTW
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I made no point other than listed a fact about plants....and the point about Jesus is, I am fairly confident he sees what is happening everywhere on this planet....so....why the mouthy response....get over yourself pal.....
By the way....my dad was killed in the Kerr McGhee mines mining yellow cake in New Mexico....and my grand father retired from the mines in the early 80's....
and too be honest...the statement about my core Christian values....JESUS ate FISH pal....so...that is just ignorant! AND GOD allowed animals to be sacrificed and then Eaten by the priesthood....maybe you need to take a look at your values?
By the way....my dad was killed in the Kerr McGhee mines mining yellow cake in New Mexico....and my grand father retired from the mines in the early 80's....
and too be honest...the statement about my core Christian values....JESUS ate FISH pal....so...that is just ignorant! AND GOD allowed animals to be sacrificed and then Eaten by the priesthood....maybe you need to take a look at your values?
R
I sort of skimmed this, but I want to give you the point of view of a Christian vegetarian (not vegan). No, it's not wrong to kill and eat an animal if you need the nutrients to survive. What I can't find a possible way to justify is killing an animal for pleasure or when you can easily have a healthy diet without eating an animal. In America (and many other countries) thousands (and maybe more, those aren't exact statistics but there is quite a lot of literature on food waste) of animals killed whose meat will be trashed because it wasn't bought or cooked by the expiration date. Overfishing has become a huge problem, even though much of the fish that we kill will never make it to someone's plate. There are those who hunt because they are excited to take a life. As Christians, we're urged to kindness not just towards humans but animals. How can one justify killing for sport or killing unnecessarily? That's not kindness or killing for nutrition; that's being selfish and bloodthirsty and possessing a disregard of life.
Furthermore, a healthy vegetarian diet is possible for most people and we (unlike much of the world) do have the resources to easily maintain such a diet. It's true you can't go into it without common sense and a basic understanding of nutrition. My cousin became a vegetarian for a short while but had to stop because he was sick and his bones became fragile. Why? Because his diet was made up of pizza, Cheetos, potato chips, and other junk food. I've been a vegetarian for over ten years and was told by my doctor after I had an x-ray done that I had "Nice, dense bones." I'll admit I need to lose some weight, but that's more related to my penchant for McDonald's fries than not eating meat.
If we don't need to kill, why do so? A lot of people say because it tastes good. So in other words, because they're selfish.
Furthermore, a healthy vegetarian diet is possible for most people and we (unlike much of the world) do have the resources to easily maintain such a diet. It's true you can't go into it without common sense and a basic understanding of nutrition. My cousin became a vegetarian for a short while but had to stop because he was sick and his bones became fragile. Why? Because his diet was made up of pizza, Cheetos, potato chips, and other junk food. I've been a vegetarian for over ten years and was told by my doctor after I had an x-ray done that I had "Nice, dense bones." I'll admit I need to lose some weight, but that's more related to my penchant for McDonald's fries than not eating meat.
If we don't need to kill, why do so? A lot of people say because it tastes good. So in other words, because they're selfish.
I
Hey there BenFTW. Came across this thread the other day, I'm a little late to the party, but as a Catholic Vegan it seemed I might have some insight into the matter that wasn't otherwise being addressed. I’ll go ahead and try to address each paragraph as it comes up, and hopefully leave you with a better understanding of the vegan perspective.
While it is true there are plenty of vegans who seem to hate people and love animals, the general consensus is that we value human life the highest. The argument you might hear from a vegan would be more in line with 'what is the difference between a dog and a pig, a horse and a cow, a dolphin and a fish?' From a young age, most of us are taught to be kind to all animals. But then you're sitting their with your favorite dog, while eating the ground up body of a cow, maybe topped with the belly of a pig, smothered in the secretions of a different cow, perhaps the cognitive dissonance of the situation tends to make a conscious, empathetic soul feel a little uneasy. What they are probably trying to get you to do, is draw a connection. Get you to question why it is okay to love some animals and eat others. Because you can't say you love animals and eat them too, that would be like saying you love your wife even though you cheat on her. The word just doesn’t really mean what you say it means, based on your actions. The best thing to do here is to get your ethics to line up with your actions. Go vegan! No more conflicted feelings, problem solved.
