Good Anti-Vegan arguments?

[Ziggy Stardust]

Look, the social contract is what we make it up to be. It isn´t some sort of intrinsic thing. It is what society defines it to be by whatever means it has.

Morality as a social construct is not just some arbitrary system that magically popped into place once people got smart enough. It is an evolved trait, that developed over millions of years (and, in fact, you can argue it goes back even further once you start examining the social hierarchies and "ethical" decision-making of other animal - or, hell, plant (yes, plant: go read a little about mycorrhizal networks) - species). Yes, there are variations from society to society, just as there are variations in other phenotypic traits from population to population. By and large, almost all ethical or moral systems overlap in more ways than not. Just because moral "rules" are open to interpretation and context doesn't make the system flawed, as you seem to suggest.

[salm]

Flawed? Magically popped into place? Where does that come from? Can you elaborate? I don´t think I suggested any such thing.

Also how would that be an argument against vegans? If morals evolve they can, and in fact have evolved into morals which don´t accept killing animals for food. Not for everybody, but a very significant part of humans finds killing animals for food bad. So even if you absoulutely want to argue from numbers or evolved behavior there is still plenty of support against killing animals.

[Korto]

We are not unique in having ethics. Many, probably all, social animals have a system of ethics; chimpanzee, wolf, meerkat, even god-damned chickens. It wouldn't surprise me if solitary animals had a system of ethics, too. Human ethics was evolved to fit the human niche, as part of our survival strategy. It is paternalistic hubris reminiscent of the "white man's burden" to believe our system of ethics, evolved for our situation, should be foisted upon other species which already have their own.

That isn´t really relevant. Just because other species or even individuals have different ethics doesn´t mean that one has to exclude these entities from ones own ethics. You don´t exclude other humans from your ethics just because they might have different sets of morals. Excludign others because of different morals is a trait often found among religious fundamentalists, though, but not usually among the folk that likes to call itself enlightened.

Arguing with how these ethics evolved is nothing more than the naturalistic fallacy again.

There's some confusion over what is meant by naturalistic fallacy.

According to G. E. Moore's Principia Ethica, when philosophers try to define "good" reductively in terms of natural properties like "pleasant" or "desirable", they are committing the naturalistic fallacy.

But I suspect from context you mean Appeal to Nature, which is apparently frequently confused with it.

"This behaviour is natural; therefore, this behaviour is morally acceptable"

I refute Appeal to Nature. The background of the origin of human ethics was to describe my belief that our ethics would have evolved to fit us. A species of social plains-dwelling omnivores practicing monogamy, with few births, and off-spring requiring lengthy care. It is unlikely to fit a species of (for example) solitary swamp-dwelling carnivores giving birth to scores of young who mature rapidly and leave. Just as a clothing style arrived at in a cool to cold climate with frequent rain is unlikely to suit a dry, warm to hot climate, but that didn't stop us from trying to force it upon the poor bastards.
Different circumstances often demand different solutions.

Furthermore, and I´ve been saying this the whole time in this thread, I wonder where all these vegans who want to "require" you to live by their rules are. I have never encountered one of these "radical" vegans. Vegans usually don´t bother you with their ethics in my experience. I´m sure you can find some if you look real hard but in every day life I don´t encounter them at all and as mentioned before I know plenty of vegans, vegetarians other people with strange food habbits.

I didn't start the thread, and I never complained about being harassed by vegans.

But you're talking special cases here, with competing priorities. Lets consider this hypothetical, an alteration of the "Fat Man" question:
There's a forked train track, and because Jack is an idiot, he's standing on it. There's a train barreling down towards him, but there's a switch to change it onto the other fork. On that other fork is another person, a stranger (also an idiot). Leave the switch where it is, and die; change it, and the other person dies.
I believe it is not unethical to switch that train. Harsh, but not unethical. It may be praiseworthy if he doesn't, if he takes that bullet, but it's not wrong if he chooses to live at the other's expense. I also believe that's the choice most living things on this planet would make.
Any individual's life, no matter the species or intellect, is worth the entire universe to that individual, because when he dies, that's what he loses.

This example is deeply flawed and if anything is an argument for vegans.
There is no choice between eating meat or dying for humans. Your example would be correct if you either pull the switch and the other idiot dies or you don´t pull the switch and the idiot lives but you miss the next episode of Game of Thrones. Most people would not pull the switch because they don´t value GoT as much as an idiot. A lot of people probably wouldn´t pull the switch even if it was a dog or a pig instead of an idiot.
If you are an animal and your life does depend on meat then it is of course ok to pull the switch. I don´t think many would argue against that.

Actually, the hypothetical was to demonstrate the idea that a person can value his own life higher than another person's life, not to justify meat eating. I do admit that that (a) Wasn't clear, and (b) was a tangent

The problem with having a human in your example is that humans are covered by human ethics. It's part of the "social contract" that we don't just go around killing people for petty annoyances. If instead we changed it to some wild animal howling in the middle of the night keeping you awake and then ask... Is it unethical to kill that animal (assuming it's not an endangered species)?
I say it's not. Harsh, yes. I hope someone first tried to give it a bit of a hint, but not unethical.
And it's technically incorrect to say human ethics don't apply to other species. It's just that the way they apply changes. Since it's human ethics, and they're not human. I believe you made the point to LaCroix that a country's law applies differently to citizens than to foreigners?

