Philosophical Vegan Forum

Hey there!

This forum is a nice thing! Makes discussing things much easier than on YouTube! So i will use this opportunity:

I myself are an (agnostic) Atheist, but not a vegan. Although some people call me vegeterian, i eat meat (but i don't like all of kinds of meat). I don't eat meat all day, but at least once a week.
I recently came across the whole vegan thing and am since thinking about it. But i still can't get into it, because i can't follow vegan argumentation (yet). Vegans say, that being vegan is:

a) more healthy
b) more ecological
c) more ethical

For me, those are just claims, so far:

a) I never found any trustworthy source, that would support the claim, that being vegan is more healthy. Ok, there are studies, that connect meat consumption and certain diseases. But if i consume meat just once or twice a week, whats the big deal? What i miss is a general scientific conclusion, that clearly sais: yes, being vegan is more healthy, because of this and that and whatdoiknow ... !

b) I see an ecological benefit in vegan diet, but i don't see why that should be a reason to become vegan. As long as the human population not being vegan doesn't mean, that the whole planet is going to die, i don't see a problem (just because something is beneficial, doesn't mean that it is necessary).

c) That is what i really don't get: I agree, that animals should not suffer, should not be abused. But how is "using" or "killing" an animal unethical, as long as the killing and using doesn't make the animals suffer? I admit, that an animal is a more conscious being than a plant and that there is a smooth transition between consciousness and non-consciousness. But as long as i don't kill a being that has some kind of personality or self-consciousness, that killing is not considered to be wrong (a murder). And i would agree with that. But maybe i totally miss a point here. Could somenone explain, please?

Furthermore, i never was able to find trustworthy sources about all those topics. Could someone help me out with website links, scientific blogs, etc.?

I really like to understand the vegan thing and maybe become vegan myself. But only if i agree that it is the right choice. Right now i try to reduce my meat consumption, since i think there might be a valid point to the health issue. But i dont try to reduce my consumption of animal products (like milk products), since i really can't see anything that is wrong about it (and god damn i love cheese!). Although i agree, that nowadays animals involved in milk prodction (and so on) might suffer. But here i think it makes more sense to do something against the suffering, instead of stopping milk usage.

I'm looking forward to a discussion about all this, since those topics are important to me and i need to understand vegan thinking. Because right now, i can't see why being vegan should be right/the only right thing to do.

And please: Don't dare to call me stupid! TheVeganAtheist is very careless with that term and that pisses me off a lot! Valid logic conlusions can only be made on the base of "true knowledge". So if someone doesn't conclude the same, it doesn't mean he is stupid. In most cases it's just a lack of knowledge/false knowledge. When i ask questions, that sound stupid to you, the most likely reason is, that i have a lack of knowledge. And i simply ask you to give that knowledge to me.

I'm sorry if my english writing doesn't make sense at certain points. I'm german and my english is ... well ... not the best, thats for sure

Greetings, ComplexP2

I'll do my best to answer and hopefully clear up any misunderstanding you have.

a) I never found any trustworthy source, that would support the claim, that being vegan is more healthy. Ok, there are studies, that connect meat consumption and certain diseases. But if i consume meat just once or twice a week, whats the big deal? What i miss is a general scientific conclusion, that clearly sais: yes, being vegan is more healthy, because of this and that and whatdoiknow ... !

Saying that there ARE studies connecting meat consumption to certain diseases and then saying what's the big deal if you eat it but only it rarely is almost equivalent as saying "I know smoking cigarettes can destroy my lungs but what's it to my body if I smoke it once a week?". See what I mean? I know TheVeganAtheist himself talks about nutrition and gives reliable sources in numerous of his "Stupid Meat Eater Comments" I suggest you watch one of those videos even though I think you already have.

b) I see an ecological benefit in vegan diet, but i don't see why that should be a reason to become vegan. As long as the human population not being vegan doesn't mean, that the whole planet is going to die, i don't see a problem (just because something is beneficial, doesn't mean that it is necessary).

Since you already see an ecological benefit to a vegan diet I won't take the time to explain them to you. Although I will use one example to explain my reasoning thoroughly.

Global Warming is one of the most well known and publicized reasoning for going vegan, and for many other groups that are trying to save the Earth as well.