There isn't any innate desire for us to eat meat. A kitten sees a bug or some cat toy or maybe even a mouse move along and it’s keyed in. Stalking it. Ready to pounce. Strike. Devour. Take a toddler to a farm and he's either going to want to pet everything or cry and run away. It takes years of training, mostly from big agriculture and fast-food places, to convince you how 'good and tasty' flesh is. How much you need it in your life. Eating meat is consumerism at it's most grotesque, and the cornerstone of all gluttony in this world.
Most vegans simply believe that it is unnecessary to eat animals, so we shouldn't. At the very least, we shouldn't torture, exploit, rape, and force them to live unnatural, cruel, and painful lives for something as trivial and as unnecessary as our own carnal pleasure.
To this I would simply state, in the time of the bible, shepherds tended small flocks so that they could a appropriately managed and cared for. Animals lived longer and more natural lives. Families might have some animals which everyone together cared for and respected. They were directly involved in how their meat was raised and when it came time to slaughter, that was almost always done by their own hand. In this way people felt the weight of the lives sacrificed in order to provide them nourishment. Nowadays, people callously devour plate after plate of meaty dishes that would have made even the most gluttonous of kings blush, because all the killing is done behind locked, closed doors, no emotional weight is attached to that animals life. Is that more civilized? No, it's merely a way of hiding from the shame attached to the torture and exploitation necessary to satisfy a continuously growing carnal appetite. What would be more civilized would be to recognize as a society that there is no need for meat and simply phase out the ridiculous amount of land and resources dedicated to it.
This seems like a weirdly nihilistic thing to say as a Christian. Sure, let's just say life is without objective purpose, meaning or intrinsic value and morality does not inherently exist... To me that reeks more like moral escapism than anything.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, bro. Got to be honest, here you are coming off like a bit of a dick. 'I'm tired of these vegans thinking they are morally superior to me, I'll show them...' kind of attitude... Not exactly Christ-like.
But regarding sentience... man this is getting exhausting, I'll go ahead and borrow from people who can express this better than myself. If an entity has a will to live, then we should take its will into account when acting morally. However, when applied to some forms of life, it seems that this will can only be understood in purely metaphorical terms.
Consider a non-sentient living entity like a tree. In what way can a tree have a will to live? We can say it has certain biological needs for survival, and it tries to achieve them by getting water and nutrients from the soil. But can we say that its effort to achieve a vital biological need expresses a will to live? No, not literally. Only metaphorically. This is because a will, even in its weakest sense (i.e., an interest), requires a capacity to have conscious experiences. If an entity lacks consciousness, then that entity does not experience the things that happen to it.
Animals experience pain, in a very real, very clear, very conscious way. Moral consideration definitely should be taken into account. I feel like this should be true from a Christian perspective as well, even if that screws up your previous axiom of 'everything is subjective tho, no standards, equal-footing'.
Ah, the great bivalve debate. Not much of one here, really. The definition of veganism and what is generally considered it's mission statement is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purposes. Bivalves are animals so they are a no go for any vegan. While they don't have a central nervous system (which somehow plants don't need in order to feel pain if you follow the logic of some of the other Einsteins on this thread), they sure will resist pretty hard if you try to open one up. That is a pretty good indicator to me that, sentient or not, it doesn't want to be eaten.
