Vegetarianism

One of the two most controversial topics we've ever taken on.

Why is it that atheists/ agnostics get so rabid about this? Are meat eating Humanists experiencing the kind of cognitive dissonance that religionists experience when it comes to issues of science? Or are those of us who don't eat meat (at least nothing with shoulders) wrong?

What's a skeptic to do? Go veg? Go vegan? Eat meat and feel good about it or eat meat and live with the pain of hypocrisy?

There is no hypocrisy in eating meat. Biologically, we're designed for it.

As far as the 'compassion because we're superior' argument goes, if you want to think like that, I won't knock you on it, but I don't agree with it.

I don't have any objection to meat eating per se, but I do sometimes feel a bit guilty about it on the grounds of the way many of the animals are being bred, kept and transported etc. I've yet to do something about it and go veg, though. On the other hand, I have no moral objections whatsoever to eating wild fowl, game meat etc. How do you vegitarians/vegans feel about that?

I will simply cut and paste my response from another thread

jifrock wrote:People tend to work under the assumption that holding a particular view on one aspect of life, love and politics necessarily demands that the rest of your views align with a stereotype. I take the doubtcasters' case for vegetarianism, that sparked significant discussion, as a prime example. I am an atheist but not a consequentialist - neither am I a Kantian, but that is another issue.

I agree that we are biologically designed to eat meat. I have drastically reduced the amount of meat and dairy products from my diet, not because of any moral or health concerns, but mainly because of how the industry treats the animals and because of how much the consumption of meat contributes to pollution and global warming.

I have been a vegetarian(pescatarian)for ten years now. I started off as a new agey health food dietary supplement kind of vegetarian and just kind of evolved as I became more skeptical into what I am today. The health food thing was the closest I ever came to believing things that weren't backed up with research.
I do wholeheartedly agree with Peter Singer on all of his ethical arguments. I think being a vegetarian is just as easy, nutritious and dare I say delicious as being an omnivore, and the benefits far outweigh the losses(hot wings) as far as I'm concerned. I will eat meat if it is offered by mistake or a special occasion. I will eat meat if I kill it(That doesn't come up too often.)

The only thing I can say as a sales pitch for vegetarianism is it's easier than you think and it's more fun than you think.

Naturalistic fallacy alert! Just because we can digest meat it doesn't mean we should.

It's biologically proper for me to hit on 16 year old girls but I don't do it!

Like the guy above, I don't morally object to someone eating meat that was taken from an animal that underwent no suffering in order to provide the meat, and doesn't have a negative environmental impact (this may be hard to gauge). I'm especially favorable toward this when survival is an issue, such as an individual who doesn't have the ability to obtain an adequate supply of plant sources or a small population whose geographical reality leaves little choice. I'm indifferent with respect to hunted food, though certainly not favorable to this because it generally isn't necessary and some suffering (though short-lived) is present. Contrasting with the lifelong suffering of some cattle or most of the pigs and chickens raised for consumption, the hunted animal is vastly further down the suffering scale.

I still opt not to eat meat even when there is a solid probability that it didn't suffer for my gain (though that's hard to know), mostly because I'm an able-bodied reasoning entity who can consciously exercise an alternative and go for something that doesn't have some degree of sentience and a conscious life that I've robbed from it.

It is conceivable that I may qualify to some extent as a hypocrite, because I'm really not 100% "true" vegetarian. I eat a modest amount of fish every so often, but not so much because it's tasty and I'm making excuses for my vice. Honestly, I've never liked the taste of any seafood products, and what fish I do eat must be the weakest tasting varieties. I eat a bit of fish because of the variety of nutritional benefits that just aren't plentiful in any plant food. The derivatives usually have the wrong sort of omega-3. Those derivatives that do have the right kind are ridiculously expensive and I'm not so sure that they're as complete in providing what the fish provide. Other than that, there is nothing in other animal meats that can't be gotten from plant sources.

Making the maximum contribution to the reduction in suffering and improvement in the environmental conditions is an ideal goal, but I've recognized that going for maximum is a matter of trade-offs between nutrition, cost, and time, and it certainly is possible to absolutely maximize all of these things and end up with such an utterly miserable life in which every waking moment is consumed with optimizing my footprint. On the other end, I could go for broke and have zero concern, and maximize my enjoyment of my own life at the expense of everything else. Or the middle ground could be my objective, where I find that balancing point where I'm doing as much good as I can possibly do without going past that point where I'm no longer able to enjoy my own life in any sense. My feeling is that I'm able to achieve some level of comfort where I'm doing a great deal of good while still enjoying life in a significant way.

I have found my point of equilibrium where the two lines meet, and it may not be the same as yours or the next guy's. We each have to find our own, but hopefully we all take some interest in that side of the equation that concerns itself with the external factors and don't just focus 100% on our own interests at the expense of those external factors. Some consideration of the external is better than none, I think.

Chris Jones

I've basically decided that I'm only going to eat animals that are edible. That's about how I feel about it. Irrational? Yes. Morally objectionable? More than likely? Damned delicious? Hellz ya

qaelith.2112 wrote:Like the guy above, I don't morally object to someone eating meat that was taken from an animal that underwent no suffering in order to provide the meat, and doesn't have a negative environmental impact (this may be hard to gauge).

Chris Jones

What do you consider 'no suffering?' Every animal that is slaughtered for food goes through some type of suffering. I wasn't so morally opposed to eating meat until I took a course on evolution. Knowing how closely related I am to some of the animals that are regularly consumed in the United States (and even some of the more unusual). Fletch still likes to eat fish (the whole 'shoulders' thing with him), but even that seems 'off limits' to me. Now I don't look down on anyone for their personal food choices, this is just a conclusion that I came to on my own from information I was given. There's not enough separation between mammals and myself to make me comfortable.

On why I get so ‘rabid’ about the issue of vegetarianism. I spent a bit of time on this, but it is long and boring.

Fletch wrote:atheists/ agnostics...eating Humanists...What's a skeptic to do?

To begin with, I would question the assumed atheist-humanist-sceptic nexus. Scepticism is a way of evaluating and acquiring new knowledge, or discarding the old. Atheism is a statement of position on a single issue – the existence of a god or gods. These are very different from the various humanisms, which are fully developed ‘life stances’. Both the attitude of scepticism and the position of atheism may be compatible with humanism, but humanism is not a necessary outcome of either. At a guess, meat eating humanists may indeed be experiencing some sort of cognitive dissonance, but I assume that would also depend on their brand of humanism. I don’t know, I have never called myself a humanist.

The main point I take issue with in the RD position of episode 43 is that an acceptance of evolution has necessary implications for ethical thought. In RD 43, 00:36:00 Luke asks the question: “Does a view of evolution - the fact of evolution - behove us to change our behaviour in some ways as well?... Specifically what I guess I am referring to here is in animal rights and vegetarianism.” The implication being that is a necessary outcome of atheism and the acceptance of evolution that you also conclude eating meat is wrong. Now I don’t wish to misrepresent the RD team: the bulk of the argument is actually from the perspective of utilitarianism, and within that tradition would, I assume, be considered persuasive. However, by introducing the topic in the manner which you did, it was implied that to be an atheist, accept evolution, and continue to eat meat was a failure to ‘walk the talk’: That eating meat was an emotional hangover, a product of failed reasoning.

Fletch wrote:Naturalistic fallacy alert!

Given that Peter Singer’s utilitarianism was put forward in the support of the argument, a quote from a recent interview might be appropriate.




I would suggest that the apparent conflation of evolution and utilitarianism in the RD argument for vegetarianism was a mistake .

Also troubling was the assertion that arguments for continuing to eat meat are ‘emotional’ in nature, the root of why atheists apparently get so ‘rabid’. This, I assume, is to be compared with the cool unemotional reason of the advocates for vegetarianism. Again, it might be instructional to consider Peter Singer’s position on how we proceed when we consider what we ‘ought to do’. According to Singer, the natural world does not offer us a guide and there are serious problems with human nature. But what we do posses, and what we can utilise, is our reason and our empathy.(Singer, POI, 00:24:20) Again: Our reason and our empathy. Our capacity to ‘share and understand another’s emotions and feelings’. That kind of empathy displayed when someone thinks about eating a burger, and in order to ward of this evil impulse they draw up a mental image of their cat in a slaughterhouse. The utilitarian determination to reduce suffering depends upon our ability to feel emotion! Could it be that - oh horror! - both sides of the issue are arguments from sentiment?




That one is moved by an argument is no bad thing. Rhetoric works on both our reason and our empathy. However, to transition from a persuasive rhetoric to the assertion of a universally applicable ‘truth’ seems a dangerous manoeuvre.

So is it morally wrong to eat meat? According to Peter Singer it is...well some of the time. And it sort of depends where the meat comes from, and a bit on the circumstances of the individual...and sometimes it might just be the yuk factor. (Philospophy Bites, May 8, 2008). Even for Singer it appears that the only cut and dried case is industrial farming – feedlots, battery chickens and such. There is a continuum; from bad and you should not do it; to sort of okay; to yeah I guess that’s okay; to indigenous populations of which Singer, quite graciously, does not claim the right to moral instruction. On industrial farming I am swayed by Singer – it does seem wrong to keep animals in that fashion if there are other options. Does that make it wrong to eat meat or just wrong to keep animals in that fashion. So too with the environmental argument: is it the wrong of eating meat, or the wrong of environmental degradation and anthropogenic climate change we wish to address? And yes, I am aware that reducing the demand for meat would etc. and so forth.


Are those who don’t eat meat wrong? Wrong about what? If your reasoning and empathy have lead you to the conclusion that eating meat is wrong, then of course you would be more than justified in restraint. It doesn’t contravene any laws that I am aware of, or cause any harm - aside from harm to the hip pockets of a meat producers. It would, of course, seem hypocritical not to refrain from eating meat. Establishing that vegetarianism is somehow wrong is not my aim. That would seem a quite ridiculous position to adopt. I am more concerned with unhelpful characterisations and unfounded assumptions. It is an error to assume that all atheists think like you: an error that is compounded when you suggest that this divergence of opinion is a moral failing.

In closing...

I think you'll see a giant new wave of vegetarians and vegans the day we train a cow to talk. Since we're still working on apes, some of which can communicate very small vocabularies but not spoken, We'll probably be waiting a long time. I suspect some day, we'll start implanting devices in certain animal's brains and put voice box collars on them. I think it would be funny to watch pet owners find out what their pets are really thinking.

My favorite one ever: "Ya know? Vomit aint half bad."

unabashed wrote:I think you'll see a giant new wave of vegetarians and vegans the day we train a cow to talk. Since we're still working on apes, some of which can communicate very small vocabularies but not spoken, We'll probably be waiting a long time. I suspect some day, we'll start implanting devices in certain animal's brains and put voice box collars on them. I think it would be funny to watch pet owners find out what their pets are really thinking.

Or...we get this... (you can skip forward to about 2:00)

Sorry about the Korean subtitles... it was the only version I could find. Just ignore them. Unless you're Korean of course...

jifrock wrote:On why I get so ‘rabid’ about the issue of vegetarianism. I spent a bit of time on this, but it is long and boring.

Long, yes. Boring, not so much

Many interesting thoughts, and I have to read it again to let it all sink in. This is an issue I have been 'struggling' with for many years, swaying back and forth, but I've never really been able to put my feelings aside and just let my reason lead me. Maybe now would be a good time to read some Peter Singer for the first time...

It's interesting to me that no one has brought up what theory of mind is being used to cash out "sentience" in the arguments presented in the two episodes that dealt with this issue. It seems to be of primary importance as the fact that animals that are eaten are sentient is a necessary conclusion one must draw in order for the kinds of moral consideration demanded by the arguments given to even exist.

From an email I sent the guys on this in reference to episode 49:
You clarified what you mean by "sentience," and it turns out you are clearly talking about consciousness here (the "what it is like" to be something), but consciousness as defined in a very particular way. But this is a very complicated issue. First, the ontological status of that position, the one you're taking, is often thought to commit one to consciousness being non-physical. Indeed, the people that use that description are property dualists. The reason for this is lengthy, but, in brief, it isn't generally taken to be the case by physicalists that the quale (the "what it is like" for any particular experience) of a mental state is what is intrinsic to that state. So, for example, it would be possible for someone to have some mental state, e.g. suffering, but not have the corresponding quale. If you're a functionalist, then what is important is what the function of that state is. If you're an identity theorist it is that the brain state is such that it is appropriate to say that that brain state is identical to the one other people have when they are suffering. It is the property dualists that hold that qualia are what is intrinsic to particular mental states, but that, of course, commits one to a form of dualism. Is that the position you want to take? If so, you have quite a bit of work ahead of you as you are now committed to their being non-physical properties out there, and that seems pretty problematic. If that isn't what you mean, if qualia aren't the hallmark of consciousness, why are you using that definition?

This actually gets into a huge problem I have with the theory of mind on which you're relying to make your argument, something I addressed at length in my initial blog post on this. Quickly, how do we know what the conscious states of other species are? Not by behavior; behaviorism is dead. By some other theory of mind? Which one? The theories of mind we use for other people won't work for other species as they do not exhibit a variety of features we take to be indicative of actual mental states. Whatever theory of mind you're using, you need to be explicit about it, because you can't just say other animals have the same mental states that we do without some kind of justification for that claim. Once you make clear what theory of mind you're using, then we can talk about whether or not that particular position is justified.

For me, it doesn't even get to the point of "will I eat something that thinks." I began with vegetarian by doing a little thought experiment: Could I kill something in order to eat it? No.

This of course doesn't take into account all circumstances - but I'm not concerned with circumstances that are only hypothetical. If there were no alternative, I'm pretty sure that I would be able to kill an animal for food. However, I have plenty of alternative. Having never hunted or even witnessed slaughter (except in videos), and being squeamish about the very idea of killing an animal for food, I decided at the tender age of 16 that I shouldn't participate in something that I wouldn't be willing to do myself. Then my mom brought home BBQ ribs and I didn't go back to vegetarianism until I was 18. I went vegan when I was 19, mostly just to see if I could, partially because I had lived around dairy farms growing up and not all CA cows are happy cows. I'm basically vegan still, but I do love me some cheese.

I am, btw, very excited about the meat grown in vats, and will wait until the product is new and improved.

I find it much easier to eat something that I know has thoughts, or can feel, or even tastier, had hopes and dreams. I'm pretty plants and what not have some form of cognitive capacity, otherwise I'd feel weird eating them. Then again, I'm a sadist.

Dark sarcasm aside, I know there's no moral highground in eating meat, but I've managed to do with eating meat what ken miller has done with his beliefs when it comes to science: compartmentalize it

bump.
i'm interested in hearing why the guys from the show would rely on a definition of consciousness that comes from a dualistic theory mind when they're not dualists.
for that matter, i'm curious why all the talk about evolution in reference to vegetarianism was relevant if there isn't a conflation of "is" and "ought." i can't see how evolutionary relationships matter in the least if there an a recognition that you can't deduce and ought from an is.

It is just about deer season where I'm at and all the rednecks are gettin' ready for sum killin'. (There are bumper and window stickers on trucks that say "If it flies, it dies". Inspiring, isn't it?) I've been offered to join in the fun but I have declined because besides painfully ending the life of another animal you have to skin and gut what you kill yourself. But if I did that I would likely become a vegetarian on the spot. I am a hypocrite in that I do eat meat but I really do not think about how it got there. "Out of sight, out of mind." I prefer my meat fully processed (deboned, sliced, diced, smashed, mixed with spices, then mashed into a geometric shape, cooked well-burnt, and drowned in a sauce of some kind.) Only then can I fully enjoy it guilt-free.
This is a great topic for discussion because there are different views among the forum members. And many good points are being made.
If meat begins to be grown like plants without a brain/consciousness connected to it, would that solve the issue? Or just create another issue?

Jim wrote:bump.
i'm interested in hearing why the guys from the show would rely on a definition of consciousness that comes from a dualistic theory mind when they're not dualists.

I didn't get that idea from listening to the podcast episode at all. I thought it was pretty obvious that they were basing it on a materialistic/deterministic world view, not a Descartian one. Mayhaps I missed something, though. Why do you think that the guys are using a dualist mind theory?

pandamonium wrote:I didn't get that idea from listening to the podcast episode at all. I thought it was pretty obvious that they were basing it on a materialistic/deterministic world view, not a Descartian one. Mayhaps I missed something, though. Why do you think that the guys are using a dualist mind theory?

i spelled this out in my initial post in this thread:

Jim wrote:You clarified what you mean by "sentience," and it turns out you are clearly talking about consciousness here (the "what it is like" to be something), but consciousness as defined in a very particular way. But this is a very complicated issue. First, the ontological status of that position, the one you're taking, is often thought to commit one to consciousness being non-physical. Indeed, the people that use that description are property dualists. The reason for this is lengthy, but, in brief, it isn't generally taken to be the case by physicalists that the quale (the "what it is like" for any particular experience) of a mental state is what is intrinsic to that state. So, for example, it would be possible for someone to have some mental state, e.g. suffering, but not have the corresponding quale. If you're a functionalist, then what is important is what the function of that state is. If you're an identity theorist it is that the brain state is such that it is appropriate to say that that brain state is identical to the one other people have when they are suffering. It is the property dualists that hold that qualia are what is intrinsic to particular mental states, but that, of course, commits one to a form of dualism. Is that the position you want to take? If so, you have quite a bit of work ahead of you as you are now committed to their being non-physical properties out there, and that seems pretty problematic. If that isn't what you mean, if qualia aren't the hallmark of consciousness, why are you using that definition?

This actually gets into a huge problem I have with the theory of mind on which you're relying to make your argument, something I addressed at length in my initial blog post on this. Quickly, how do we know what the conscious states of other species are? Not by behavior; behaviorism is dead. By some other theory of mind? Which one? The theories of mind we use for other people won't work for other species as they do not exhibit a variety of features we take to be indicative of actual mental states. Whatever theory of mind you're using, you need to be explicit about it, because you can't just say other animals have the same mental states that we do without some kind of justification for that claim. Once you make clear what theory of mind you're using, then we can talk about whether or not that particular position is justified.

i'm not talking about substance dualism. rather, they're relying on an understanding of consciousness that is promoted by property dualists. that's fine if they want to be property dualists (although i'm ready to engage in a discussion on that issue as i think it's clear that property dualism is wrong), but i doubt that's the case. as such, i don't get them using that particular position to make their argument. further, if they're not relying upon it (which, again, i don't think they want to do), then they need to be clear exactly upon which theory of mind they are, in fact, relying, as they don't all have the same implications for positing mental states in other species.
basically, this just seemed really sloppy to me, and it seemed like they just adopted a position because they thought it fit well with the conclusion they wanted. obviously, that's a bad move.
for the record, i'm a fan of the show. i like it a lot. but this seems to be a huge problem, and, as they've talked about it on two different shows, and all of them have actually become vegetarians because of the position they espoused, this seems to be something that should be addressed.

I'm afraid that, for me,the desire to eat meat is much stronger than the desire to be right on this one.

This was a quote from a thread about abortion on the Friendly Atheist forums, but I think it's a good point in the vegetarian debate when we were debating if aborted fetuses could feel pain.

Does this mean that a vegetarian could eat an aborted child and it be okay?