Let Them Eat Meat??? How the Ethical Argument Fails
Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2015 1:47 pm
letthemeatmeat.com/post/1141998663/how-the-ethical-argument-for-veganism-fails-and
Hello everyone, I must admit that I have a hard time with Rhys Southan's arguments against veganism, especially this one.^
The basic premise is that veganism is an arbitrary line in the moral sand, and if taken to its logical conclusion, we must either watch for every ant we step on or commit suicide (In order to prevent as much suffering as possible). For example, whats the difference between meat and movie theaters? Both are founded upon either killing, harming, or displacing animals only so that we humans can take pleasure in an unnecessary entertainment. The same could be said for roads, mining, and many aspects of modern life. It is almost like how vegans tell vegetarians they anrn't doing enough while vegans still kill animals to some extent while it could be avoided.
Another point in the article is how vegans try to justify the arbitrary line by flipping back and forth between rights and suffering reduction. I want to see what everyone here thinks of these arguments and if there is an ethical obligation to (practice and promote) veganism or tentative veganism.
If we conclude that veganism is an arbitrary line, then would that mean we should except hunting and other forms of "humane" meat etc?
One way I could think of salvaging veganism from this would be to create a "sentience hierarchy" where we don't equate fly suffering with cow suffering. I believe that most of us probably feel this way to begin with but wouldn't human suffering be worse than cow suffering? Thanks for your thoughts and insights.
Hello everyone, I must admit that I have a hard time with Rhys Southan's arguments against veganism, especially this one.^
The basic premise is that veganism is an arbitrary line in the moral sand, and if taken to its logical conclusion, we must either watch for every ant we step on or commit suicide (In order to prevent as much suffering as possible). For example, whats the difference between meat and movie theaters? Both are founded upon either killing, harming, or displacing animals only so that we humans can take pleasure in an unnecessary entertainment. The same could be said for roads, mining, and many aspects of modern life. It is almost like how vegans tell vegetarians they anrn't doing enough while vegans still kill animals to some extent while it could be avoided.
Another point in the article is how vegans try to justify the arbitrary line by flipping back and forth between rights and suffering reduction. I want to see what everyone here thinks of these arguments and if there is an ethical obligation to (practice and promote) veganism or tentative veganism.
If we conclude that veganism is an arbitrary line, then would that mean we should except hunting and other forms of "humane" meat etc?
One way I could think of salvaging veganism from this would be to create a "sentience hierarchy" where we don't equate fly suffering with cow suffering. I believe that most of us probably feel this way to begin with but wouldn't human suffering be worse than cow suffering? Thanks for your thoughts and insights.