You are of course correct that if you valued some other individual's life more than you valued their meat, you would logically refrain from eating meat. The point is, I don't, and I do not feel I am ethically required to.

So, we´re back to the beginning of our exchange where individuals choose their own set of morals and there´s nothing you can do about it. I see, this is discussion is useless after all.
Look, the social contract is what we make it up to be. It isn´t some sort of intrinsic thing. It is what society defines it to be by whatever means it has. If society was made up of more vegans not killing animals would be part of the social contract. Just like it in fact is in parts of India for example.

Indeed. If there were more vegans, the prevalent ethics (and my ethics also do not reflect the current ethics to any great exactitude) would shift to accommodate. Once it was ethical to keep slaves and beat your wife. Ethics evolve. It may be that one day your ethics will hold sway, and I'll be remembered with the wife-beaters.
So be it.

I find this sentence quite patronising, as it seems to implicitly assume that the only reason other species don't follow our ethics is because they're not intelligent enough to understand that their ethics are wrong and ours are right.

No, this doesn´t assume this at all. Some humans follow different ethics than other humans even though they understand the other humans ethics just fine and vice versa.
You are arguing now as if there was one single human ethics system (your own) for some reason.
Even if it were patronising, which it isn´t, how can it be important to you? You don´t care about killing animals so why would you care if something is patronising towards them?

That sentence was patronising. It definitely said that animals act the way they do because they're not intelligent enough to realise that it's wrong.
The reference to "our ethics" was meant as a generalisation for human ethics, although I have at a few points put forward my own ethical framework with wording as if it's the "one true one"; a conceit of opinion. You believe your opinion's correct, otherwise you wouldn't hold it, but it's particularly amusing when part of the opinion holds that there is no correct or incorrect.
And I care about them being patronised because it lacks respect. All living things are entitled to respect. They may not be entitled to a long life, but they're entitled to respect.


For a bit of context in "plenty of support", the numbers are a little blurry, but in India, the country with the lowest meat consumption, there are approximately 31% vegetarians.
China: 4-5%
Italy: 10%
France: 2%
UK: 3%
US: Has a few different numbers, ranging from 13% (7% vegan), to 3.2% (0.5% vegan)
Australia: 5%
That is of course mostly vegetarian, with the amount of vegans unknown.
Numbers obtained from Wikipedia (Yes, I wiki'd it. So sue me).
It a more likely result, I think, that the pressure from Animal Rights groups will see animals being raised in progressively more humane circumstances. I'd like that. I could imagine a "Humane Meat" stamp coming out. Be a bit more expensive, but not as expensive as "Organic", about the only other way around here to try and have the animals better treated.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Flawed? Magically popped into place? Where does that come from? Can you elaborate? I don´t think I suggested any such thing.

How else am I supposed to interpret the quote of yours in my previous post? Perhaps I was being hyperbolic, but you specifically said it was "what we make it up to be", and not "instrinsic", implying it is arbitrary; i.e. magically popped into place, as opposed to being the result of a variety of millenia-long intrinsic processes. If that isn't what you meant, perhaps you should elaborate.

Also how would that be an argument against vegans?

Never said it was. That's why I only quoted that one specific part of your post, to make it clear that it was the only element I was commenting on. I don't give a flying fuck about arguing with vegans. That's why I'm not even bothering to respond to the last part of your post.

[salm]

How else am I supposed to interpret the quote of yours in my previous post? Perhaps I was being hyperbolic, but you specifically said it was "what we make it up to be", and not "instrinsic", implying it is arbitrary; i.e. magically popped into place, as opposed to being the result of a variety of millenia-long intrinsic processes. If that isn't what you meant, perhaps you should elaborate.

Ah, ok, I see now how my post could be interpreted like that. It is not what I meant. I meant to say that there is no definite "correct" way of doing things which we only have to discover. We decide as a society but also as an individual what the "correct" way of doing thing is. This is influenced by a lot of outside factors of course.

[salm]

There's some confusion over what is meant by naturalistic fallacy.

You´re right, i wasn´t aware of the difference.

Indeed. If there were more vegans, the prevalent ethics (and my ethics also do not reflect the current ethics to any great exactitude) would shift to accommodate. Once it was ethical to keep slaves and beat your wife. Ethics evolve. It may be that one day your ethics will hold sway, and I'll be remembered with the wife-beaters.
So be it.

So... we have consensus?
I just want to add that these aren´t my ethics. If they were I wouldn´t eat meat but I really enjoy a good pork roast with dumplings and beer.

For a bit of context in "plenty of support", the numbers are a little blurry, but in India, the country with the lowest meat consumption, there are approximately 31% vegetarians.
China: 4-5%
Italy: 10%
France: 2%
UK: 3%
US: Has a few different numbers, ranging from 13% (7% vegan), to 3.2% (0.5% vegan)
Australia: 5%
That is of course mostly vegetarian, with the amount of vegans unknown.
Numbers obtained from Wikipedia (Yes, I wiki'd it. So sue me).
It a more likely result, I think, that the pressure from Animal Rights groups will see animals being raised in progressively more humane circumstances. I'd like that. I could imagine a "Humane Meat" stamp coming out. Be a bit more expensive, but not as expensive as "Organic", about the only other way around here to try and have the animals better treated.

I´d say that is plenty. The India numbers alone are what makes it "plenty" to me. If you don´t like "plenty" perhaps "significant" is a more accurate term.