The amount of oil that is used to ship, kill, and then to ship these animals again back and forth every single day is tremendous. Livestock sectors account for 9% of CO2 deriving from human-related activities according to Downtoearth.org link to my information can be found here https://www.downtoearth.org/go-veggie/e ... 10-reasons

Addressing your statement that "because it's beneficial, doesn't mean that it is necessary" I will promptly say that unless you care for the well being of future generations then in this case I would say that it is necessary.

c) That is what i really don't get: I agree, that animals should not suffer, should not be abused. But how is "using" or "killing" an animal unethical, as long as the killing and using doesn't make the animals suffer? I admit, that an animal is a more conscious being than a plant and that there is a smooth transition between consciousness and non-consciousness. But as long as i don't kill a being that has some kind of personality or self-consciousness, that killing is not considered to be wrong (a murder). And i would agree with that. But maybe i totally miss a point here. Could somenone explain, please?

Since this is a large excerpt I'm going to address each "problem" line by line.

how is "using" or "killing" an animal unethical, as long as the killing and using doesn't make the animals suffer?

I can (almost) guarantee you that unless you buy from a farmers market (or own your own farm), that the animal flesh that you are eating suffered. These big corporations don't care about anything but money. Do you really think they would take the time to make sure that these animals were "ethically" killed and made sure that they didn't suffer? Of course not. (Kosher is just a term to make the killing of animals justifiable.)

I admit, that an animal is a more conscious being than a plant and that there is a smooth transition between consciousness and non-consciousness. But as long as i don't kill a being that has some kind of personality or self-consciousness, that killing is not considered to be wrong (a murder).

The definition of "personality" is "the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character." Animals indeed do have personalities and are self-conscious. A shorter term for describing an animal would be sentient.

Hopefully this answered your question

ComplexP2 wrote: a) I never found any trustworthy source, that would support the claim, that being vegan is more healthy. Ok, there are studies, that connect meat consumption and certain diseases. But if i consume meat just once or twice a week, whats the big deal? What i miss is a general scientific conclusion, that clearly sais: yes, being vegan is more healthy, because of this and that and whatdoiknow ... !

I don't think we can definitively say if being vegan is more healthy in all regards, however I think we can safely say that it is just as healthy as a balanced non-vegan diet. Ive seen many videos and read many books on the topic, and generally it seems that animal based foods cause our body some havoc as well as trigger genes that cause us harm, increase the risk of diseases and inflammation.
Id suggest watching Dr. Michael Gregor's videos on youtube (http://nutritionfacts.org), as well as read up on T. Colin Campbell, Joel Furhman, and other prominent vegan doctors who go into the science.

I think there is inconclusive info regarding a diet with tiny amounts of animal products with a majority of plant based foods. I think people who eat mostly vegan should attribute their good health to the plant foods, and not the marginal intake of animal foods.

The ethical, environmental and social issues would be reason for me to not even eat a tiny bit of animal products intentionally.

ComplexP2 wrote: I see an ecological benefit in vegan diet, but i don't see why that should be a reason to become vegan. As long as the human population not being vegan doesn't mean, that the whole planet is going to die, i don't see a problem (just because something is beneficial, doesn't mean that it is necessary).

Much of rainforest destruction, fresh water depletion, and water/air pollution comes from raising animals for food (or growing food to feed these animals). Its not a question of being "beneficial", but rather that eating animals is causing direct harm to our planet and our ecosystem.

ComplexP2 wrote: c) That is what i really don't get: I agree, that animals should not suffer, should not be abused. But how is "using" or "killing" an animal unethical, as long as the killing and using doesn't make the animals suffer? I admit, that an animal is a more conscious being than a plant and that there is a smooth transition between consciousness and non-consciousness. But as long as i don't kill a being that has some kind of personality or self-consciousness, that killing is not considered to be wrong (a murder). And i would agree with that. But maybe i totally miss a point here. Could somenone explain, please?

I believe that keeping animals against their will in unnatural environment, where every aspect of their life is controlled, is suffering. Would you consider human slavery to be acceptable if we took really good care of slaves? When ever i had these thoughts, i would try and imagine a similar human scenario and see if I would find it morally acceptable.

Who says that animals don't have a kind of personality or self-consciousness? They do. Ultimately the question you have to ask is:
1) do you need to eat animals to live healthy ? (i think sufficient evidence has already come out to demonstrate that we don't need to eat animals)
2) are animals sentient? ( it is clear that they are)
3) what moral justification do we have for keeping them caged in, controlled, used as machines, and end their life when we choose way before their natural death? (none).

ComplexP2 wrote: Furthermore, i never was able to find trustworthy sources about all those topics. Could someone help me out with website links, scientific blogs, etc.?

