ON THE MORALITY OF DIET

[maximo hudson]

ON THE MORALITY OF DIET

Some musings on this topic from a rural omnivore Buddhist of a Himalayan tradition.

I will begin by saying that in general there is no natural farmland in nature. Every farm has been created by destroying a natural ecosystem and nearly every life form residing therein. Not only has this ecosystem been destroy, but in order to maintain a farm this process of selective life-form elimination must be maintained continuously (otherwise the "unwanted" plants and animals return and interfere with the production of crops). QUAM - Personally I do not believe that the life forms destroyed to create and maintain a farm are (in general) any less valuable than say a fish that has been caught in a pond to be consumed. This is a view I have come to since moving from an urban to a rural environment. Now that I live in the country I can see that growing crops does indeed involving the killing of countless sentient beings.

CREATING THE FARM: First there is the destruction of the aforementioned ecosystem and it's maintenance, then there is the cultivation of the ground (worms, rodents, birds and even baby deer can be killed in this process). The planting of crops also inadvertently BUT INEVITABLY destroys other life forms. Maintenance of crops (even just watering and inspecting the crops) inadvertently BUT INEVITABLY destroys life forms. The reason is, because out in the country you just about can't do anything without destroying some sort of life, be it walking you your car, painting a fence or grabbing a can of nails from the shed. Which is to say that nature is chocked full of life, it's everywhere and when we drastically alter the environment to create a farm we are killing innumerable sentient beings. To maintain a farm is to be involved in the destruction of innumerable life forms. To harvest a crop involves the inadvertent BUT INEVITABLE destruction of lifeforms. To transport the food to market (think bugs on the windshield and roadkill) involves the destruction of countless lifeforms.

The markets where this food is purchased, use various lethal methods to keep insects and rodents from entering the store and interfering with customers and the produce. So, from a certain perspective we can see that a meal prepared with vegetables has a demonstrable history (a karma) of death and destruction associated with its creation. This, from a Buddhist perspective, is a tragic aspect of our worldly existence: that there is NOT a kill-free diet and that we MUST kill other lifeforms to survive. It is my belief that we cannot consume our way out of this sad truth, despite our best intentions. An omnivore going to the grocery store and purchasing some organic free-range chicken has basically paid for a farmer to raise and kill that chicken. In the same way, a vegetarian or a vegan who goes to a grocery store has basically paid the farmer to destroy an ecosystem - killing the "unwanted" plants and animals therein and subsequently any that attempt to to return.

That said, and knowing that plants themselves can be observed to display awareness (think of flowers tracking the sun), from a strictly moral perspective, I personally can see no advantage to a vegan or vegetarian diet. Innumerable beings are killed no matter what we eat. Does this mean I think we should eat endangered species or cats? No, the first does not make logical sense and the second is not within my SUBJECTIVE (conditioned) comfort level. In fact ALL diets are an expression of comfort level. For example some vegans will argue that yes they kill life forms to live, but their diets are morally superior because they are less destructive to the planet. HOWEVER, vegans (often unknowingly) have their own personal comfort levels in regard to the consumption of food. For example, we can all agree that the cultivation of tea and sugar and coffee all have negative effects on life forms (for the reasons outlined above) and yet vegans will consume these items instead of just drinking water. "All the tea in China," is an expression we know well, I say, consider, "All the tea cultivated in China." So, some folks have a comfort level of consumption that involves the eating of fish and the drinking of milk, but not cats or whiskey respectively, while others can drink cultivated tea and crops planted (who knows where) that have destroyed (who knows what), but abstain from the eating of fish and the drinking of milk.

So, I do acknowledge the ASPIRATION of vegans to consume a diet determined by moral consideration and personally I find such an aspiration to be of the highest order. However, what I OBSERVE, is a subjective comfort-zone diet (tea, juice and coffee instead of water) that is steeped in death. Furthermore, using as much logic as I can muster, I can see very little substantive difference in terms of morality and and the saving of life between the diets of vegans and those of thoughtful diet-conscious omnivores. This does NOT mean I endorse factory farming of any kind.

My conclusion (from a Himalayan Buddhist perspective)? Life forms are life forms and the consumption of ANY life form that sustains us is (at some level) a tragic aspect of our worldly (samsaric) existence. Also, in general, when it comes to the moral filtering of what we eat, I view such considerations as subjective and/or aspirational in nature and NOT ULTIMATELY nor INNATELY possessed of moral superiority. Don't eat cat's, don't eat endangered species, buy organic and don't eat too much meat. Other than that, if you eat you kill and if you want to save the planet, don't have kids. That will work a whole lot better than avoiding butter or honey or whipped cream!

A FINAL NOTE: As an aspirational PRACTICE intended to promote an AWARENESS of the suffering of ALL sentient beings, abstaining from meat, etc. can be helpful. However, since such a practice does not constitute an actually reduction in the overall suffering of beings, its morality lies not in the act of abstinence itself, but rather in the aspirational regard for ALL life such a practice engenders. ) - Pax

A FINAL FINAL NOTE: For those of you interested in such things and cited here merely as a point of interest (and not to prove a point), the Buddha himself was not a vegan. In fact, it is known he didn't even require his followers to be strict vegetarians. There is a great deal written about this online. - Again, Pax

[Jaywalker]

Holy fuck, that's a lot of misconceptions. New thread maybe?

(It'll become harder for others to read through this one in the future)

[brimstoneSalad]

I will begin by saying that in general there is no natural farmland in nature.

I want to make clear that this isn't really an argument.
Humans are part of nature, everything we do is natural, not supernatural.
Or what arbitrary metric are you using to define "natural"? Is a beaver's dam natural? Is a bee hive natural? A termite mound? Rabbit burrows? Plants can basically tear down mountains, is that natural?

Life changes the nature of that around it, and the indefinite meaning of the word "natural", usually just used as rhetoric against things the speaker doesn't like, is just another reason to reject such suggestions as an appeal to nature fallacy.



The issue is harm, and it's important to stick to that.

Every farm has been created by destroying a natural ecosystem and nearly every life form residing therein.

That may or may not be unfortunate, depending on how you see "natural ecosystems", but what's done is done. The issue then would be in creating MORE farms, which is something we only need to do if people eat animal products (since they waste land and food to produce). If we go vegan, we should be able to easily feed the world for billions of people to come without creating any more farms.

This is a one time major cost, unlike animal agriculture which commits a continuous mass killing of animals.

Not only has this ecosystem been destroy, but in order to maintain a farm this process of selective life-form elimination must be maintained continuously (otherwise the "unwanted" plants and animals return and interfere with the production of crops).

This is a lower level of killing, and has actually been investigated a number of times.

Aside from Australia which suffers from mouse plagues (which is a unique situation), the vast majority of meaningfully sentient animals are killed in harvesting.
See this page for details: http://www.animalvisuals.org/projects/data/1mc/



Far more animals are killed for animal product production, directly in slaughter and as a result of their diets because they have to eat far more plants than humans would need to directly (this is thermodynamics).

Personally I do not believe that the life forms destroyed to create and maintain a farm are (in general) any less valuable than say a fish that has been caught in a pond to be consumed. This is a view I have come to since moving from an urban to a rural environment. Now that I live in the country I can see that growing crops does indeed involving the killing of countless sentient beings.

They are not countless, they're actually relatively easy to estimate, and there is a number that can be put to them.

Is the life of a fish more valuable than a field mouse? Probably not. However, when you compare deaths to the number of calories humans get from it, we see that plant agriculture with a vegan diet does far less harm than plant agriculture being fed to animals who are killed to feed people meat.

The markets where this food is purchased, use various lethal methods to keep insects and rodents from entering the store and interfering with customers and the produce.

This applies to all food, including that in our homes, but the primary method of protecting food is containment. We physically block out pests and we package our food to protect it.

This too is more of an issue with animal agriculture, because the areas where the animals feed, and where the animal feed is stored (which uses less careful practices since farmers don't care as much about contamination with feces and dead rodents and insects in animal feed), are by nature more open and major targets for pests like mice.

So, from a certain perspective we can see that a meal prepared with vegetables has a demonstrable history (a karma) of death and destruction associated with its creation.

Everything involves harm, but vegan food production results in much less harm than animal products. The choice to cause more harm instead of less harm is a wrong one.

This, from a Buddhist perspective, is a tragic aspect of our worldly existence: that there is NOT a kill-free diet and that we MUST kill other lifeforms to survive.

That we "must" kill some is irrelevant: we can choose to kill less.
Choosing to cause almost twenty times as much death and suffering because you want to eat chicken for your enjoyment instead of grains is not an ethical choice.
We will also inevitably harm other human beings in our lives, but that doesn't justify raping and murdering more people just for the lolz.

That said, and knowing that plants themselves can be observed to display awareness (think of flowers tracking the sun), from a strictly moral perspective, I personally can see no advantage to a vegan or vegetarian diet.

Plants are not sentient, that's pseudoscience, they are finely tuned machines designed by evolution to respond reflexively to the environment: this is not the same as intelligence. Do you think a wrist watch is aware because it can beep at the same time every day if you set an alarm? Has it learned? Of course not (or if you do, you're insane).

Furthermore, even if they were sentient (which they are not), eating animals kills far more plants than eating plants directly.

No matter how you look at it, the average vegan diet has a great moral advantage over one containing any significant number of animal products.

Innumerable beings are killed no matter what we eat.

Bullshit. They are numbered in both cases, can be estimated, and eating plants clearly kills over an order of magnitude fewer living things, both sentient and non-sentient.

In fact ALL diets are an expression of comfort level. For example some vegans will argue that yes they kill life forms to live, but their diets are morally superior because they are less destructive to the planet. HOWEVER, vegans (often unknowingly) have their own personal comfort levels in regard to the consumption of food.

Vegans are not perfect either. We all have room for improvement. Palm oil is a better example.
However, just because one person is not perfect -- perhaps he made a misstep and stomped on somebody's foot by mistake -- does not make him morally equivalent to a mass murderer who kills others deliberately and in huge numbers.

You are failing to realize a matter of degree. A small harm is not equivalent to a large harm, and a small harm that is very hard to avoid is certainly not equivalent to a large harm that is very easy to avoid.

Our behavior may be partially influenced by comfort level, but it's also influenced by sense of moral responsibility.

So, some folks have a comfort level of consumption that involves the eating of fish and the drinking of milk, but not cats or whiskey respectively, while others can drink cultivated tea and crops planted (who knows where) that have destroyed (who knows what), but abstain from the eating of fish and the drinking of milk.

And some folks have a comfort level of murdering women and eating their breasts and buttocks for enjoyment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issei_Sagawa
Is everybody morally equal? No.

Some of these people are worse than others. If you are comfortable with causing harm to others and have no desire to reduce that harm, that makes you a worse person.

Furthermore, using as much logic as I can muster, I can see very little substantive difference in terms of morality and and the saving of life between the diets of vegans and those of thoughtful diet-conscious omnivores.

Unfortunately you were not able to muster very much logic at all, because your entire tirade here was filled with fallacies.
If you had been able to use a little logic, you'd understand that more suffering is worse than less, and that it was a empirical question to measure that suffering. And if you'd bothered to ask that empirical question, you would have discovered that veganism is indeed a practice which reduces suffering. Instead, you just make blind assertions that everything causes immeasurable suffering: an assertion that is obviously and irresponsibly false.

This does NOT mean I endorse factory farming of any kind.

Why don't you? It's far better for the environment than "organic chicken". Factory farms are at least more efficient (not as efficient as plants, but much more so than organic meat bullshit).

And why don't you endorse cannibalism while you're at it? Or eating children specifically? If it's all about comfort zones, then that's just a different comfort zone. You should be fine with it, and respect cannibals as your moral equal too.

Also, in general, when it comes to the moral filtering of what we eat, I view such considerations as subjective and/or aspirational in nature and NOT ULTIMATELY nor INNATELY possessed of moral superiority.

Then you're just ignorant of the reality of agriculture and differences in efficiency.

Don't eat cat's, don't eat endangered species, buy organic and don't eat too much meat.

Why do you arbitrarily care about cats? Why do you care about endangered species (there's nothing illogical about eating them). It's just your comfort zone, and you're forcing it on others. Stop being so self absorbed.