Also, many other kinds of marine animals are killed as collateral damage or bycatch during the harvest of bivalves them, so you break the one and only tenant of veganism trying to justify this one 'exception'. With one possible exception being oysters, which can be farmed and harvested sustainably away from other marine life and even work to filter the ocean. Pretty rad creatures. There is a weird sub-set of 'vegans' or so I've read, who consume an all plant based diet with the exception of oysters. They identify as ostrovegans. We're talking a very small percentage of people within an already very small percentage of people though, so I don't know much, you'll have to try to find one if you want to know more. I'm guessing they are 'vegan' for the environment and oysters are okay because they are beneficial to the environment? Idk, seems like they would be more environmental if more stayed in the ocean. That and I don't know why it sounds appetizing to eat something that is basically a meaty toilet filter for all the toxic animal waste, chemicals, and heavy minerals that are floating around out in the ocean. Bivalves! Moving on...
I would just reiterate what I brought up earlier of how I think your subjective morality construct is just a shallow form of ethical escapism you've designed to free you from any guilt you know you should feel in letting billions of new sentient lives suffer every year, all because you like the taste of meat.
No, you are not robbing a bird of it's chicks. It's not the equivalent of an abortion. It's the equivalent of eating a woman's period, a discarded and unfertilized egg. Huevos. Ovulation. But in a different species. Not sure if that makes it weirder to eat or not, they both sound pretty gross to me. 'Nutritious' is a bit of a stretch, if they (the egg industry) could do so legally, they would advertise it as such, but the government won't allow it because there is no science to back it. That's why it's marketed as the 'incredible, edible, egg'. Not much more you can say about it beyond it's being 'edible', if that's the kind of kinky stuff you're into. There are much more benefits associated with a whole-foods plant-based diet. What would be the reason to avoid that? Bonus: It saves the life of lots of animals, possibly even your own!
Here you're contradicting yourself, earlier you said that it is not murder for humans to eat meat,
Do I believe its okay to "murder" a cow and consume it? Yes. But this is not murder, for murder is itself is a moral judgement and again, in a subjective world, they have no foundation to stand on.
and now you're saying other creatures murder so we can to.... but it's not murder when we do it? I'd say, personally, it's not murder when either do it. I really am not sure the point you're trying to make here. A wrong is a wrong? No. Animals(carnivores and true omnivores such as bears) behave on instinct, kill, eat to survive.
Human's can ruminate on the moral implications of their actions. Animals kill and humans kill do no simply equate to ‘a wrong is a wrong’. Human's can choose to kill and needlessly take a life. Or you can choose a different, more compassionate path. What I would say is the more righteous path.
Well, there you have it! I hope this proved educational and hopefully you understand better now where people are coming from with a vegan perspective. I certainly don’t speak on behalf of all vegans everywhere, but it didn’t seem like you were getting much dialogue from people who wear both hats; and as a man of many hats I felt compelled to speak up.
Also, here is a link to that part I borrowed regarding why animal sentience deserves to be the baseline determining factor for what we should consider acceptable food choices, if you feel like doing some further reading.
Why we should give moral consideration to sentient beings, rather than living beings - Animal Ethics
While it is true there are plenty of vegans who seem to hate people and love animals, the general consensus is that we value human life the highest. The argument you might hear from a vegan would be more in line with 'what is the difference between a dog and a pig, a horse and a cow, a dolphin and a fish?' From a young age, most of us are taught to be kind to all animals. But then you're sitting their with your favorite dog, while eating the ground up body of a cow, maybe topped with the belly of a pig, smothered in the secretions of a different cow, perhaps the cognitive dissonance of the situation tends to make a conscious, empathetic soul feel a little uneasy. What they are probably trying to get you to do, is draw a connection. Get you to question why it is okay to love some animals and eat others. Because you can't say you love animals and eat them too, that would be like saying you love your wife even though you cheat on her. The word just doesn’t really mean what you say it means, based on your actions. The best thing to do here is to get your ethics to line up with your actions. Go vegan! No more conflicted feelings, problem solved.
There isn't any innate desire for us to eat meat. A kitten sees a bug or some cat toy or maybe even a mouse move along and it’s keyed in. Stalking it. Ready to pounce. Strike. Devour. Take a toddler to a farm and he's either going to want to pet everything or cry and run away. It takes years of training, mostly from big agriculture and fast-food places, to convince you how 'good and tasty' flesh is. How much you need it in your life. Eating meat is consumerism at it's most grotesque, and the cornerstone of all gluttony in this world.
