the moral hand and veganism

[Stijn]

The moral hand is a metaphor of five basic ethical principles, one for each finger, summarizing a complete, coherent ethic. It is the result of my PhD-research on animal equality (http://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2014/04/04/born-free-and-equal-on-the-ethical-consistency-of-animal-equality/), so I will apply the moral hand to the problem of the consumption of animal products. First, the five principles.

-The thumb: rule universalism. You must follow the rules that everyone (who is capable, rational and informed) must follow in all morally similar situations. You may follow only the rules that everyone (who is capable, rational and informed) may follow in all morally similar situations. Prejudicial discrimination is immoral. We should give the good example, even if others don’t. Just like we have to place the thumb against the other fingers in order to grasp an object, we have to apply the principle of universalism to the other four basic principles.

-The forefinger: justice and the value of lifetime well-being. Increase the well-being (over a complete life) of all sentient beings alive in the present and the future, whereby improvements of the worst-off positions (the worst sufferers, the beings who have the worst lives) have a strong priority. Lifetime well-being is the value you would ascribe when you would live the complete life of a sentient being, and is a function of all positive (and negative) feelings that are the result of (dis)satisfaction of preferences: of everything (not) wanted by the being.

-The middle finger: the mere means principle and the basic right to bodily autonomy. Never use the body of a sentient being as merely a means to someone else’s ends, because that violates the right to bodily autonomy. The two words “mere means” refer to two conditions, respectively: 1) if you force a sentient being to do or undergo something that the being does not want in order to reach an end that the sentient being does not share, and 2) if the body of that sentient being is necessary as a means for that end, then you violate the basic right. A sentient being is a being who has developed the capacity to want something by having positive and negative feelings, and who has not yet permanently lost this capacity. The middle finger is a bit longer than the forefinger, and so the basic right is a bit stronger than the lifetime well-being (e.g. the right to live). The basic right can only be violated when the forefinger principle of well-being is seriously threatened.

-The ring finger: naturalness and the value of biodiversity. If a behavior violates the forefinger or middle finger principles, the behavior is still allowed (but not obligatory) only if that behavior is both natural (a direct consequence of spontaneous evolution), normal (frequent) and necessary (important for the survival of sentient beings). As a consequence predators (animals who need meat in order to survive) are allowed to hunt. Just as lifetime well-being is the value of a sentient being, biodiversity is the value of an ecosystem and is a function of the variation of life forms and processes that are a direct consequence of natural evolution. The valuable biodiversity would drastically decrease if a behavior that is natural, normal and necessary would be universally prohibited (universally, because you have to put the thumb against the ring finger).

-The little finger: tolerated partiality and the value of personal relationships. Just as the little finger can deviate a little bit from the other fingers, a small level of partiality is allowed. When helping others, you are allowed to be a bit partial in favor of your loved ones, as long as you are prepared to tolerate similar levels of partiality of everyone else (everyone, because you have to put the thumb against the little finger).

The forefinger, middle finger, ring finger and little finger correspond with resp. a welfare ethic, a rights ethic, an environmental ethic and an ethic of care.

These five fingers produce five principles of equality.

-The thumb: the formal principle of impartiality and antidiscrimination. We should treat all equals equally in all equal situations. We should not look at arbitrary characteristics linked to individuals. This is a formal principle, because it does not say how we should treat someone. The other four principles are material principles of equality. They have specific content and are generated when the thumb is applied to the four fingers.

-The forefinger: prioritarian equality of lifetime well-being (the principle of priority for the worst-off). As a result of this priority, we have an egalitarian principle: if total lifetime well-being is constant between different situations, then the situation which has the most equal distribution of well-being is the best.

-The middle finger: basic right equality. All sentient beings (with equal levels of morally relevant mental capacities) get an equal claim to the basic right not to be used as merely a means to someone else’s ends.

-The ring finger: naturalistic behavioral fairness. All natural beings (who contribute equally to biodiversity) have an equal right to a behavior that is both natural, normal and necessary (i.e. a behavior that contributes to biodiversity). Natural beings are beings evolved by evolution. E.g. if a prey is allowed to eat in order to survive, a predator is allowed to do so as well (even if it means eating the prey).

-The little finger: tolerated choice equality. Everyone is allowed to be partial to an equal degree that we can tolerate. If you choose to help individual X instead of individual Y, and if you tolerate that someone else would choose to help Y instead of X, then X and Y have a tolerated choice equality (even if X is emotionally more important for you than Y).

The five moral fingers can be applied to the production and consumption of animal products (meat, fish, eggs, dairy, leather, fur,…):

-The forefinger: compared to humans, livestock animals are in the worst-off position due to suffering and early death. The loss of lifetime well-being of the livestock animals is worse than the loss of well-being that humans would experience when they are no longer allowed to consume animal products. Livestock and fisheries violate the forefinger principle of well-being.