I will be updating this forum with more links and info: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9

ComplexP2 wrote: But i dont try to reduce my consumption of animal products (like milk products), since i really can't see anything that is wrong about it (and god damn i love cheese!)

Id sooner eat meat than consume dairy. Dairy animals are used longer, often sick and in pain, have their babies taken away (to be either veal or future dairy cows), and end up in the same slaughterhouse as their non-dairy counterparts. There is immense suffering in dairy.

ComplexP2 wrote: But here i think it makes more sense to do something against the suffering, instead of stopping milk usage.

There is no way to remove the suffering if the cow and its lactating fluids is your source of revenue. Remember the point of extracting these fluids is for profit, and that is the only consideration. Treatment should not be your only consideration since USE is just as much a problem (think of the human slave example).

ComplexP2 wrote: And please: Don't dare to call me stupid! TheVeganAtheist is very careless with that term and that pisses me off a lot! Valid logic conlusions can only be made on the base of "true knowledge". So if someone doesn't conclude the same, it doesn't mean he is stupid. In most cases it's just a lack of knowledge/false knowledge. When i ask questions, that sound stupid to you, the most likely reason is, that i have a lack of knowledge. And i simply ask you to give that knowledge to me.

Where have I called anyone stupid? Ive called COMMENTS stupid, but not the individuals. Everyone holds some amount of stupid thoughts, but I would not easily call someone stupid.

animals are smarter than you think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_3s4V9FLVA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZYQnt-67vs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhB948jvKVM

and they don't deserve this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce4DJh-L7Ys

Hi there and thanks for your replies!
I haven't forgotten you, but i'm sick for a few days now and nevertheless have a lot of work to do. So i will reply in a few days, hopefully, since i have to think about your comments first. Please be patient

Cheers

Re

At first: Thanks a lot for your (very productive and friendly) anwers! I try to reply to both of you at once:

dan1073 wrote: Saying that there ARE studies connecting meat consumption to certain diseases and then saying what's the big deal if you eat it but only it rarely is almost equivalent as saying "I know smoking cigarettes can destroy my lungs but what's it to my body if I smoke it once a week?". See what I mean? I know TheVeganAtheist himself talks about nutrition and gives reliable sources in numerous of his "Stupid Meat Eater Comments" I suggest you watch one of those videos even though I think you already have.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: I don't think we can definitively say if being vegan is more healthy in all regards, however I think we can safely say that it is just as healthy as a balanced non-vegan diet. Ive seen many videos and read many books on the topic, and generally it seems that animal based foods cause our body some havoc as well as trigger genes that cause us harm, increase the risk of diseases and inflammation.
Id suggest watching Dr. Michael Gregor's videos on youtube (http://nutritionfacts.org), as well as read up on T. Colin Campbell, Joel Furhman, and other prominent vegan doctors who go into the science.

I think there is inconclusive info regarding a diet with tiny amounts of animal products with a majority of plant based foods. I think people who eat mostly vegan should attribute their good health to the plant foods, and not the marginal intake of animal foods.

The ethical, environmental and social issues would be reason for me to not even eat a tiny bit of animal products intentionally.

First of all: On average i DO smoke (a pipe) about once a week
I think the point here simply is, that even if (and i begin to think, that it is) vegan food is more healthy than non-vegan food, in the end its a personal choice. So i dont think here is anything to debate, but i still am interested in further information about this topic (thanks for the links so far!).
I also watched some of the Meat Eater Comments videos, but i have to admit, that most of the time i didnt really pay attention (im sorry, thats just me and how i function ... )

dan1073 wrote: Global Warming is one of the most well known and publicized reasoning for going vegan, and for many other groups that are trying to save the Earth as well.

The amount of oil that is used to ship, kill, and then to ship these animals again back and forth every single day is tremendous. Livestock sectors account for 9% of CO2 deriving from human-related activities according to Downtoearth.org link to my information can be found here https://www.downtoearth.org/go-veggie/e ... 10-reasons

Addressing your statement that "because it's beneficial, doesn't mean that it is necessary" I will promptly say that unless you care for the well being of future generations then in this case I would say that it is necessary.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: Much of rainforest destruction, fresh water depletion, and water/air pollution comes from raising animals for food (or growing food to feed these animals). Its not a question of being "beneficial", but rather that eating animals is causing direct harm to our planet and our ecosystem.

I think I see your point here. And I also dont see a way to overcome those downsides of meat production, aside from getting rid of it. That is clearly something to think about.

I was just wondering why it shouldnt be enough to reduce meat consumption. And i tend to agree, that reducing meat consumption (a lot) would make things better. But to take it down to a level where it does no (relevant) harm, meat would be horribly expensive. Though I wouldnt have a problem with that, it might not be possible to realize that goal without political pressure. And on the other hand, people would not agree to high meat prices, there is just too much demand (because meat really is delicious ...).
So an alternative and more promising way would be to convert people to vegeterianismn (does this word even exist?). And since dairy leaves us with the same problem (as TVA said below), people should convert to veganism? Is that right so far?

I think i need more information about this. In particular, how beneficial a vegan society would really be. So thanks for the links so far, i'll definitively have a look at them.
BUT: In general, I dont consider information of "Pro" sites (in this case: pro vegan sites) as trustworthy. I would suggest to refer to neutral sites when ever it is possible.

dan1073 wrote:

how is "using" or "killing" an animal unethical, as long as the killing and using doesn't make the animals suffer?

I can (almost) guarantee you that unless you buy from a farmers market (or own your own farm), that the animal flesh that you are eating suffered. These big corporations don't care about anything but money. Do you really think they would take the time to make sure that these animals were "ethically" killed and made sure that they didn't suffer? Of course not. (Kosher is just a term to make the killing of animals justifiable.)

Yes, they do suffer. But is going vegan an effective way to stop this kind of suffering? I think going vegan, unless not everyone does, doesnt help much.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: I believe that keeping animals against their will in unnatural environment, where every aspect of their life is controlled, is suffering. Would you consider human slavery to be acceptable if we took really good care of slaves? When ever i had these thoughts, i would try and imagine a similar human scenario and see if I would find it morally acceptable.

Well, I think we need to go a step further into the topic "what is suffering?": Is suffering the ability to feel pain? What does pain mean? What about insects breaking apart on my windshield and bacteria bursting by cleaning powder? Do/Can they suffer, too?
I bring this up, because I doubt that the "slavery scenario" can be applied to (most of) the animals. Maybe that is worth opening a new forum topic?

dan1073 wrote: The definition of "personality" is "the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character." Animals indeed do have personalities and are self-conscious. A shorter term for describing an animal would be sentient.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: Who says that animals don't have a kind of personality or self-consciousness? They do. Ultimately the question you have to ask is:
1) do you need to eat animals to live healthy ? (i think sufficient evidence has already come out to demonstrate that we don't need to eat animals)
2) are animals sentient? ( it is clear that they are)
3) what moral justification do we have for keeping them caged in, controlled, used as machines, and end their life when we choose way before their natural death? (none).

Well, this is where i tend to disagree. Animals are sentient, thats for sure (because Evolution). But are they really self-conscious? For some of them, that seems to be proven true (Apes, Dolphins, Octopusses(?)). But as I said, there is a smooth transition between (self-)consciousness and non-(self-)consciousness. So it definitely is very hard to tell, if a cow has a personality or not. And as far as I know, science would say, that it doesnt.
So the question is: Is killing a non-self-conscious being a murder? (and what the hell is a murder?) If not, why should one even care if such a being suffers? (please consider this as a philosophical question, rather than my opinion!). Again, we might have to go deeper into the "suffering" topic.

TheVeganAtheist wrote:

ComplexP2 wrote: Furthermore, i never was able to find trustworthy sources about all those topics. Could someone help me out with website links, scientific blogs, etc.?

I will be updating this forum with more links and info: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9

Very nice! I will add this to my shortcuts

TheVeganAtheist wrote:

ComplexP2 wrote: But i dont try to reduce my consumption of animal products (like milk products), since i really can't see anything that is wrong about it (and god damn i love cheese!)

Id sooner eat meat than consume dairy. Dairy animals are used longer, often sick and in pain, have their babies taken away (to be either veal or future dairy cows), and end up in the same slaughterhouse as their non-dairy counterparts. There is immense suffering in dairy.

ComplexP2 wrote: But here i think it makes more sense to do something against the suffering, instead of stopping milk usage.

There is no way to remove the suffering if the cow and its lactating fluids is your source of revenue. Remember the point of extracting these fluids is for profit, and that is the only consideration. Treatment should not be your only consideration since USE is just as much a problem (think of the human slave example).

Yes, but here i think there is more potential to do something against the suffering itself: There should always be a way to stop suffering, that is caused by "profit thinking".
I mean, in general I agree to you, but its such a hard thing to go vegan in those times, since there are no(?) alternatives to milk and eggs and stuff. I'm just wondering, if there is anything you could buy at a bakery, that is vegan?
I have to do more thinking and research about that, thanks so far!