Most vegans simply believe that it is unnecessary to eat animals, so we shouldn't. At the very least, we shouldn't torture, exploit, rape, and force them to live unnatural, cruel, and painful lives for something as trivial and as unnecessary as our own carnal pleasure.
To this I would simply state, in the time of the bible, shepherds tended small flocks so that they could a appropriately managed and cared for. Animals lived longer and more natural lives. Families might have some animals which everyone together cared for and respected. They were directly involved in how their meat was raised and when it came time to slaughter, that was almost always done by their own hand. In this way people felt the weight of the lives sacrificed in order to provide them nourishment. Nowadays, people callously devour plate after plate of meaty dishes that would have made even the most gluttonous of kings blush, because all the killing is done behind locked, closed doors, no emotional weight is attached to that animals life. Is that more civilized? No, it's merely a way of hiding from the shame attached to the torture and exploitation necessary to satisfy a continuously growing carnal appetite. What would be more civilized would be to recognize as a society that there is no need for meat and simply phase out the ridiculous amount of land and resources dedicated to it.
This seems like a weirdly nihilistic thing to say as a Christian. Sure, let's just say life is without objective purpose, meaning or intrinsic value and morality does not inherently exist... To me that reeks more like moral escapism than anything.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, bro. Got to be honest, here you are coming off like a bit of a dick. 'I'm tired of these vegans thinking they are morally superior to me, I'll show them...' kind of attitude... Not exactly Christ-like.
But regarding sentience... man this is getting exhausting, I'll go ahead and borrow from people who can express this better than myself. If an entity has a will to live, then we should take its will into account when acting morally. However, when applied to some forms of life, it seems that this will can only be understood in purely metaphorical terms.
Consider a non-sentient living entity like a tree. In what way can a tree have a will to live? We can say it has certain biological needs for survival, and it tries to achieve them by getting water and nutrients from the soil. But can we say that its effort to achieve a vital biological need expresses a will to live? No, not literally. Only metaphorically. This is because a will, even in its weakest sense (i.e., an interest), requires a capacity to have conscious experiences. If an entity lacks consciousness, then that entity does not experience the things that happen to it.
Animals experience pain, in a very real, very clear, very conscious way. Moral consideration definitely should be taken into account. I feel like this should be true from a Christian perspective as well, even if that screws up your previous axiom of 'everything is subjective tho, no standards, equal-footing'.
Ah, the great bivalve debate. Not much of one here, really. The definition of veganism and what is generally considered it's mission statement is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purposes. Bivalves are animals so they are a no go for any vegan. While they don't have a central nervous system (which somehow plants don't need in order to feel pain if you follow the logic of some of the other Einsteins on this thread), they sure will resist pretty hard if you try to open one up. That is a pretty good indicator to me that, sentient or not, it doesn't want to be eaten.
Also, many other kinds of marine animals are killed as collateral damage or bycatch during the harvest of bivalves them, so you break the one and only tenant of veganism trying to justify this one 'exception'. With one possible exception being oysters, which can be farmed and harvested sustainably away from other marine life and even work to filter the ocean. Pretty rad creatures. There is a weird sub-set of 'vegans' or so I've read, who consume an all plant based diet with the exception of oysters. They identify as ostrovegans. We're talking a very small percentage of people within an already very small percentage of people though, so I don't know much, you'll have to try to find one if you want to know more. I'm guessing they are 'vegan' for the environment and oysters are okay because they are beneficial to the environment? Idk, seems like they would be more environmental if more stayed in the ocean. That and I don't know why it sounds appetizing to eat something that is basically a meaty toilet filter for all the toxic animal waste, chemicals, and heavy minerals that are floating around out in the ocean. Bivalves! Moving on...
I would just reiterate what I brought up earlier of how I think your subjective morality construct is just a shallow form of ethical escapism you've designed to free you from any guilt you know you should feel in letting billions of new sentient lives suffer every year, all because you like the taste of meat.