Organic is worse than conventional because it's less efficient: it kills more animals, and does more destruction to the environment..

Other than that, if you eat you kill

This is a terrible morally repugnant statement.
How about: "If you eat anything you kill, so you might as well rape and murder everybody! You're the same as hitler if you eat a piece of fruit! So you might as well commit genocide if you want: it's all about your personal comfort zone. The difference between eating an apple and committing genocide is totally subjective!"
Does that sound at all dubious to you?

That will work a whole lot better than avoiding butter or honey or whipped cream!

I don't have a big problem with vegetarians. Being vegetarian reduces harm by about 90% of veganism. It's important to go vegan, but going vegetarian does less harm than eating meat, it's also a great middle step.

A FINAL NOTE: As an aspirational PRACTICE intended to promote an AWARENESS of the suffering of ALL sentient beings, abstaining from meat, etc. can be helpful. However, since such a practice does not constitute an actually reduction in the overall suffering of beings, its morality lies not in the act of abstinence itself, but rather in the aspirational regard for ALL life such a practice engenders. ) - Pax

It DOES result in an actual reduction in suffering. This is your ignorance, which is so reckless as to be immoral ignorance. You could have done five minutes of research before spreading these lies.

A FINAL FINAL NOTE: For those of you interested in such things and cited here merely as a point of interest (and not to prove a point), the Buddha himself was not a vegan. In fact, it is known he didn't even require his followers to be strict vegetarians. There is a great deal written about this online. - Again, Pax

Another point of ignorance on your part. Virtually NOBODY was vegan at that time: it was not a thing that was typically considered possible, because it wasn't reliably healthy to do so. People need B12, and it's very rare in plant and fungal sources. It was probably important in ancient times for people to consume some dairy to avoid B12 deficiency.
Today, we can choose to take B12 supplements made from bacteria. But in ancient days, that was not an option. We live in a different time.

You're making the same mistake as dogmatic Christians who refer to something like slavery in the Bible to justify slavery today.

[DarlBundren]

I don't have a big problem with vegetarians. Being vegetarian reduces harm by about 90% of veganism. It's important to go vegan, but going vegetarian does less harm than eating meat, it's also a great middle step

Out of curiosity, since we are talking about reducing suffering, would you consider a vegan+fish diet more or less harmful than a vegetarian one? Vegetarians separate cows from their babies, confine hens in very cramped places and in many cases eat cheese that contains rennet.

[EquALLity]

So you have two main arguments:

1) Vegans cause the same amount of harm towards animals as meat-eaters.
2) Plants are sentient.

As for number one, that just isn't accurate, as brimstone detailed above. Even if a lot of animals were killed to produce veggies, animals are fed plants their entire lives, so more farming for plants that kill animals takes place if you eat meat.

As for number two,

That said, and knowing that plants themselves can be observed to display awareness (think of flowers tracking the sun), from a strictly moral perspective, I personally can see no advantage to a vegan or vegetarian diet.

It's pretty amusing how you throw this in there as if it's obvious.

"That said, and knowing that aliens have come to Earth and have taken over the agricultural industry so that we kill 200 endangered species every apple produced, from a strictly moral perspective, I personally can see no advantage to a vegan or vegetarian diet."

There is no evidence that plants are sentient, and there is no way they'd be able to feel pain, because they lack a brain and nervous system.
But even if plants were sentient, plants are fed to animals their entire lives, so you're killing more plants by consuming animals than a vegan.

This does NOT mean I endorse factory farming of any kind.

So do you only eat vegan food when going out to eat, because the animal products are probably from factory farms? Do you only buy animal products from farms that you personally inspect? And you don't buy things like cookies with animal products, because the animal products are probably from factory farms?

If that's the case, then that's great. I'm guessing it isn't, though.

Also, why does your profile have you as a vegan atheist when you're a meat-eating Buddhist?

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't have a big problem with vegetarians. Being vegetarian reduces harm by about 90% of veganism. It's important to go vegan, but going vegetarian does less harm than eating meat, it's also a great middle step

Out of curiosity, since we are talking about reducing suffering, would you consider a vegan+fish diet more or less harmful than a vegetarian one? Vegetarians separate cows from their babies, confine hens in very cramped places and in many cases eat cheese that contains rennet.

