Veganism

Status
Not open for further replies.
It needs to be framed from within a formal philosophical context and nobody with appropriate qualifications in that area would publish such a concept because it is clearly absurd.
This is just flat out incorrect.

Some of the leading proponents of veganism and animal rights in general are academic philosophers. Prof. Peter Singer has some claim to have been a 'founder' of the modern movement, but there are numerous others (such as the late Tom Regan).
 
When I was a boy, poultry and rabbits were hung in the butcher's window, resplendent in feathers and fur.

Inside, as we queued to be served, our backs rubbed against the hanging, skinned carcasses of cows and sheep.

We weren't in any doubt where meat came from then, unlike in these modern, pre-packaged days.

However, this was in post war 1950s Britain and the term 'vegan' had only recently been coined in 1944.

Eating in the UK in the 1950s: what it was really like | How To Write Better
 
Are there any situations in which you'd consider a bear to have done something unethical?

The second sentence seems like a non-sequitur - aren't both true? It would still reduce greenhouse emissions to stop farming cows - we wouldn't suddenly find millions of bison roaming the plains (even if there is no greenhouse gas difference between a bison on the plains and a feedlot cow).


If you removed domestic grazing animals they would be replaced by both native and feral grazing ones -bison or otherwise .Indeed that is exactly what has happened in destocked stations in Australia.The cattle have been replaced with water buffalo,donkeys,goats ,horses and camels.
There is an estimated 50 million kangaroos in Australia.
 
Last edited:
Prof Peter Singer and his Utilitarianism approach has been thoroughly debunked .He is the anti -vaxxer of philosophy.


Regardless supporting veganism and vegetarianism is really waste of effort because 84% of people who try it return to eating meat .A more sensible approach would be encouraging the consumption of free range and environmentally friendly animal products.


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...urn-meat-why&usg=AOvVaw3SEUx8K4mEnZR4Ic2FybDF
 
When I was a boy, poultry and rabbits were hung in the butcher's window, resplendent in feathers and fur.

Inside, as we queued to be served, our backs rubbed against the hanging, skinned carcasses of cows and sheep.

We weren't in any doubt where meat came from then, unlike in these modern, pre-packaged days.

However, this was in post war 1950s Britain and the term 'vegan' had only recently been coined in 1944.

Eating in the UK in the 1950s: what it was really like | How To Write Better

I think the ambiguity is a major factor in the movement. Is extra creepy not knowing whether your food you are about to eat has been essentially tortured it’s entire life or not, as would appear to be the situation with an abundance of modern farming practice.
I suppose if it’s been mistreated the entire existence then it wouldn’t have known the difference, but still...

I have a close relative that is a vegan, and recently had a party catered with an opulent spread of vegan food. I was amazed that hardly anyone ate much of it, was good, but I ate before, not sure about the others.
 
Prof Peter Singer and his Utilitarianism approach has been thoroughly debunked.
It really hasn't.

Utilitarianism isn't Peter Singer's "approach". It began (arguably, like everything else in Philosophy...) with Bentham in the 18th Century, and in the academic Philosophy world is still very much alive. Unlike Bentham, who sits, stuffed, in one of the schools where I studied his work.

Are there moral philosophers who disagree vehemently with Singer and with Utilitarianism in general? Sure. But that doesn't equate to "thoroughly debunked".
 
Scott, re Monbiot - I'm an admirer of his work and very glad he's still doing well after going a few rounds with prostate cancer. But he's an environmentalist first and foremost. His concerns in the article about eating meat you linked (just as in his earlier position linked within it) are primarily efficiency, social justice and environmental impact. The lives of farmed animals themselves scarcely get a look-in.

The HHGTTG question - can we do harm just by failing to bring a sentient being into existence? - is a good one. My intuitive sense is 'no', in that, for an act to do 'harm', it has to do harm to someone. But that can be hard to defend too (it's a vexed problem in contemporary Philosophy - you could start at the Wikipedia entry for 'Person-affecting view' and follow the rabbit warren, if you don't currently have a headache but would like one)...
 
Processed in what way? Even cooking something can be construed as processing.



Plants have their own defences. Some of those defences make them quite unpalatable.
Look up Oxalate for an example.



There are plenty of primates that are pure herbivores, Gorillas for example. My point is that humans are poor omnivores.

Indeed cooking is processing. I do the processing in my home using raw ingredients.

I've come across a guy who had to have a part of his intestine removed. T facilitate healing he was connected to a bypass pump for two weeks where they pumped the contents out of his body and past the point of removal.
That pump clogged up every now and then from larger pieces of food.
It was always vegetables that clogged it, never meat.

There are no primates which are pure herbivores, not even gorillas.
Gorillas, Oran Utans and even proboscis monkeys very happily eat eggs, baby birds or insects whenever they come across them.
Together with all the other primates humans make very, very poor herbivores as there are none in their evolutionary branch. Animal protein and fruit is what we are good at when it comes to digesting raw foods.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
I've heard those arguments ad nauseam. And the arguments from the other side.
They don't matter. You can live a perfectly healthy life eating animal protein, or not eating it - I'm proof of both. :) Neither diet is disastrous or fatal.

What you choose to eat should be important to you.
 
I've been vegan/whole food plant based for nearly two years. The deciding factors were for my physical health, environmental impact on the planet, and also the well-being of animals.

Over 56 billion farmed animals are killed every year by humans. These shocking figures do not even include fish and other sea creatures whose deaths are so great they are only measured in tonnes. Think of all the resources it takes to raise these animals for consumption. Not to mention all the deforestation to make room for crops to feed the animals.

The consumption of animal products is responsible for around 90% of all human diseases.

Animal food production is the world’s leading cause of climate change.

Factory fishing ships are exploiting the world’s oceans so aggressively that scientists fear the extinction of all commercially fished species within several decades.

Osteoporosis is more prevalent in countries where they consume more dairy - but we are all told to have dairy to prevent it!

It's in mankind's best interest to stop eating/using animal products and preserve life on this planet as we know it. Ultimately - nothing really matters, but mankind could be facing dire consequences as a result of our insatiable appetite for animal flesh.
 
It's in mankind's best interest to stop eating/using animal products and preserve life on this planet as we know it. Ultimately - nothing really matters, but mankind could be facing dire consequences as a result of our insatiable appetite for animal flesh.
I agree to a degree. I don't think stopping entirely would be the best thing to do for mankind or for the rest of the planet and the life on it. There appears to be many benefits to a radical reduction in the use of animal products but also compelling evidence that not using any would be counter productive. As alluded to earlier the biggest problem for life on the planet as a whole are the sheer numbers of people and the addiction to growth. For growth, one could also read productivity which can force down the price and hence undermine the welfare of all life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.