TheVeganAtheist wrote: Where have I called anyone stupid? Ive called COMMENTS stupid, but not the individuals. Everyone holds some amount of stupid thoughts, but I would not easily call someone stupid.

Well, if I would make a comment to ask a question (as much as i do here) and then someone quotes my comment calling it stupid, i would be pissed like hell. Its a good thing if you don't consider people stupid, that make (in your opinion) stupid comments, but calling the comments stupid, is not far away from an ad hominem. At least that is, what it feels like.
I only bring this up, because sometimes, in your "stupid xy comments" videos, you present comments and call them stupid, where i think: "What the hell? This guy just asked a question and needs some explanations. Why does he call that stupid?". I think you should be more sensitive in the future.

Twizelby wrote:animals are smarter than you think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_3s4V9FLVA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZYQnt-67vs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhB948jvKVM

and they don't deserve this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce4DJh-L7Ys

Thanks, i'll have a look at it!

ComplexP2 wrote:Re

dan1073 wrote: The definition of "personality" is "the combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character." Animals indeed do have personalities and are self-conscious. A shorter term for describing an animal would be sentient.

Well, this is where i tend to disagree. Animals are sentient, thats for sure (because Evolution). But are they really self-conscious? For some of them, that seems to be proven true (Apes, Dolphins, Octopusses(?)). But as I said, there is a smooth transition between (self-)consciousness and non-(self-)consciousness. So it definitely is very hard to tell, if a cow has a personality or not. And as far as I know, science would say, that it doesnt.
So the question is: Is killing a non-self-conscious being a murder? (and what the hell is a murder?) If not, why should one even care if such a being suffers? (please consider this as a philosophical question, rather than my opinion!). Again, we might have to go deeper into the "suffering" topic.

Well the definition that I found was used through Google (I simply typed in "define personality"). To say that an animal is sentient but is not self-conscious would be a contradictory statement(?). To be self-conscious is to be aware of your own existence, animals are not plants. I'm sure animals are aware of themselves as living beings but just not in the way we know we are. We may not know if all animals are self aware but we do know that an elephant is a study can be found here http://www.animalintelligence.org/2006/ ... elf-aware/

ComplexP2 wrote: Well, this is where i tend to disagree. Animals are sentient, thats for sure (because Evolution). But are they really self-conscious? For some of them, that seems to be proven true (Apes, Dolphins, Octopusses(?)). But as I said, there is a smooth transition between (self-)consciousness and non-(self-)consciousness. So it definitely is very hard to tell, if a cow has a personality or not. And as far as I know, science would say, that it doesnt.

It seems you haven't known many farm animals in your life. Like cats and dogs, they all have personalities, preferences, moods, etc.

Evolution would predict that animals generally -- and certainly vertebrates, and most certainly mammals and birds -- have consciousness comparable to our own, especially when compared with, say, bacteria or sponges. On that spectrum, cows and humans are nearly identical in their cognitive capacities.

This is where many scientists went wrong, IMO. Evolution predicts that animals closely related to each other would have very similar cognitive traits. And more distantly-related animals of equal complexity probably would, too. Yet, for 150 years, we've acted as though the opposite is true, and incorrectly placed the burden of proof on those who claim animals are conscious. It should be the other way around. The burden of proof lies with those who claim animals aren't conscious, since this claim is a tacit rejection of evolution.

Are you aware of the Francis Crick Memorial Conference On Consciousness in Humans and Non-humans, held at Cambridge in 2012? It produced the Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness (which Vegan Atheist quoted in one of his most recent videos). This Declaration, issued by leading researchers in neurophysiology and related fields, concluded:

The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical , neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently , the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness . Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds , and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates . ”

The videos on the Conference site are all worth watching, by the way.

So, if evolution predicts similar cognitive capacities in closely related clades of animals, and experts with relevant expertise have reached a consensus that agrees with this prediction, don't the facts require us to revise our conceptions of morality and ethics where non-human animals are concerned?

This is why I think the statement "meat is murder" is more rational and evidence-based than any contrary justification given by carnists.

ComplexP2 wrote:Vegans say, that being vegan is:

a) more healthy
b) more ecological
c) more ethical

I believe the OP has correctly identified the reasons people go vegan. I'm wondering how the vegans here would prioritize them. Did the three reasons carry equal weight in your decision, or did one or two predominate?

For me, it was c) first, closely followed by b), with a) a distant third.

Would this be a good poll?

(Apologies if this has already been discussed elsewhere. I'm still finding my way around here.)