No, you are not robbing a bird of it's chicks. It's not the equivalent of an abortion. It's the equivalent of eating a woman's period, a discarded and unfertilized egg. Huevos. Ovulation. But in a different species. Not sure if that makes it weirder to eat or not, they both sound pretty gross to me. 'Nutritious' is a bit of a stretch, if they (the egg industry) could do so legally, they would advertise it as such, but the government won't allow it because there is no science to back it. That's why it's marketed as the 'incredible, edible, egg'. Not much more you can say about it beyond it's being 'edible', if that's the kind of kinky stuff you're into. There are much more benefits associated with a whole-foods plant-based diet. What would be the reason to avoid that? Bonus: It saves the life of lots of animals, possibly even your own!
Here you're contradicting yourself, earlier you said that it is not murder for humans to eat meat,
Do I believe its okay to "murder" a cow and consume it? Yes. But this is not murder, for murder is itself is a moral judgement and again, in a subjective world, they have no foundation to stand on.
and now you're saying other creatures murder so we can to.... but it's not murder when we do it? I'd say, personally, it's not murder when either do it. I really am not sure the point you're trying to make here. A wrong is a wrong? No. Animals(carnivores and true omnivores such as bears) behave on instinct, kill, eat to survive.
Human's can ruminate on the moral implications of their actions. Animals kill and humans kill do no simply equate to ‘a wrong is a wrong’. Human's can choose to kill and needlessly take a life. Or you can choose a different, more compassionate path. What I would say is the more righteous path.
Well, there you have it! I hope this proved educational and hopefully you understand better now where people are coming from with a vegan perspective. I certainly don’t speak on behalf of all vegans everywhere, but it didn’t seem like you were getting much dialogue from people who wear both hats; and as a man of many hats I felt compelled to speak up.
Also, here is a link to that part I borrowed regarding why animal sentience deserves to be the baseline determining factor for what we should consider acceptable food choices, if you feel like doing some further reading.
Why we should give moral consideration to sentient beings, rather than living beings - Animal Ethics
Genesis 4:4King James Version (KJV)
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering
Genesis 4:4New International Version (NIV)
4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
But you can meet me in person anytime, and we will talk about your ingnorance.
4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering
Genesis 4:4New International Version (NIV)
4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering,
But you can meet me in person anytime, and we will talk about your ingnorance.
I
You realize B12 doesn't come from animals right? It's a vitamin compound that occurs naturally in healthy bacteria rich water sources such as springs, lakes, and rivers. It can then get into soil and and the plant foods we consume. It never used to be a problem getting B12, but with the advent of modern society where everything is bleached and sanitized, we kill what would help us for fear of what would harm us.
Your cows and pigs don't get their B12 naturally. How can they when their stuck in a cage standing in a pile of their own feces gobbling up GMO soy and corn until they are fat enough to slaughter? B12 supplements are put right into their feed or injected directly, along with a slew of vaccines and antibiotics which, in turn, make them less effective for humans (but that's an entirely different debate of how eating animals is killing us and our planet)
You just want to know about B12. Go drink from a lake and roll the dice, or take a supplement. It's way more natural and effective than giving a supplement to a cow, to then eat the cow, just to get a vitamin. That path of logic for why you need meat for B12 is patently absurd. Just cut out the middle man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Your cows and pigs don't get their B12 naturally. How can they when their stuck in a cage standing in a pile of their own feces gobbling up GMO soy and corn until they are fat enough to slaughter? B12 supplements are put right into their feed or injected directly, along with a slew of vaccines and antibiotics which, in turn, make them less effective for humans (but that's an entirely different debate of how eating animals is killing us and our planet)
You just want to know about B12. Go drink from a lake and roll the dice, or take a supplement. It's way more natural and effective than giving a supplement to a cow, to then eat the cow, just to get a vitamin. That path of logic for why you need meat for B12 is patently absurd. Just cut out the middle man. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Last edited by a moderator: