Consistent Vegetarianism and the Suffering of Wild Animals
1–10 of 70 posts
Re: Consistent Vegetarianism and the Suffering of Wild Animals
#2Vegetarianism is not about making sure animals have good lives, it's about not eating them or participating in the intentional destruction of them by humans as much as possible. Stopping nature from taking its course in the world outside of human action is not a concern of vegetarians. Moving them to farms seems to be something very much against what a vegetarian would do.
Re: Consistent Vegetarianism and the Suffering of Wild Animals
#3> From the abstract: "Ethical consequentialist vegetarians believe that farmed animals have lives that are worse than non-existence."
This article assumes that people are vegetarians because they are sad for farm animals... Absolutely untrue. The largest concentrated majority of vegetarians in the world are vegetarians for religious reasons, under the belief that eating animals is an act of violence we have a moral responsibility to avoid.
Re: Consistent Vegetarianism and the Suffering of Wild Animals
#4I'm the guy who thinks that suffering and pleasure are additive inverses.
Re: Consistent Vegetarianism and the Suffering of Wild Animals
#5> From the abstract: "Ethical consequentialist vegetarians believe that farmed animals have lives that are worse than non-existence." This article assumes that people are vegetarians because they are sad for farm animals... Absolutely untrue. The largest concentrated majority of vegetarians in the world are vegetarians for religious reasons, under the belief that eating animals is an act of violence we have a moral r…
It doesn't assume that. Those religious vegetarians are not "Ethical consequentialist vegetarians". Consequentialism is an ethical framework, so consequentalist vegetarians are vegetarian for ethical reasons.
Re: Consistent Vegetarianism and the Suffering of Wild Animals
#6Most elaborate troll post I've read in a while, I upvoted it.
Re: Consistent Vegetarianism and the Suffering of Wild Animals
#7> "Ethical consequentialist vegetarians believe that farmed animals have lives that are worse than non-existence."
Nonsense. There are plenty of "ethical consequentialist" vegetarians who don't care about animal welfare but believe eating meat is unethical because it harms the environment or exacerbates human poverty and hunger.
Re: Consistent Vegetarianism and the Suffering of Wild Animals
#8> From the abstract: "Ethical consequentialist vegetarians believe that farmed animals have lives that are worse than non-existence." This article assumes that people are vegetarians because they are sad for farm animals... Absolutely untrue. The largest concentrated majority of vegetarians in the world are vegetarians for religious reasons, under the belief that eating animals is an act of violence we have a moral r…
It doesn't assume that. Those religious vegetarians are not "Ethical consequentialist vegetarians". Consequentialism is an ethical framework, so consequentalist vegetarians are vegetarian for ethical reasons.
"Avoding voilence" is not an ethical reason?
Re: Consistent Vegetarianism and the Suffering of Wild Animals
#9Vegetarianism is not about making sure animals have good lives, it's about not eating them or participating in the intentional destruction of them by humans as much as possible. Stopping nature from taking its course in the world outside of human action is not a concern of vegetarians. Moving them to farms seems to be something very much against what a vegetarian would do.
It's specifically talking about ethical consequentalism, which is related to utilitarianism -- the idea that you should act in a way to maximize happiness and minimize suffering.
Some vegetarians are not consequentialists, and so they can reject this argument for the reason you describe, but I know many who are.
Re: Consistent Vegetarianism and the Suffering of Wild Animals
#10> "Ethical consequentialist vegetarians believe that farmed animals have lives that are worse than non-existence." Nonsense. There are plenty of "ethical consequentialist" vegetarians who don't care about animal welfare but believe eating meat is unethical because it harms the environment or exacerbates human poverty and hunger.
"Some consequentialists may be vegetarian because of environmental concerns, and others for non-consequentialist reasons, but these are not my main focus here."