-The middle finger: the consumption of animal products almost always involves the use of animals as merely means, hence violating the mere means principle of the middle finger.

-The ring finger: animal products are not necessary for humans, because well-planned vegan diets are not unhealthy (according to the Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics). Biodiversity will not decrease when we would stop consuming animal products (on the contrary, according to UN FAO the livestock sector is likely the most important cause of biodiversity loss). Hence, the value of biodiversity cannot be invoked to justify the consumption of animal products.

-The little finger: we would never tolerate the degree of partiality that is required to justify livestock farming and fishing. Hence, tolerated partiality cannot be invoked to justify the consumption of animal products.

It follows that veganism is ethically consistent, and the production and consumption of animal products are ethically inconsistent.

-The thumb: give the good example, even when other people continue consuming animal products. From this principle, it follows that veganism is a moral duty.

[1713930108]

1713930108

[1713930108]

1713930108

[1713930108]

1713930108

[saddampbuh]

i don't want to look like chinese peasant from the year 1850

[Snail2]

My cats would be quite upset if I'd try to introduce them to vegan stuff. I can't imagine what they would say if I'd tell them that they are equal with mice and birds in the garden so let's eat fruits, seeds and welcome the rats with a big hug .

I think guys like OP have too much food and spare time so they seceded from biology and reality... and they refer this mental state as "moral high ground".

[Stijn]

As a general rule, the more points, the more requirements, the more detail within an ethical system, the more it is flawed

why should that be?
I value simplicity, but we should not oversimpligy things.

In other words, first define your ethical system in one sentence. If you can't do that then it is flawed.

I don't see why a theory should be flawed if it can't be expressed in one sentence. We don't require such a condition for a scientific theory. But perhaps the following will do:
"Do not discriminate" or
"Do not arbitrarily say that what someone wants is more important than what someone else wants."
But still, a lot of commentary is required...

A scholar once said about the bible "don't do to others what you don't want done to you. The rest is commentary". If you can define your system in one sentence then first look for other systems defined by that sentence. There are hundreds of traditions that have existed for many generations. Are you really coming up with something new? Or are you repackaging something?

my moral hand system is mostly a repackaging of some traditions in ethics, adding some refinements and clarifications. The new thing is that it is the simplest collection of principles that best fits our shared and strongest moral intuitions and values.

Another point that might be useful. Your framework of attaching these principles to fingers reeks of marketing. It has the smell of a lot of fake gurus who create associations to strengthen weak ideas. Something has to stand on its own first. Then if necessary it can be described using gimmicks.

yes, the theory of the five principles can stand on its own without the need of a metaphor of a hand. The metaphor is rather a tool to memorize the five principles.

[Stijn]

My cats would be quite upset if I'd try to introduce them to vegan stuff. I can't imagine what they would say if I'd tell them that they are equal with mice and birds in the garden so let's eat fruits, seeds and welcome the rats with a big hug .

first of all, nowadays there exists vegan cat food that is sifficientky healthy and tasty for cats. And if such vegan cat food did not exist, the ring finger principle says that cats are allowed to hunt and eat mice. Because if a cat was not allowed to eat for survival, then no-one is, and then a lot of valuable biodiversity (at least all obligate carnivores) goes extinct.

I think guys like OP have too much food and spare time so they seceded from biology and reality...

livestock industry is a waste of food. We can feed more people with a plant-based diet.
Saying that someone who is against discriminatory rights violations (such as slavery or rape) has too much spare time, doesn't make any sense. A scientific or ethical theory doesn't become invalid or unreliable if the researcher had too much spare time.
Where did I secede from biology and reality?

and they refer this mental state as "moral high ground".

this I didn't understand

[NUFCrichard]

I was a little confused by the use of a metaphor. You used hands because there are five points, yes?
It would have been just as useful with the points numbered, the fingers just seemed gimmicky to me.

As for veganism, if the whole world went vegan,it would be good for co2 emissions and food production levels, but it isn't going to happen. I won't stop eating meat, nor will billions of others. Eating a complete vegan diet is difficult, those who say it isn't are lying.

[Stijn]

why should that be?
I value simplicity, but we should not oversimpligy things.

More important not too overcomplicate when there is any doubt.

well, if you see some overcomplications in my system of the moral hand... At least I consciously tried to make the system as simple as possible, but it still has to match our moral intuitions and values. It's like in science: you can stick to a very simple theory of newtonian gravity, but that is an oversimplification because it does not match the empirical data. Moral intuitions in ethics are like empirical data in science. Some intuitions and some data are unreliable, but our ethical principles and scientific laws should correspond with respectively the most reliable moral intuitions and empirical data.

