Former Vegan Friend

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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 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

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

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.

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.

Also, just for informational purposes :

Many Seventh Day Adventist are vegetarian -they are Christian

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.

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

 

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.

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

 

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.

No, moral relativity is a phony buzzword thrown around by the people I mentioned in my last post after they've been proven wrong. Just look at how many times it's been used in this thread.

Look at it this way. Slavery is obviously wrong today. You have been inundated since birth with this way of thought. Now just imagine if you were in ancient Egypt. Slavery was not only perfectly acceptable to them, it was a way of life. You would have been inundated with that since birth. It's wrong when you look back on it with what you believe today, but if you were alive then, you wouldn't think the same way.

The point I wish to make though, is that just because they didn't think it was wrong, and never came to realize it was wrong, doesn't mean it wasn't wrong. I understand that they didn't think it was, and maybe I do things that are morally wrong daily and don't know it...but that doesn't change them from being wrong.

No, moral relativity is a phony buzzword thrown around by the people I mentioned in my last post after they've been proven wrong.

How were we proved wrong? As far as I am concerned, sisterkungfu, your arguments are not only unpersuasive, but comical.

I totally agree with what Veggy meggy said above and what Falnders said in the very beginning and what Jonathan said, and Will, etc. Just because a society doesnt yet accept the immorality of a certain practice or custom, that does NOT mean that the custom or practice in question is not objectively immoral.

You of course say that there is no such thing as objective morality. It is all relative. Well, if I am ever raped, if my infant child is ever taken from me and brutally murdered, if my husband is beaten to death for his wallet, if my parents are ever abducted and tortured, I will try and comfort myself in the knowledge that its all morally relative.

the lion comparison (whoever made it) was ridiculous since animals cannot make moral decisions but humans can. So nuff said about that, as I think --or at least I thought-- it was prety obvious.

Big: no my cats arent vegan, yes I have tried, no I wont starve them into submission, no I am not happy about feeding them non- vegan food.

I totally agree with Richard taking out animals and substituting people in Tarz's post to make a point. And Tarz, I dont find your response to Richard very persuasive at all. It seems to reinforce, validate or otherwise excuse the speciest attitude reflected in society.

Lastly, if the animals which ethical vegans are concerned about could only read and understand this thread, they would feel extremely saddened and hopeless by some of the things that they would hear coming from the mouths of ethical vegans no less! That truly sickens me. As if activism in an animal exploiting society isnt hard enough, then you have ethical vegans siding with meat eaters on their argument: "Dont tell me what is moral and what isnt. You have no right to tell me that I should be vegan." Are you F$#%^ kidding me???? I find that alliance from hell quite literally sickening.

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 point, however, is that society SHOULD have a problem with that; that society should be vegan, because killing innocent and powerless animals for the frivolous reason of cullinary pleasure when you dont need to do so in order to survive or even be healthy is OBJECTIVELY speaking, immoral.

No?

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.

If a society has determined that it is okay to kill in revenge for a wrong committed (you use the language, "It was fairly common to kill someone who 'wronged' you"), then the society has come up with a rule/ethic/moral/norm (whatever you want to call it) for when killing is justifiable. All societies have created rules for determining when killing is okay or not okay, who has sexual access to who, how wealth and power are distributed or attained, etc. And in all societies, going around killing people on a whim is prohibited. A few individuals within a society may deviate from this norm, but all societies in general attempt to enforce the norm of not killing people on a whim. And just because a few individuals in a society deviate from the ethical norms of the society at large, does not mean the society as a whole does not hold or attempt to enforce their ethical norms. If you don't understand what I'm saying, then too bad, I don't really want to explain it to you or debate it any further.

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.

 

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

First of all, I dont agree that people have the right to freedom of action when their conduct is causing weaker, powerless, innocent and sentient individuals immense suffering. In short, you dont have the right to go about hurting others for frivolous reasons. I consider gluttony, selfishness and vanity very frivolous reasons. So if somebody is fully aware of the suffering caused by a non-vegan lifestyle, then I cannot respect that person's decision to remain non-vegan, or revert back to non-veganism (subject to the qualification I note above).

yes, what they do is ultimately up to them, since we cannot force people to be vegan, but that doesnt mean that we should pat them on the back and say "oh well, nice try. Maybe veganism isnt for you. We will excuse you from your responsibility to carry your moral weight." Tarz, if I ever go back to a non-vegan lifestyle, dont excuse me, dont console me, CRUCIFY me. Do it for the animals' sake, for they would be the ones who really need the consoling.

As far as "how would we like it if people told us to eat flesh again?"- this is absurd. That is like saying, what if somebody told me to kill people, rape women, etc etc. So what? It is a stupid thing to say. Michelle, you say that this has happened to you. Well, have you asked these people "What positive thing would be gained for my own health, for the animals or for our fragile planet, by my reversion to meat eating?" ASk them point blank to give you ONE compelling and unselfish reason to go back to a non-vegan diet and that should end that non-sense right there. If they, in turn, ask you for one compelling reason why they should go vegan, you can give then at least five!

Sad as the suffering inflicted on animals as a result of Megan's friends decision is, she has her reasons, and it is her decision whether to pursue a vegan diet and lifestyle.

 

No, tarz, not merely "sad". Sad is when I break up with a boyfriend. Sad is when my best friend moves half way across the world. Sad is when my cats will pass away after I have given them amazing lives full of love and joy. Those things are 'sad'.

The mutilation, the intimidation, the fear, the horror and deprivation, physical and psychological abuse inflicted on animals in factory farms and slaughterhouses isnt 'sad' Tarz; it is enraging, intolerable, tragic, appauling, repugnant to our sense of human decency.

As far as "how would we like it if people told us to eat flesh again?"- this is absurd. That is like saying, what if somebody told me to kill people, rape women, etc etc. So what? It is a stupid thing to say. Michelle, you say that this has happened to you. Well, have you asked these people "What positive thing would be gained for my own health, for the animals or for our fragile planet, by my reversion to meat eating?" ASk them point blank to give you ONE compelling and unselfish reason to go back to a non-vegan diet and that should end that non-sense right there.

Your suggestion would end the nonsense right there, if they were well-informed enough and/or open-minded enough to understand that we don't need to eat animals. When I first decided to try veganism, I actually had a friend recommend that if I'm going to pursue a vegan lifestyle, I should really consider eating a cheeseburger or something once a week, as insurance to make sure I get my nutrition. I thought he was teasing at first, but he seriously believes that humans simply must eat other animals, as a matter of survival. (Apparently, some of us are still brainwashed from the food pyramid in school.)

No, I did not take his advice, but I'm actually glad he gave it. The discussion spawned some research on my part, in an effort to disprove him, that further solidified my decision not to eat meat.

As far as "how would we like it if people told us to eat flesh again?"- this is absurd. That is like saying, what if somebody told me to kill people, rape women, etc etc. So what? It is a stupid thing to say. Michelle, you say that this has happened to you. Well, have you asked these people "What positive thing would be gained for my own health, for the animals or for our fragile planet, by my reversion to meat eating?" ASk them point blank to give you ONE compelling and unselfish reason to go back to a non-vegan diet and that should end that non-sense right there.

Your suggestion would end the nonsense right there, if they were well-informed enough and/or open-minded enough

 

yup. And if they arent informed, inform them of the "why vegan" Truths and encourage them to go vegan (as I believe you said you had with some family members? or am I confusing you with somebody else). Do it for their own health, do it for the animals, do it for our fragile earth.

over zealousy will get you nowhere