Nicely said, Lisa!

I am not too keen on killing animals myself, but that is only because we are so far removed from the process. If we had been raised with it, it would be different and not that big a deal. But I'm telling you, if it came down to me and a cow, the cow is goin' down.

I do my part by buying organic, humanely treated beef, pork and chicken, raised on self sustaining ranches. Costs more, but worth it to me. I don't care how other people ate. If you want to be a vegetarian, fine. Just don't you dare look down your nose at me when I bite into my beef burger.

By the way, it is not very ethical, as stated earlier, to be a lacto-ovo vegetarian, for those animals are treated no better. The only "ethical" vegetarians I truly respect are vegans. Now, THAT is a sacrifice!

PS Rhaaz, I hope you don't wear any leather or wool, because that would go against your principles, too, right?

There's a BIG difference! the cute little cocker spaniel was raised to be a cute little cocker spaniel and a companion. The cow is there TO BE EATEN and NO other purpose!

You live in a dream world and so do all 'ethical' vegetarians. 'Ethical' vegetarians kill more animals in obtaining food than any meat eaters.

And hey, aren't cute little cocker spaniels "dinner" in some parts of the world???

True! True!

Well...German Shephards are preferred, but I suppose they would eat any dog if they were hungry enough. Some dogs simply don't supply enough meat to make it worth the resources to raise them to an adult size. In some cases, it's not even a matter of pure hunger; they're considered a delicacy by some.
A friend of mine who lived in South Korea for a time has eaten German Shephard and tells me it's rather tasty if not a bit tough. Sorry....unless I was faced with no other choice, there are some animals that just don't appeal to me as food (like snakes and bugs, for instance, as well as dogs). Although I'm sure that if I were raised in a culture where they were a routine part of the menu, I'd probably feel differently.
We see dogs (and many other animals) very differently from other cultures. Where we project human characteristics on dogs and other animals such as loyalty, courage, etc...and pamper them in some cases excessively, other cultures simply see them as a food source.

gotbeer, this debate would really, really be enhanced if you had studied moral philosophy.

As it is, in your relatively uneducated state, you have a terribly hard time distinguishing what is relevant from what is irrelevant.

The fallacy of your position can be stated as follows: you purport to 'impeach' an idea by pointing out one of its advocates' flaws; yet you never actually address the merits of the idea that you claim to be 'impeaching.'

Had you ever studied moral philosophy, you would understand how completely irrelevant that approach is.

However, you are relatively unsophisticated, like most Americans. You cannot distinguish the failings of an idea from the failings of its proponent. You ignore the logical fallacy of equating a speaker's failings with those of his ideas.

Because of this widespread fallacy, political debate in this country is sadly impoverished -- instead of talking about the merits of politicians' policies, we talk about whether they're faithful to their spouses, etc.

Thus, if someone like you wishes to reject an idea, instead of addressing the idea, you look for a way to slam its proponent. Instead of addressing whether his ideas on civil rights were sound, someone like you, who practices the fallacy that "the merits of the idea can be judged by the speaker," would point to Martin Luther King Jr's womanizing. Instead of addressing whether it is ethical to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on nonhuman animals that are powerless to resist, you point to some of Singer's more shocking and bizarre statements.

gotbeer, the fallacy you are currently practicing is called "the argument ad hominem." But then, if you had had a decent education, you would know that.

I love how when someone knows they've been proven wrong, they have to resort to insults and demeaning the opponents intelligence. "Oh you can't POSSIBLY be correct, you're too stupid."

Lisa N, I'm not really in a position to address your arguments.

For one thing, unlike gotbeer, I admit when I've reached the limits of my knowledge. I honestly have never encountered an argument quite like yours and am not in a position to debate it. I do not profess to be an expert about arable land and population and cannot enter a debate on those topics.

Second, I really like and admire you. You have helped me in very real ways. I don't know if I could have stuck with this WOE without your highly informed posts. Unlike gotbeer, your posts seem highly informed, thoughtful, and helpful. I love reading your posts and -- for my own self-preservation -- I don't want to get into a conflict with you.

Third, my vegetarianism is based on a desire not to inflict suffering and pain on animals.

I would not eat a hamburger for the same reason that I would not kick my dog.

It's that simple for me.

Your opposition to vegetarianism seems to be based on some sort of global environmental argument. If you can come up with a way to make eating meat ethical for you -- if you are sure that the animals you eat lived happily and died painlessly, and you are utterly convinced that their deaths are absolutely unavoidable -- then, ok. I won't quarrel with you. I don't agree, but at that point I am willing to agree to disagree.

FYI: My non-ad-hominem response to Singer's unsentimental ethics:



And so on, and so on...

There is no need to set the bar so high.

1. "lived happily" - If the animal lived unhappily, it may have died happily. Eating it post mortem would be fine - if I didn't eat it, the worms and fungus would.

2. "and died painlessly" - If it died RELATIVELY painlessly - as in a quick blow to the head - its death is easier to justify than if it suffered the lingering pain of a "natural" death from predation or infirmity. Personally, I'd rather die a quick death from the gunshot of a jealous husband at age 50 than waste away slowly and painfully for 30 years to age 80.

3. "their deaths are absolutely unavoidable". Sorry to break this to you like this, but as it happens, ALL THINGS THAT LIVE, DIE. UNAVOIDABLY. GET OVER IT! The more important question is, did their life and death have meaning? For a domesticated food animal, their pampered life and sacrifice in death contribute to the survival of their species, and to the nourishment of those who assist in the survival of their species. That is a buttload of meaning. All you offer them in death as a vegetarian is the rotting of worms and fungus. You could not disrespect them more even if you tried. How shameful of you.