That's a great question! And it's one I don't have an answer to, I'm afraid.

It depends on how much fish vs. how much dairy and eggs, what kind of fish, and other factors.
There's also an issue of health: fish contain essential fatty acids and are lower in saturated fat than dairy. It's more justified from a health perspective, where dairy is likely more harmful. I don't think fish are healthy on net compared to vegan sources of Omega 3, but it's way better than dairy and whole eggs.

I couldn't say if an egg and milk free pescetarian or lacto-ovo-vegetarian is better, since they're both doing much better than the typical meat eater, and it would come down to a lot of details that would take research on those particular habits to determine.

Of course, the fish+vegan could just sub fish for oysters, and then have a much more sure thing

[DarlBundren]

Thanks.

what kind of fish

Do you mean big vs small or are you referring to farmed fish vs wild fish?

Being vegetarian reduces harm by about 90% of veganism

So you think that, more or less, a veg-fish diet would be as good as that. Have you got any sources? 90% is a lot. Aren't the cows used in the dairy industry slaughtered when their production drops?

[brimstoneSalad]

Do you mean big vs small or are you referring to farmed fish vs wild fish?

That, and the type. Most farmed fish are carnivorous fish AFAIK, and they are grown by feeding them fish. Some farmed fish, like tilapia, are herbivorous.

Being vegetarian reduces harm by about 90% of veganism

So you think that, more or less, a veg-fish diet would be as good as that. Have you got any sources? 90% is a lot. Aren't the cows used in the dairy industry slaughtered when their production drops?

Somewhere around there, assuming they're only eating a couple servings a week as the AHA recommends. We'd have to look at how much fish, on average, this population tends to eat.

http://www.mercyforanimals.org/v-word

Whether measured by the number of animals impacted, the days of farmed animal suffering endured, or the severity of suffering endured, going vegetarian does nearly 90 percent as much good for farmed animals as going vegan. Further, a large percentage of individuals who go vegetarian later go or try to go vegan. And inspiring an omnivore to go vegetarian appears to be much easier than inspiring one to go vegan.

MFA has a habit of doing its homework, so I trust that estimate for lack of anything else to go on.

[Mr. Purple]

Being vegetarian reduces harm by about 90% of veganism

That makes me feel a bit worse about my vegan position. Oh well. I would have thought that the 90 -10 percent split would have been in favor of veganism. If it's true that veganism is only 10%, then I am probably going to stop arguing for people to go vegan in general. Vegetarianism is just so much easier to sell to people.

If anyone finds evidence backing this up, I would love to see it.

[PsYcHo]

That makes me feel a bit worse about my vegan position. Oh well. I would have thought that the 90 -10 percent split would have been in favor of veganism. If it's true that veganism is only 10%, then I am probably going to stop arguing for people to go vegan in general. Vegetarianism is just so much easier to sell to people.

I think its a lot easier for people to rationalize eating dairy and eggs ("nothing died, right?") than eating meat. Most people have no idea at all where there food comes from, but when someone does start to think about it, it's hard for them to put a "face" on their glass of milk. (That cow was just wandering in a massive field all happy, then Mr. Farmer puts down a bucket and 'ole Bessy walks over for her milkin') Just like those eggs were taken from the chicken coop with a dozen hens in their little coop, free to run around and peck the ground on their downtime. It seems to me that some Vegans make the assumption that everyone has done the research on the actual conditions of a dairy or egg farm, and in doing so they come off as "militant".

Suggesting Vegetarianism first seems to be a logical step. If they are willing to consider that, then they are probably of a thinking nature. Make that first step, then they may consider other aspects of their diet may be harmful as well. Even though I eat fish (if they eat their own young, I am no better/worse than they), I do not eat shrimp because I have learned of the modern day slave labor practices to farm it.

The best thing is to get people to actually start thinking about what they eat, then gently inform them of the ways it may be harmful. Suggesting to a full carnist that they should go Vegan is like telling your first date they should "go all the way" before you even kiss.