Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

This thread is for discussions on vegetarianism and vegansim.

I have been a vegetarian during a few periods of my life, with the latest period lasting for about five years. I've also tried going fully vegan, but I lack the proper self-discipline for that – there are just too many tasty dairy products! The longest time I've managed to stay fully vegan was for about two years.

My main motivation for this is ethical; I do not believe it is morally acceptable to inflict suffering on beings capable of experiencing pain for mere palate entertainment. The impact on global climate, along with other environmental issues generated by meat production is also a concern.

Animal life includes a similar potential to humans. Potential in causing empathy, in causing acceptance, and even productivity/achievement. Like humans, the potential of an animal is unpredictable. Thus, senseless killing is likely wrong.

As for exactly how "senseless" killing is in this case: I have no evidence for or against.

The question I always have is how you draw the 'line' on what animals it's acceptable to kill. From what I understand, most vegetarians or vegans wouldn't really have a problem with purposefully killing insect pests like ants, wasps, or cockroaches. And if it's okay to kill them, would it be okay to eat them? As a related question, how is "pain" being defined?
Also, is eating honey allowed or forbidden for vegans since it's an animal product?

I think the climate and sustainability issues are the most rational supports for vegetarianism/veganism and I agree that something needs to be done about it eventually.

Pain is here defined as a subjective experience. Since we know from science that the capability for this experience is related to the possesion of a functional nervous system, we can assume that beings which have nervous systems similar to those of humans are likely to be able to experience pain in a manner similar to humans.

I don't know of any vegan or vegetarian who would object to killing animals in self-defence. Most people would argue that it is also acceptable to use proportional violence in self-defence against other humans as well, which can, under extreme circumstances, include lethal force. An analogous question would then be, if humans have been killed in self-defence, would it be acceptable to eat them, or use their bodies in some other practical fashion, like harvesting their organs? A possible objection to this stance is that while the relatives of a dead human might be hurt by the desecration of their relatives' remains, it seems less likely that most animals hold a similar attachment to the remains of their relatives. Exceptions to this can be observed in the behaviour of some intelligent animals, like elephants.

Famous proponent of veganism Peter Singer discusses animal rights with Richard Dawkins:

As for eating honey, nothing is explicitly "forbidden", it's not like veganism is a religion. It depends on wether one considers bees capable of suffering, and if so, does the process of harvesting honey harm the bees?

i have no problem with for what reason you are a vegan if healthyness or because they feel its not right, more power to you.

however the problem with simply not hunting animals is that while doing so in an overwhelming manner can damage the enviroment (sometimes, as i do not see the DoDo's extinction causing much harm, NOT doing it at all also damages the enviroment.

its basic nature that a predator has to hunt other beings not only to survive, but also keep a stable enviroment, if a predator suddenly stopped hunting a certain species then this one could damage the enviroment as it grows overwhelmingly, and humans form part of this chain, and leaving it would have similar damages if the lions stopped hunting deer

animals do the same to everyone, so while its not morally acceptable to some, its natural to hunt and kill, (also it would kind of be a waste to just let it rot)

Here's the thing. The main reason I am not a vegetarian is that I believe it's natural. Animals kill other animals all the time and if we are truly as similar to animals as he says then either animals that are carnivores are inherently morally wrong beings or that it is just a natural process. Should we police cats for killing that mouse it caught?

I understand that the case of stuff like slaughter houses is different from animals hunting. I do try my best to avoid meat if I know for certain it has been produced in out of suffering. We only buy free range eggs too. It's why I don't go to the Subway that is closer to me than the other, because they serve halal meat. I believe there is a humane way to kill these animals, rather than not choosing to eat meat, I'd rather want to get it so that the meat we do eat is produced in an ethical way.

My mother is a vegetarian so we do talk about this quite a bit. I do respect her choice not to eat meat, I believe that she should respect my choice to eat meat and not to call me a bad person for doing so.

I just really dislike arrogant vegans or vegetarians that don't believe its up for debate if it's wrong or not and that's what Peter Singer sounds like. And it seems pretty hypocritical of him to say that causing these animals suffering is wrong, but that it's fine to kill disabled babies.

The first paragraph is essentially an appeal to nature. An action does not become moral on account of it occuring in nature. It is possible to consider that we have moral obligations towards animals despite them not being moral agents themselves. In a similar manner, we have moral obligations towards children, despite not expecting them to be held to the same moral and legal responsibility as adults.

I agree with you that hunting is less wrong than factory farming. I am not convinced that halal slaughter is anymore brutal than the standard manner of slaughter in western countries.

I'm not sure what you mean by "respect" in this context. I certainly don't support any kind of forceful action being taken against people who choose to eat meat. I don't believe it is very meaningful to classify persons as good or bad. The question is wether a particular action is good or bad, in the sense that it is consistent with a particular ethical system.

The issue is certainly up for debate here, that is what the thread is for. I'm pretty sure Singer participates in debates as well. This interview represents his view better than a few snippets by his detractors, however still being controversial. On the issue of infanticide, I don't agree with him. Even a severly disabled child might grow up to have a fulfilling life in many ways. I do think,however, that well-informed adults should have the right to assisted suicide if they want to.

@Twisty: Hunting might be necessary to balance the ecosystem in some cases, but in reality, over-hunting and over-exploitation of natural resources is by far the greater problem. In cases where hunting is necessary, care should be taken to consider the interests of all life involved, including the species to be hunted.

Interesting debate on the question imo: