|
|
|
Champion
 
Group: Eos Staff
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:48 AM
Posts: 424,
Visits: 1,813
|
|
Flannel (3/13/2008)
Fruitarians are less morally bankrupt in that they seem to go for equal sanctity of life....
That's the second time you've referred to moral bankruptcy as some sort of continuum. It's not. One is either bankrupt, morally or otherwise, or one is not. It is a binary state.
As far as I can tell, your argument (in terms of moral capital), is that:
fruitarians > raw-food vegans > vegans > ovo-lacto-vegetarians > pesco-ovo-lacto-vegetarians > meat-eaters
While that's an argument I can have some sympathy with, it seems odd for a meat-eater to make such an argument -- basically decrying yourself as the "most morally bankrupt" there is. You're like the mass-murderer to my mugger, by your own argument.
However, I suspect you may be (wilfully) conflating moral bankruptcy with hypocrisy. Not only is this unhelpful, it's also entirely wrong. There is an element of hypocrisy involved in ovo-lacto-vegetarianism, thanks to the contribution that the dairy industry makes to the production of veal. That in no way invalidates the strong ethical stance needed to live as an ovo-lacto-vegetarian.
To eat meat is to see the state of the world and say "actually, I'm OK with that" -- or at least that part of it which is about the production of the food we eat. If anyone is morally bankrupt here* it's the meat-eaters.
I think there is mileage in ethical branding, by the way -- if an article has a Fairtrade logo, I know there's a good chance that its producers were paid a fair wage. As a trade unionist, this is something I consider to be a good thing. However, where ethical branding falls down is that it allows people to think that they are doing good, whereas in reality they are simply doing less harm. While doing less harm is surely a good thing**, it is not the same as doing more good.
*: although frankly I think moral bankruptcy is an absurd notion, and is not one I'd ever apply.
**: as this is such a broad statement, and includes no definition of harm, I'd say this is pretty uncontroversial
---
Joe Rooney, the Enemy Of Fun
Insurrection LRP: high fantasy in a dystopian setting. First event: 24-26 October 2008, in Leicestershire. Book online before October 1st for £10 discount!
Bladelands: Raoul Ortez - heretic, medium, bodyguard and scumbag
EOS: staff
Joe R's LARPCard
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:15 AM
Posts: 1,930,
Visits: 8,155
|
|
raggedhalo (3/13/2008)
I'd prefer "less-unethically produced meat," but I see no problem with this terminology. There is a broad consensus on ethics, at least within middle-class white Britain*, even if a common response is similar to Makai's.
If there was a broad consensus on ethics, then there would be no need for a political constitution with checks and balances - we could just write the 'consensus ethics' down and impose them on everyone. If you're saying that certain elements of British society can be defined by adherence to certain subsets of opinion, then I agree - but I think that's almost exactly the definition of a 'narrow consensus'. There's a broad consensus on morality within the British Christian community (if you stand back far enough). Even if it were true for those groups, I don't see that as a good reason to adopt their definition of 'ethical' for the public sphere.
raggedhalo (3/13/2008)
I sometimes find it hard to have these debates, because it forces me to recognise that a majority of people I care for, respect and even sometimes look up to regularly do something I find totally morally indefensible. Yech.
It's the principle of political/religious tolerance which Britain (and Western Europe) spent a couple of centuries bathing in blood before adopting (to whatever degree).
raggedhalo (3/13/2008)
Anyhow, I think it's counter-productive for vegans (or, indeed, followers of any particular moral code) to abuse or harass those who aren't vegan.
Hate the Sin/Love the Sinner.
raggedhalo (3/13/2008)
If people are going to eat meat, I'd rather it was organically-reared rather than done using intensive/industrial farming methods. I'd rather people only ate fish than ate meat, fish or fowl. It's all about a continuum, I guess.
raggedhalo (3/13/2008)
That's the second time you've referred to moral bankruptcy as some sort of continuum. It's not. One is either bankrupt, morally or otherwise, or one is not. It is a binary state.
?
This sounds like some confusing sort of reversed-Calvinist salvation theory (damnation is binary, but salvation is continuous?).
raggedhalo (3/13/2008)
I think there is mileage in ethical branding, by the way -- if an article has a Fairtrade logo, I know there's a good chance that its producers were paid a fair wage.
The Fairtrade logo is branding, pure and simple. It leaves it up to the individual to decide whether or not they believe Fairtrade is actually ethical in any meaningful sense (plenty of economists say no).
raggedhalo (3/13/2008)
While doing less harm is surely a good thing**, it is not the same as doing more good.
**: as this is such a broad statement, and includes no definition of harm, I'd say this is pretty uncontroversial
"It's nice to be nice" isn't controversial, but it is irritatingly lacking in substance.
Marios
|
|
|
|
|
I do talk a good fight
Group: System Moderators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 1:05 PM
Posts: 1,759,
Visits: 5,171
|
|
raggedhalo (3/13/2008)
However, I really need to correct a massive misunderstanding. Vegan food isn't bland or unhealthy -- quite the reverse! Aside from the fact that it often scares the bejaysus out of meat-eaters, which is surely quite exciting, it can be as diverse, flavourful and interesting as meaty stuff. It's all about preparation -- I wouldn't expect a meat-eater to be able to cook a tasty vegan meal, because they think about food in a totally different way. It's just like learning a different style of cooking -- because that's exactly what it is.
Soya produce, for example, has the proven effect of reducing cholesterol. Vegan food contains no trans fats. Indeed, fat content is usually lower. By paying attention to diet (which you kinda have to do anyway) you can ensure very easily that you get enough protein (whether through complete proteins like soya or quinoa or by mixing-and-matching from other foods), and any vitamins or minerals you don't get through diet you can supplement artificially.
I did point out that vegan food doesn't NEED to be bland & unhealthy -- just that it often is. I've known plenty of vegans who seem to subsist mostly on white bread jam sandwiches, bags of crisps, and rice cakes.
It's possible to make tasty, healthy vegan food. It's just tougher than doing the same with meat. And there are very few vegan recipes that can't be improved with a dash of Lea & Perrins sauce, some diced bacon, and a bit of chicken stock (lentil & tomato soup, for example, is a lot tastier with all of the above added).
As for health -- low fat is not necessarily healthy. It's very hard to get good quality omega-3 oil (essential for healthy brain function) from vegan sources. Flax seed just isn't in the same league as oily fish (something to do with the wrong number of carbons -- it'll stop you from suffering fatty acid deficiency, but it's not optimal for good health, athletic performance, or longevity). It's certainly possible to get vegan food that has trans fats in, too (vegetable margarine can have, and can be vegan). Soya & quinoa are great protein sources... in moderation. They're also very high in calories from carbohydrates. Personally I'd rather take most of my carbs in the form of fresh fruit & veg than in grains & legumes & so on. Likewise the old veggie / vegan staple of lentil dal + rice -- sure, it may have just enough protein to stop your muscles & bones wasting away, but only with the accompaniment of a load of unnecessary carbohydrate (and without enough protein to support athletic activity & good health -- for that, on a vegan diet, you pretty much need the really processed stuff like TVP).
If you can find me a vegan protein source that is tasty enough to eat cold, without much preparation, apart from Viyana's smoked tofu, I'll happily add more vegan protein to my diet. As it is, the aforementioned tofu is the only one I've found that even vaguely stands up to a nice bit of cold chicken or a some prawns, and even then I don't think I'd want to eat it every meal (I do eat it several times a week, though).
http://www.hyboriantales.com
PD: Ghostdance ("The most irritating curse I've ever encountered" -- NPC played by H.)