I'm writing mostly to say thanks, this has been an interesting read on a subject that I've been torn about most of my adult life. Rhazz, gymeejet – you make a very strong argument towards something I have thought about a lot, the fact that as humans we have no more right to take the life of another animal than we do of another human. I love my dog, and if another culture thought terriers were a delicacy, I’d probably give my life to keep him out of their clutches. Others argue “Beef cattle are there for ONE REASON ONLY—FOOD”.. however, were we a vegan species, we would not continue to raise cattle for food. Beef cattle simply wouldn’t exist, enormous amounts of resources wouldn’t be put towards raising them and they wouldn’t be bred to suffer. One certainly couldn’t justify deliberate reproduction of humans to specifically be used in scientific experiments, so that argument doesn’t work for me.

That being said, I will admit, I eat meat. Often times without regard to what it really is or where it really came from - I was raised on it, and enjoy it’s taste and textures. Sometimes though, my conscience creeps up, and I ask myself, what right do you have? I’ve battled with that question a lot. As humans, we are (arguably, ha) the most advanced species on the planet. But does that give us the right to kill other, less advanced critters? Most of the time, when I really think about it, my internal dialog ends in something very close to “Yeah, ok, sure, lots of animals are suffering and dying for the sake of meat eaters. And yeah, as a general principle, it seems pretty obvious that it is better to avoid unnecessary suffering and death. However, I'm just not ready to stop eating meat -- it's too big a sacrifice for me right now”. Okay, maybe not quite that definitive, but close.

However, Lisa N, and some others here, make some seemingly very strong arguments regarding what our earth really can support. Of course it could just be the meat-eater in me grasping to justify, but there appears to be some pretty convincing material here that has definite potential merit. I’ve heard some other arguments in the same vain that have a lot of pull as well.

So while I can’t say this discussion has convinced me one way or the other, I’ve enjoyed most peoples arguments, comments and ideas. I must make exception, however, to a lot of what gotbeer has to say. While early on there were some concrete ideas, when he/she started touting the articles on this Pete Singer guy, I was a little peeved. The guy had some legit ideas, but was mostly a monster, in my opinion (which I’m entitled to and at the same time obligated not to force on anyone). But the connection is very weak – just because this ONE person who is a vegetarian ‘spokesman’ (for lack of a better word) has these extremist views on the disabled child/adult/human – in NO WAY means that the principles behind ethical vegetarianism are linked to the warped (again in my opinion) views of this ONE man. Yes, Rhazz noted a book written by this man as an inspiration to her becoming a vegetarian. That does not mean that she walks the streets professing his every belief (in fact as it sounds, she doesn’t share these beliefs at all). Einstein produced the theory of relativity… if it came out that he believed, I don’t know, in Smurfs, would that make the theory of relativity any less sound? It might mean he was a little crazy, but should it cause us to doubt the laws of physics? If something is right, not every person who sees its right-ness is right in everything they believe. And the sarcasm, and the way you poke fun at TYPOS of all things? Just plain obnoxious (again, in my ever so humble and belonging-only-to-myself-opinion).

rhaazz...

I also am not looking to get into a conflict with you on this issue and I do respect your wish to not inflict unnecessary pain and suffering on animals in general as well as your personal choice to abstain from eating animals based on those values. My arguments are soley for the purpose of showing where it would ultimately lead if everyone were to adopt a stance that it's unnecessary to kill animals for food; that it's likely to cause unimaginable suffering in your fellow humans and, like many other humans, I have something of a bias towards the preservation of my own species. That, however, does not preclude my having any thought or concern for the welbeing of those other species that share this planet with me.
In fact, I share your belief that it's morally wrong to unncessarily inflict pain and suffering on others and I agree that some of the things that are done to animals are downright horrific. I could relate some stories of things that I've seen in my own experience that would turn your stomach. I just don't happen to agree that raising animals in humane conditions and then killing them for food fits the definition of "unnecessary". As for being unavoidable, the only way to ensure that a living creature will not die is to prevent it from being conceived and born in the first place as all living creatures eventually die. Since aninimals have no concept of time or age, whether that animal dies in the prime of its life to become food for another species or in old age to become food for maggots, bacteria and carion eaters doesn't make much difference to the animal.
I think agreeing to disagree is a good place to leave this.

gotbeer,

1. There is another logical fallacy in your most recent post:

"Suffering/death is unavoidable therefore I am excused from acting morally."

Again, Intro to Moral Philosophy would have cleared this up for you.

So, you say, "all death is unavoidable." Yes, it is. But this statement does not justify any person in imposing unnecessary pain and death on any sentient being.

For example, if I were to shoot you and kill you,

and then I were to say, "well, he would have died eventually anyway -- and I probably even relieved him of years of pain from, say, cancer,"

I would not have succeeded in offering a persuasive justification for killing you.

Similarly, a person is not justified in killing animals in order to eat their flesh if he were to say, "well, it would have died, anyway -- and in the wild far more painfully than it did in the slaughterhouse."

2. As for removing sentiment from ethics -- it is helpful to do this because it allows one to think unhampered by cultural biases.

When you remove senitment, you see that there is no principled reason why it is acceptable to impose suffering and death on a pig but not on a golden retriever.

Wow, suzemom, I agreed with everything you said -- and thought you did an excellent job of remaining rational and keeping your cool in the midst of a pretty passionate debate.

Me Alien. Lisa Human. Human know nothing of galactic powers. Humans mighty tasty - okay to eat.

by the way, none of us have any idea whether animals have concepts of time. but i would bet on it. i recall when elephants became smart, when we found out that they did indeed have a language - most of their conversations take place below our hearing range. in reality, it was we who became smart.

do unto others ...