It’s hilarious how lemmy users generally think of themselves as left wing but refuse to admit that veganism is both morally and sustainably the better option
I think most are willing to admit that. Admission does not equal conversation, though. I’m in that camp, but I am trying to cook more vegetarian meals – nowhere near 100%, but progress is progress.
Edit: I should clarify that I’m concerned with the environmental impact. I have no moral issues with eating meat. Environmentally, we’ve seen overwhelming evidence that vegetarianism would be beneficial, and that is why I am making an effort.
I think anyone who has lived on or around a farm, or has just come to understand everything involved, would have a problem “admitting” that. Non-Factory farming in a modern country is dramatically benefited from having meat livestock alongside the vegetables, not to mention that there isn’t really any better use for marginal land than to have farm animals like cattle on it. In fact, there are arguments that cattle on marginal land are better for the environment than leaving the land unused because they are better able to sequester carbon than nothing. The environmental discussion that is “clearly pro-vegan” requires bringing in countries that are downright backwards and use their behaviors to overwhelm the many countries where animal ranching provide overall benefit.
And there’s as many Ethical arguments for meat eating as there are for veganism. The “big” argument for veganism here is the classic Utilitarian argument for veganism, but it has easily been beaten by Negative Utilitarian and straight-Utilitarian counters.
And since many of us aren’t Christian or adherents to any Divine Command theory, “morality” is itself unethical and unsustainable to us.
Veganism isn’t so much a “dietary preference” as a way of life that recognizes animals as sentient beings and aims to minimize their suffering as much as possible (i.e. it’s not only about not eating them).
That aside: In my experience, giving a shit about the well-being of others, regardless of race or species, isn’t exactly common on the political right.
But you see, this time it’s inconvenient to me personally, so I will defend my habits and fight for them to never change even if it means suffering to others, even if the evidence that is harmful are obvious and out there. What do you mean “definition of conservatism”?
Morals, that’s religion right there, and when a religion starts from the default of assuming it’s the only right answer, it’s a shit religion, no matter what other arguments are involved.
Morals is not religion. If anything I vehemently dispute religion claiming any ownership of morals. See Plato on morals for more details. But I would say that highest of morals is the highest well-being of humans. This would apply not only from philosophical approach but also from an evolutionary one.
Having said that, I don’t believe eating meat is immoral. It is how we evolved, and eating meat is part of what is to be human.
There is a lot of behaviours and quirks that we’re evolved with and which we unequivocally consider being immoral. Like, racism for example.
If your morality includes promoting well-being of others, killing and eating said others, while having perfectly good alternative, goes kinda against it. If you for some reason only include humans (and probably dogs and cats I suppose) in a list of others that you care about, animal farms still contribute so much to our downfall, advocating for not doing it is the only consistent position.
Obviously, it’s not illegal to admit that your morality doesn’t goes beyond the boundaries of your body (or your family, whatever), but I would argue that we kind of need different word for it at this point.
There are multiple incorrect interpretations you are picturing. I did not say every behavior that came to existence are moral. Nor is evolution itself moral. I meant that morality came to existence because of human evolution as a whole, because it allows greater growth of humans and what is greater is selected through natural selection. Well being of humans is also not well being of singular or a single family. They would often be at counter to each other. Eating and killing others is obviously detrimental to humanity even if it would have benefited a single individual.
Benefit of humanity extends indirectly to other animals. But not directly. That is, the benefit of other animal does not matter, cats and dogs included. But these animals, including farm animals, or wildlife, do bring positive value to humanity. As an hyperbolic example, if skinning cats alive somehow benefited humanity, I would consider that a moral act and our perception of that act would follow. Furthering this example, we don’t consider annihilation of mosquitos (which humans actively partake in) to be immoral (just questionable consequences) because they seemingly bring no benefit to humanity.
My view on morality is not arbitrary. It is a question of what is good for humans as a whole. If yes, it is moral. If not, it is immoral.
would you get mad if someone kicked a dog for fun? Would it upset you if someone punched you in the face or stole your stuff? If so gtfo with that religious attitude, morals are only related to religion and the rest of us enlightened atheists can do anything we want
edit: to be clear, morals are important and good when they’re constructed rationally to protect sentient beings (human and non-human) from exploitation and abuse. Religious morals are deeply problematic because they’re not constructed rationally, and they try to restrict consenting adults from doing certain things together and they allow other horrific behaviors as totally fine. There’s a large, meaningful difference between animal rights and religious morals
It’s hilarious how lemmy users generally think of themselves as left wing but refuse to admit that veganism is both morally and sustainably the better option
I think most are willing to admit that. Admission does not equal conversation, though. I’m in that camp, but I am trying to cook more vegetarian meals – nowhere near 100%, but progress is progress.
Edit: I should clarify that I’m concerned with the environmental impact. I have no moral issues with eating meat. Environmentally, we’ve seen overwhelming evidence that vegetarianism would be beneficial, and that is why I am making an effort.
I think anyone who has lived on or around a farm, or has just come to understand everything involved, would have a problem “admitting” that. Non-Factory farming in a modern country is dramatically benefited from having meat livestock alongside the vegetables, not to mention that there isn’t really any better use for marginal land than to have farm animals like cattle on it. In fact, there are arguments that cattle on marginal land are better for the environment than leaving the land unused because they are better able to sequester carbon than nothing. The environmental discussion that is “clearly pro-vegan” requires bringing in countries that are downright backwards and use their behaviors to overwhelm the many countries where animal ranching provide overall benefit.
And there’s as many Ethical arguments for meat eating as there are for veganism. The “big” argument for veganism here is the classic Utilitarian argument for veganism, but it has easily been beaten by Negative Utilitarian and straight-Utilitarian counters.
And since many of us aren’t Christian or adherents to any Divine Command theory, “morality” is itself unethical and unsustainable to us.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Veganism isn’t so much a “dietary preference” as a way of life that recognizes animals as sentient beings and aims to minimize their suffering as much as possible (i.e. it’s not only about not eating them).
That aside: In my experience, giving a shit about the well-being of others, regardless of race or species, isn’t exactly common on the political right.
Dietary choice has nothing to do with being left/right wing.
But you see, this time it’s inconvenient to me personally, so I will defend my habits and fight for them to never change even if it means suffering to others, even if the evidence that is harmful are obvious and out there. What do you mean “definition of conservatism”?
deleted by creator
See, there’s that religion creeping in again.
Morals, that’s religion right there, and when a religion starts from the default of assuming it’s the only right answer, it’s a shit religion, no matter what other arguments are involved.
Morals aren’t religion, at all.
Religion can be said to be an expression of moral alignment, but morals are baked into you, braided into your meat, if you will.
Morals is not religion. If anything I vehemently dispute religion claiming any ownership of morals. See Plato on morals for more details. But I would say that highest of morals is the highest well-being of humans. This would apply not only from philosophical approach but also from an evolutionary one.
Having said that, I don’t believe eating meat is immoral. It is how we evolved, and eating meat is part of what is to be human.
There is a lot of behaviours and quirks that we’re evolved with and which we unequivocally consider being immoral. Like, racism for example.
If your morality includes promoting well-being of others, killing and eating said others, while having perfectly good alternative, goes kinda against it. If you for some reason only include humans (and probably dogs and cats I suppose) in a list of others that you care about, animal farms still contribute so much to our downfall, advocating for not doing it is the only consistent position.
Obviously, it’s not illegal to admit that your morality doesn’t goes beyond the boundaries of your body (or your family, whatever), but I would argue that we kind of need different word for it at this point.
There are multiple incorrect interpretations you are picturing. I did not say every behavior that came to existence are moral. Nor is evolution itself moral. I meant that morality came to existence because of human evolution as a whole, because it allows greater growth of humans and what is greater is selected through natural selection. Well being of humans is also not well being of singular or a single family. They would often be at counter to each other. Eating and killing others is obviously detrimental to humanity even if it would have benefited a single individual.
Benefit of humanity extends indirectly to other animals. But not directly. That is, the benefit of other animal does not matter, cats and dogs included. But these animals, including farm animals, or wildlife, do bring positive value to humanity. As an hyperbolic example, if skinning cats alive somehow benefited humanity, I would consider that a moral act and our perception of that act would follow. Furthering this example, we don’t consider annihilation of mosquitos (which humans actively partake in) to be immoral (just questionable consequences) because they seemingly bring no benefit to humanity.
My view on morality is not arbitrary. It is a question of what is good for humans as a whole. If yes, it is moral. If not, it is immoral.
Psst, be vewy vewy kwiet, I’m twowwing vegans.
would you get mad if someone kicked a dog for fun? Would it upset you if someone punched you in the face or stole your stuff? If so gtfo with that religious attitude, morals are only related to religion and the rest of us enlightened atheists can do anything we want
edit: to be clear, morals are important and good when they’re constructed rationally to protect sentient beings (human and non-human) from exploitation and abuse. Religious morals are deeply problematic because they’re not constructed rationally, and they try to restrict consenting adults from doing certain things together and they allow other horrific behaviors as totally fine. There’s a large, meaningful difference between animal rights and religious morals
Lmmfao!
Boy howdy, did you jump the rails on that one.
I love when vegans get all zealot and het up :)
🙄
;)