> Take the whole "meat is murder" slogan. It's ridiculous from the outset and completely ignores our existence within the earth's ecosystem.
It is almost as ridiculous to posit that humans should be held to the same standard as your average animal. The moral objection is that being able to comprehend the existence of other beings bestows an obligation to facilitate their well-being in addition to your own. You can disagree with that, but it is not "ridiculous". Personally I think that we as a "higher species" - in comparison with the rest of the lifeforms on this planet - should at least make an effort to move toward veganism. In the end, it may not fully work and it will never completely remove the need to kill animals, but I think it can go a long way to reduce unnecessary suffering.
A lot of people do and will continue to eat meat (and wear leather &c.) but that is not an argument to not attempt to change the situation - or just change your own habits if you feel no pull toward effecting social change. Your argument is also undermined by the very factual increase in vegetarian and vegan
Most vegans I know are quite aware of food quality and will avoid additives and processed foods. Some do not, some have very poor diets indeed. There is no dichotomy here, though.
On the topic, while the most hard-line vegans will disagree, I think milk, eggs and non-sentient beings like various clams, oysters and such are a reasonable compromise in ensuring one's nutrition. They - given humane and sustainable practices of course - do not cause much suffering to the animals involved.
Thanks for this. To put it another way -- if you're unwilling to object to causing suffering to other animals because "that's what they do to each other anyway", you lose the ability to make ethical objections to murder, rape, etc., when they're being performed by humans.
We know that other animals don't have the same evolved talent at empathy and compassion (and ethical reasoning) that humans do, so we don't expect them to become vegetarian themselves. The fact that humans are capable of these things introduces a responsibility for us to use them rather than ignoring them.
It is almost as ridiculous to posit that humans should be held to the same standard as your average animal. The moral objection is that being able to comprehend the existence of other beings bestows an obligation to facilitate their well-being in addition to your own. You can disagree with that, but it is not "ridiculous". Personally I think that we as a "higher species" - in comparison with the rest of the lifeforms on this planet - should at least make an effort to move toward veganism. In the end, it may not fully work and it will never completely remove the need to kill animals, but I think it can go a long way to reduce unnecessary suffering.
A lot of people do and will continue to eat meat (and wear leather &c.) but that is not an argument to not attempt to change the situation - or just change your own habits if you feel no pull toward effecting social change. Your argument is also undermined by the very factual increase in vegetarian and vegan
Most vegans I know are quite aware of food quality and will avoid additives and processed foods. Some do not, some have very poor diets indeed. There is no dichotomy here, though.
On the topic, while the most hard-line vegans will disagree, I think milk, eggs and non-sentient beings like various clams, oysters and such are a reasonable compromise in ensuring one's nutrition. They - given humane and sustainable practices of course - do not cause much suffering to the animals involved.