Riftworld: Rossar Kuug ("Clearly mad, because he thinks he's a Com-Trow Skirmisher" - Aela)
Hyborian Tales: Crew, cook, dogsbody, general labourer, toilet cleaner ("Dangerously overoptimistic ref" -- Tom Nowell)
Otherwise usually crew ("Quite spry & fit, & willing to wear a big costume & run around a lot" -- various event organisers)
"My other oversized foam weapon is THE LORD" -- Questionable Content
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 8:45 PM
Posts: 114,
Visits: 562
|
|
| I feel that vegans must be a very dedicated breed, just about everything in the local tesco is of meat products or has been tested on animals in some way and to be a pure vegan and avoid all contaminated products must be a hard (and expensive) task indeed. There was a question posed in the Big Issue a few months ago: Can it ever be ethically correct to eat meat and related products? (I dont feel Im wandering off track by looking at the question this way, the back thread indicates to me this is the bone of it. no pun intended ) In most circumstances, I feel not. Just because you like the taste of something dosnt give you the right to kill and eat it or keep it in inhumane conditions because you like its by products, right? There is a big industry out there doing just that. I know its been said on this forum that if its reared aka Hugh F.W. cottage garden style it takes away the inhumane conditions etc and this I agree with, making the free range choice more ethical as the conditions the animals are kept in maybe an issue to some people who do not eat of animal products I wonder how many people could kill their own meat, after raising the animal from birth?Not me!
Give me what I want and maybe no one gets hurt
|
|
|
|
|
Squire
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Monday, August 18, 2008 6:32 PM
Posts: 49,
Visits: 227
|
|
maslow (3/14/2008)
I feel that vegans must be a very dedicated breed, just about everything in the local tesco is of meat products or has been tested on animals in some way and to be a pure vegan and avoid all contaminated products must be a hard (and expensive) task indeed. There was a question posed in the Big Issue a few months ago: Can it ever be ethically correct to eat meat and related products? (I dont feel Im wandering off track by looking at the question this way, the back thread indicates to me this is the bone of it. no pun intended) In most circumstances, I feel not. Just because you like the taste of something dosnt give you the right to kill and eat it or keep it in inhumane conditions because you like its by products, right? There is a big industry out there doing just that. I know its been said on this forum that if its reared aka Hugh F.W. cottage garden style it takes away the inhumane conditions etc and this I agree with, making the free range choice more ethical as the conditions the animals are kept in maybe an issue to some people who do not eat of animal products I wonder how many people could kill their own meat, after raising the animal from birth?Not me! Having been raised "in the country" I tend to think that if a person cannot raise their own livestock for food, or is not willing to take part or truly understand its life cycle (feeding/raising) then they really should not be eating meat. We need to consume other living organisms to survive, that is what we do. But if you blind yourself to the fact that you are eating what used to be a living thing then you really have no right to be eating it, it is up to the individual to make themselves aware of what it is they are eating and what is required to grow/raise/harvest/slaughter that product. I also find it strange that people consider it somehow "wrong" to eat animals and yet fine to mass farm plants and fungi with farming techniques that have far more impact on the environment.. Plants,fungi and animals are all living organisms and all deserve the same considerations, to not do so is short sighted and creates an artificial benchmark for what we think of as a living creature. Perhaps its a result of the super-market culture, but we really do need to start viewing our food with more respect and understanding and stop thinking of food as a convenience. Considering our intimate relationship with food it amazes me that so little thought is given to it...Its like every meal has become the equivilent of a drunken one night stand, as opposed to the relationship it should be.
Maelstrom: Christian Summers. LT: Thanos Wyrmfoe Orcsbane Gereshen. Aberddu: Many...
|
|
|
|
|
Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, September 05, 2008 5:00 PM
Posts: 62,
Visits: 213
|
|
Bunch of hippies in this town!
___________________________________________
"We broke the law. We betrayed the code!"
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Saturday, August 30, 2008 11:17 AM
Posts: 384,
Visits: 932
|
|
See, I know that I could raise and kill my own meat (in fact its on my to-do list) but I dont think I could justify eating meat if I wasn't willing to do it - in the same way that I wouldn't be willing to keep a chicken in a box for its entire life and so I cant justify eating battery chickens/eggs. I'm of the opinion that meat eaters who wouldn't be willing to do it are no less hypocritical than vegetarians who dont worry where their eggs and cheese comes from. I dont really have a problem with meat eaters who are fine with the meat industry (though I must admit I dont understand their point of view).
------
PD - Machupa Kivull - Sandy coloured great-coated Gnoll
Shards/Ascendancy - Crew
FOIP is short for 'torture me for more info'
|
|
|
|
|
Prodigal
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Today @ 12:11 AM
Posts: 588,
Visits: 792
|
|
| | |