Former Vegan Friend

Anything else on your mind that you would like to discuss with other like-minded people.

Moderators: Mini Forklift Ⓥ, C.O., Richard, robert, SyrLinus

Message
Author
Tarz
Elephant
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:02 am

#76 Postby Tarz » Wed Nov 23, 2005 11:55 am

Rich - murdering people is against the law. Murdering animals is not.

Wider society does not have a problem with that in the way we do.

User avatar
sinisterkungfu
Gorilla
Posts: 533
Age: 43
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:42 pm

#77 Postby sinisterkungfu » Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:00 pm

willpeavy wrote:
sinisterkungfu wrote:
willpeavy wrote:
sinisterkungfu wrote:There is no such thing as a universal morality, regardless of how much you want to believe it.


I'd say it's pretty universally accepted that it would be wrong to just walk around killing people in your town/village/tribe


If it were, then it would never happen. Yet it does, quite a bit. Morality is not the same for everyone. It may be the same for a majority of people (which could also vary according to cultural upbringing).


In every culture it's considered wrong to just walk around killing people from your town, village, or tribe, etc for no reason. Just because a person is crazy and decides to become a serial killer doesn't mean the society approves


Wrong for the majority? Absolutely.
Obviously though, it does not apply to everyone, otherwise we wouldn't have any murders. Many of those people do not have the same morals as the rest of us. That doesn't automatically make them crazy, any more than it makes us crazy to be vegan. However, this means there is no universal morality, otherwise everybody would subscribe to the exact same moral code, which it's perfectly clear they do not.

User avatar
Richard
Site Admin
Posts: 6064
Age: 34
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: England
Contact:

#78 Postby Richard » Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:02 pm

Tarz wrote:Rich - murdering people is against the law. Murdering animals is not.

Wider society does not have a problem with that in the way we do.


The law doesn't decide what people think is right or wrong. When slavery was legal, I wouldn't have said it was right, I would have said I think it's wrong. Similarly, if someone is stabbing a cow in the neck, I don't say "Hey that's awesome because you're a law abiding citizen". I say it sucks, it doesn't matter if it's legal or not, the law is totally wrong in my opinion
Image

Tarz
Elephant
Posts: 1193
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 5:02 am

#79 Postby Tarz » Wed Nov 23, 2005 12:35 pm

I agree with ya. The law doesn't necessarily reflect what's right or wrong though. The law in most cases does indeed suck. Still the law tho. :wink:

Michelle
Elephant
Posts: 1279
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:30 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

#80 Postby Michelle » Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:21 pm

Tarz wrote:We may not like their decision, but you have to respect people's right to change their mind. What they wish to do, is ultimately up to them and not us.

I agree with this. We can set an example, we can educate, we can encourage, and we can be supportive - and we absolutely should do all these things. Unless something is against the law and we have legal recourse, that's the best that we can do. Being judgemental serves no purpose for anyone involved.

Reality is that the majority of people in our societies right now eat animals and think that it's OK. Reality is that most of us were part of that majority at some point in our lives, some of us more recently than others. So why judge those who aren't there yet, have had a lapse, or who have simply changed their minds for whatever reason?

Maybe 100 years from now, killing animals for food will be illegal, everyone will be vegan, and we'll be on here discussing the issue of whether animals should be allowed to vote. That sounds absurd, I know, but if all species are of the same value and should have the same rights, it's completely logical. Reality is, that to someone completely immersed in the omnivore lifestyle right now, the idea that animals shouldn't be food sounds as far-fetched as the idea that animals should vote. It's going to take time to raise awareness.

How would we like it if some-one told us to start eating flesh again?


I've actually had that happen several times already, and it sucks.

Getting back to the original issue-

Did the former vegan friend mention why she chose to go back to being vegetarian? She's obviously got the awareness and values, if she's been vegan before. Being vegan in a carnivore world isn't always easy. Maybe she lacks a supportive environment? Maybe it was too much of a lifestyle change for her? Maybe it really is an addiction to cheese? I'm curious.

User avatar
willpeavy
Elephant
Posts: 1810
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: florida
Contact:

#81 Postby willpeavy » Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:26 pm

sinisterkungfu wrote:
willpeavy wrote:
sinisterkungfu wrote:
willpeavy wrote:
sinisterkungfu wrote:There is no such thing as a universal morality, regardless of how much you want to believe it.


I'd say it's pretty universally accepted that it would be wrong to just walk around killing people in your town/village/tribe


If it were, then it would never happen. Yet it does, quite a bit. Morality is not the same for everyone. It may be the same for a majority of people (which could also vary according to cultural upbringing).


In every culture it's considered wrong to just walk around killing people from your town, village, or tribe, etc for no reason. Just because a person is crazy and decides to become a serial killer doesn't mean the society approves


Wrong for the majority? Absolutely.
Obviously though, it does not apply to everyone, otherwise we wouldn't have any murders. Many of those people do not have the same morals as the rest of us. That doesn't automatically make them crazy, any more than it makes us crazy to be vegan. However, this means there is no universal morality, otherwise everybody would subscribe to the exact same moral code, which it's perfectly clear they do not.


I think you and me are talking about two different things here. I'm talking about societies as a whole and are talking abotu individuals. You're right, not all individuals subscribe to the moral code of a society. But all societies have a moral code that prevents killing your neighbors on a whim
[url=http://willpeavy.net/:34olz5pn]willpeavy.net[/url:34olz5pn]

User avatar
sinisterkungfu
Gorilla
Posts: 533
Age: 43
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:42 pm

#82 Postby sinisterkungfu » Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:35 pm

willpeavy wrote:
sinisterkungfu wrote:
willpeavy wrote:
sinisterkungfu wrote:
willpeavy wrote:
sinisterkungfu wrote:There is no such thing as a universal morality, regardless of how much you want to believe it.


I'd say it's pretty universally accepted that it would be wrong to just walk around killing people in your town/village/tribe


If it were, then it would never happen. Yet it does, quite a bit. Morality is not the same for everyone. It may be the same for a majority of people (which could also vary according to cultural upbringing).


In every culture it's considered wrong to just walk around killing people from your town, village, or tribe, etc for no reason. Just because a person is crazy and decides to become a serial killer doesn't mean the society approves


Wrong for the majority? Absolutely.
Obviously though, it does not apply to everyone, otherwise we wouldn't have any murders. Many of those people do not have the same morals as the rest of us. That doesn't automatically make them crazy, any more than it makes us crazy to be vegan. However, this means there is no universal morality, otherwise everybody would subscribe to the exact same moral code, which it's perfectly clear they do not.


I think you and me are talking about two different things here. I'm talking about societies as a whole and are talking abotu individuals. You're right, not all individuals subscribe to the moral code of a society. But all societies have a moral code that prevents killing your neighbors on a whim


That was my point. In order for a set of morals to be universal, every individual would have to have the same moral code.

User avatar
willpeavy
Elephant
Posts: 1810
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm
Location: florida
Contact:

#83 Postby willpeavy » Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:38 pm

And my point was that there are univeral norms/morals/rules which have run across all societies throughout history. Basically, we'll just have to agree to disagree
[url=http://willpeavy.net/:34olz5pn]willpeavy.net[/url:34olz5pn]

User avatar
sinisterkungfu
Gorilla
Posts: 533
Age: 43
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:42 pm

#84 Postby sinisterkungfu » Wed Nov 23, 2005 1:45 pm

willpeavy wrote:And my point was that there are univeral norms/morals/rules which have run across all societies throughout history. Basically, we'll just have to agree to disagree


They're not universal if they're not followed by every single individual.
Besides, what about those tribes where the strongest ruled, and the only way to become the chieftan was by killing the old chieftan? It was fairly common to kill someone who wronged you, or who you had a disagreement with. There is no definitive set of moral values that has been shared by every society that has ever existed. For hundreds of years there were many societies that would make slaves of their vanquished enemies. Other societies during the same time periods didn't do it, probably because they didn't feel it was right. No universally shared morals there.

veggymeggy
Gorilla
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Corvallis, OR
Contact:

#85 Postby veggymeggy » Wed Nov 23, 2005 4:06 pm

Whoa, I go to Portland for a day and my little thread turns into a monster! :shock:

I just want to say a few things - first I want to clarify that when I ran into my friend and found out she's no longer vegan, I made no remarks beyond asking why, and saying "That's too bad". Given that I hadn't seen her in three years and was just excited to run into a familiar face in a town where I don't know that many people, I figured deep moral debate could wait for another day :D So please, anyone that thinks I was being judgmental towards her and forcing my values on her, the conversation was really quite limited and I did no preaching. As I said before, I was truly just disappointed to hear it.

Second - moral relativity is a load of BS! That entire argument is nothing more than an excuse to justify letting people do whatever they want. According to some of you, ANYTHING flies, so long as you THINK it is ok. WTF is that. There are somethings that are more open to debate than others - veganism for instance comes down to an interpretation of man's role on Earth. If you're a Christian that interprets the bible to mean that animals are here for food, eating them is moral. If you do not, eating them is immoral. If you're not Christian at all you have an entirely different guideline. BUT either way, murder is wrong. The debate is in whether killing animals is murder, it is NOT in whether murder is wrong. The same applies to abortion. Pro-choice people still feel that murder is wrong, but they interpret life differently If you don't consider an unborn baby to be a life, a sentient being, whatever, then killing it does not fall under murder. That doesn't mean you think murder is ok!


I'm as liberal, open-minded, whatever as the next guy, but there are some things that are just WRONG no matter what. And if there is an entire culture that accepts something that's wrong,
it is still wrong. I think this example was used before, but slavery was wrong when the Egyptians did it, it was wrong when the US did it, and it'll be wrong in any other culture that uses it. Just because a group of people adopts something, does not make it ok. It makes it convenient, it means they've adopted a mechanism to allow themselves to justify it, it does not make it ok.

Enough out of me :D
Standing on a hill in my mountain of dreams,
telling myself it's not as hard, hard, hard as it seems.

User avatar
sinisterkungfu
Gorilla
Posts: 533
Age: 43
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:42 pm

#86 Postby sinisterkungfu » Wed Nov 23, 2005 4:51 pm

veggymeggy wrote:I'm as liberal, open-minded, whatever as the next guy, but there are some things that are just WRONG no matter what. And if there is an entire culture that accepts something that's wrong,
it is still wrong. I think this example was used before, but slavery was wrong when the Egyptians did it, it was wrong when the US did it, and it'll be wrong in any other culture that uses it. Just because a group of people adopts something, does not make it ok. It makes it convenient, it means they've adopted a mechanism to allow themselves to justify it, it does not make it ok.

Enough out of me :D


It's wrong for you. If an entire culture does it, it's obviously not wrong for them. In other people's eyes it may be, but which side is right? The point of that being, the two opposing cultures have different moral views. Universal morality is a lie made up by people trying to promote their agenda as the only correct one.

Guest

#87 Postby Guest » Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:17 pm

veggymeggy wrote: If you're a Christian that interprets the bible to mean that animals are here for food, eating them is moral. If you do not, eating them is immoral.

incorrect.

as a "christian" you believe that animals are available as food, yet it's still up to you whether you eat them or not.

SeaSiren
Elephant
Posts: 2650
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 11:05 pm

#88 Postby SeaSiren » Wed Nov 23, 2005 5:45 pm

Also, just for informational purposes :) :
Many Seventh Day Adventist are vegetarian -they are Christian

veggymeggy
Gorilla
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Corvallis, OR
Contact:

#89 Postby veggymeggy » Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:16 pm

Jza wrote:
veggymeggy wrote: If you're a Christian that interprets the bible to mean that animals are here for food, eating them is moral. If you do not, eating them is immoral.

incorrect.

as a "christian" you believe that animals are available as food, yet it's still up to you whether you eat them or not.


Incorrect. As a Christian you decide whether you interpret biblical teaching to say animals are here as food or are not here as food.
Standing on a hill in my mountain of dreams,

telling myself it's not as hard, hard, hard as it seems.

veggymeggy
Gorilla
Posts: 778
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Corvallis, OR
Contact:

#90 Postby veggymeggy » Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:20 pm

sinisterkungfu wrote:
veggymeggy wrote:I'm as liberal, open-minded, whatever as the next guy, but there are some things that are just WRONG no matter what. And if there is an entire culture that accepts something that's wrong,
it is still wrong. I think this example was used before, but slavery was wrong when the Egyptians did it, it was wrong when the US did it, and it'll be wrong in any other culture that uses it. Just because a group of people adopts something, does not make it ok. It makes it convenient, it means they've adopted a mechanism to allow themselves to justify it, it does not make it ok.

Enough out of me :D


It's wrong for you. If an entire culture does it, it's obviously not wrong for them. In other people's eyes it may be, but which side is right? The point of that being, the two opposing cultures have different moral views. Universal morality is a lie made up by people trying to promote their agenda as the only correct one.


Nu-uh. It IS wrong for 'them' whoever that may be. You can't say something is ok if you're 'this' and not ok if you're 'that'. (I'm a white chick in 21st century U.S. and slavery is wrong, but if I'm a white chick in 18th century america, slavery is a-ok). That just doesn't work. It's either wrong or it's not. Moral relativity is a lie made up by people who don't want to answer for their actions.
Standing on a hill in my mountain of dreams,

telling myself it's not as hard, hard, hard as it seems.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 7 guests