Originally posted by knightmeister
Unless you are vegetarian then you might better hold your tongue on this subject.
Unless you are vegetarian then you might better hold your tongue on this subject. Even if you are one could still say that you are specieist for eating plants.
I've been vegetarian for a long time (fruitarian for a portion of that time) because I think the deliverances of compassion and practical reason are pretty clear on this issue (for those who are lucky enough, like myself, to have the availability and means to pick and choose my food).
Even if you are one could still say that you are specieist for eating plants.
When I was a fruitarian, I wasn't eating plants
. I was eating essentially the fallen fruits of plants (such that in theory not even the plants are "harmed" by my consumption, excepting that a natural seed cycle of theirs is disrupted). This IMO is probably ideal but certainly not practical for meeting consumption needs on large scale. At any rate, we need to eat something
that would otherwise constitute biological life (rocks and dirt and whatnot aren't going to meet our basic needs). So I choose to eat plants and their fruits, which have no mentality or capacity to suffer from my consumption. They can provide me with all my nutritional needs.
What I choose to abstain from doing (on the basis of reasons that I think are very straightforward and compelling) is killing and eating animals with mentality sufficient for the capacity to suffer and to be harmed (and abstain from providing to such cause). Many of these animals have their own perspectives and projects, and they ought not be subjected to our well-oiled death industries just because they taste good. In fact, I believe that many "lower" animals (for instance, many other types of mammals), are persons
, and as such merit basic rights. Pain and suffering are always morally relevant, and -- at the very least -- we have obligations to minimize pain and suffering as much as we can even when we are in pursuit of our basic needs and sustenance.
I am not here to point fingers in the name of casting blame, particularly since I understand that our evolutionary motivators to eat meat are very deeply infixed in us. Rather, I would like to see all the ignorance on this issue dissolve. My project here would be to expose the lack of good reasons we have for perpetuating our misguided practices that cause animals to suffer. I understand this to be actually a very complicated, textured topic; and, for instance, many are unfortunately not even in a position to take a moral stand as I have (they're starving, for example, and they have to eat whatever is available to them; we also have to provide for all the mouths to feed and this can place demands on our attention and priorities).
But we can certainly start with some notions that are so utterly inane that we should just wipe them off the table immediately. For example, the inane notion that we are justified in our current practices concerning animals because the great invisible sky man above placed them on earth for our use as we see fit (not all Christians are this irresponsible, by the way, but many I have talked to are; so, sadly, we need to start here I guess).
Here's a question for you: if your religion is supposed to be so focused on love and compassion
, then why is it so anthropocentric? Does this stem from an ignorance concerning moral consideration and how it extends to sentient beings beyond our own species, or what? If Jesus was such a vessel for compassion, again why are his teachings so anthropocentric? Am I misinterpreting him? Why doesn't the bible have much to say on our treatment of other species, particularly since this is a natural topic as it regards compassion and other virtues?