![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcpip posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsFor the following questions, I am using the phrase "sentient-free diet" to mean food intake that is not based on the premature killing of living animals. By "sentient" I mean the etymologically correct term, capable of feeling (capable of thinking is sapience). Such a diet can include vegetarians, vegans, and even people who eat carrion.
What are the best ethical reason *against* a sentient-free diet or similar? For example, the argument eating grains is worse as industrial grain productions cause the violent deaths of lots of little rodents.
I am not interested in the aesthetic reasons; yes, animals are delicious, but it is difficult to ethically argue that one's sensual desires are above the desire for another sentient being not to be eaten.
Is the consumption of one animal more or less ethically justified than another? Yes, I've seen the funny modification on the PETA "where do you draw the line" billboard. Funny, but not entirely an ethical argument. Are oysters vegan (no really, look it up)? What about consensual cannibalism among humans?
If there are no or few acceptable ethical reasons against such sentient-free diets, what are the ethical reasons against it being compulsory? "Free choice" is probably a bad argument here, because there is a victim involved and extending that reasoning would be interesting. What are the exceptions where sentient consumption is justified?
Nota bene: I recognise that there are some nutrients necessary for humans that are only found via animal-products. For example, choline which is important for brain health, vitamin B12 for the production of your red blood cells and functioning of the nervous system, and some omega-3 fatty acids. Supplements are available and necessary for all these in a sentient-free diet.
What are the best ethical reason *against* a sentient-free diet or similar? For example, the argument eating grains is worse as industrial grain productions cause the violent deaths of lots of little rodents.
I am not interested in the aesthetic reasons; yes, animals are delicious, but it is difficult to ethically argue that one's sensual desires are above the desire for another sentient being not to be eaten.
Is the consumption of one animal more or less ethically justified than another? Yes, I've seen the funny modification on the PETA "where do you draw the line" billboard. Funny, but not entirely an ethical argument. Are oysters vegan (no really, look it up)? What about consensual cannibalism among humans?
If there are no or few acceptable ethical reasons against such sentient-free diets, what are the ethical reasons against it being compulsory? "Free choice" is probably a bad argument here, because there is a victim involved and extending that reasoning would be interesting. What are the exceptions where sentient consumption is justified?
Nota bene: I recognise that there are some nutrients necessary for humans that are only found via animal-products. For example, choline which is important for brain health, vitamin B12 for the production of your red blood cells and functioning of the nervous system, and some omega-3 fatty acids. Supplements are available and necessary for all these in a sentient-free diet.
(no subject)
Date: 19/4/20 09:08 (UTC)Cuttlefish and some squid/octopuses appear to have language of a visual kind. Pigs have been known to count to three - which some human societies managed to miss.
Can’t see folk taking calamari or bacon off the menu. But from where I stand living beings/things with language are people; and I’m not in favour of eating them, if you will excuse the understatement.
(no subject)
Date: 19/4/20 12:32 (UTC)Still one has to start somewhere, and grounding it in the ethical consideration (even if graduated) seems to the right place to start.
(no subject)
Date: 20/4/20 13:04 (UTC)It is an important ethical issue; there is no doubt of that. Excepting one or two nations with barbarous traditions we no longer eat whale or dolphin. Just like we Brits have our own set of barbarous traditions in other areas which need addressing; though hunting is slowly being atrophied. Fowling for the pot is a bit like snaring rabbits; dashed hard to eradicate. The only way that will happen is with a different moral and ethical education for everyone from an early age; and that will destroy some continuity of countryside culture, which has already been dealing with the loss of fox hunting - though that ban is observed more in the breach than in compliance.
The loss of cattle, pig, and sheep farms will change us radically. No more bucolic shepherds washing socks by night, etc. Do we censor the literature that accompanied such barbarism?
This is one area where I think society has to evolve en masse. It can't be top-down, legislation-led. Public opinion and legislation must walk hand-in-hand here.
So we have to educate folk; and in order to do so I guess you have to keep the subject in the public debate.
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/20 10:06 (UTC)When vat-grown meats are cheaper than those grown via an animal, most people will buy them in preference.
A generation or two later, people will say "I can't believe that we used to kill animals for meat. I guess those really were different times".
And they'll be right.
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/20 18:55 (UTC)The Gnostic emphasis on spirit rather than base matter has infected my psyche. Should I traverse the void into recoverable data there’s someone I want a word with. Maybe more than one.
I hold all to account. Including me, alas.
(no subject)
Date: 20/4/20 01:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 21/4/20 03:10 (UTC)This is more than just opinion; there's a practical element. Sadly, there can be no viable, long-term farming option without an herbivorous component.
(no subject)
Date: 21/4/20 23:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 22/4/20 00:59 (UTC)There is no guarantee one will forever be the apex predator.