But you are trying to describe spiritual things intellectually. And it looks like you are beginning with the intellectual, the lower, and using it to form the higher. It is backward.

this I don't understand. What do you mean with spiritual things and the lower?
I started with basic moral intuitions and values, and from them I constructed a system of ethical principles. Like a scientist starts with data and constructs a system of scientific laws.

Is there something nonverbal that existed prior to the words you created, or are you using intellect to fabricate something?

I guess the moral intuitions are non-verbal?

my moral hand system is mostly a repackaging of some traditions in ethics, adding some refinements and clarifications. The new thing is that it is the simplest collection of principles that best fits our shared and strongest moral intuitions and values.
 

omg that's a steamy pile of turd

That's too easy to say... If you disagree, you'd better come up with an argument.

Why do you want to create this? Every genuine philosophical system is first real, silent. Then it might or might not be communicated. You are trying first to communicate something that is not well developed yet.

I think the moral hand is sufficiently developed to be communicated. I wanted to create a coherent ethical system because I wanted to make sure that moral rules like veganism are consistent. If there were no good arguments for veganism, it would be immoral of me to convince you to become vegan, because that would take away liberty without good reason. But know we have good reasons to take away the liberty to consume animal products. Taking away that liberty is fully justifiable because it is backed up by a coherent ethical system that best fits your moral intuitions and values.

It would be nice if ethics could fit in a book or a system but it can't.

I think my moral hand demonstrates that it can

Has there ever been a system taught that cured basic human vices?

no, just like there has never been a mathematical/geometric system that cured your optical illusions. You are still vulnerable to optical illusions such as the Muller-Lyer illusion about lengths of line segments. But that does not mean that there can be no coherent geometric system like Eiclidean geometry. In the same way you can still suffer from moral illusions such as speciesism (http://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/speciesism-and-moral-illusions/), even if there exists coherent ethical systems.

If a person wants to be ethical you can offer them a magical ethical pebble to eat, a book to read or anything and it will work. And if they don't then you shouldn't waste magical pebbles or books.

so, mathematicians should stop studying euclidean geometry because geometry does not work in avoiding erroneous judgments like optical illusions?

There are so many religions and systems already also that offer more refined teachings.

as far as I know, all religions have incoherent ethical systems.

[Balthazar]

This guy was a vegetarian and protector of animal rights:



</thread>

[Stijn]

I was a little confused by the use of a metaphor. You used hands because there are five points, yes?

correct

It would have been just as useful with the points numbered, the fingers just seemed gimmicky to me.

well, the metaphor goes a bit further than that. The thumb (rule universalism) is an abstract principle because it does not say which situations are morally similar. To answer the question which situations count as similar, we need the other principles, the other fingers. Metaphorically speaking: with only a thumb we cannot yet grasp anything. With only the thumb principle we cannot yet grasp a moral problem.
The middle finger is longer than the forefinger, which means that the basic right is a bit stronger than well-being. For example: we should not sacrifice a person, kill him against his will and use five of his organs to save the lives of five patients in the hospital when there is a shortage of organs. So the right not to be killed and used against your will as a means to someone else's ends is at least five times stronger than the right not to die against your will. But the middle finger is not infinitely long: the basic right is not absolute.
And the little finger refers to a small deviation from the other fingers, to a small level of partiality that we should tolerate.

As for veganism, if the whole world went vegan,it would be good for co2 emissions and food production levels, but it isn't going to happen. I won't stop eating meat, nor will billions of others. Eating a complete vegan diet is difficult, those who say it isn't are lying.

the more people eat vegan, the easier it becomes. The only difficulty in our societies is the group pressure from non-vegans. That is the main reason why vegans experience difficulties. Practically speaking, veganism is easier: less expensive (meat is expensive), more healthy (meat has more saturated fats and bad cholesterol), sufficiently tasty and diverse (in the supermarket and health food stores I can buy then different kinds of plant-based milk) and more hygienic. Meat is contaminated with pathogens; you don't run the risk of a food poisoning when you don't cook your vegan sausages. So, cooking vegan is in fact easier than cooking meat.

[Stijn]

This guy was a vegetarian and protector of animal rights:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Adolf_Hitler-1933.jpg

</thread>

1) Hitler was not an ethical vegetarian, and not even a vegetarian.
2) He also did not protect the rights of jews, so he was not consistent in protecting animal rights. (jews belong to the species Homo sapiens, who belong to the class of mammals, who belong to the kingdom of animals)
3) It is true that some other nazi's had some sympathies with non-human animal rights, but they were not consistent either.
4) Hitler was against the rape of Arian women. So some ideas of Hitler were good, and the fact that Hitler had those ideas is not evidence that those ideas are less reliable. Rape of Arian women is wrong, even if Hitler was right on this point.   

[BADecker]

The whole basis for this kind of thinking is flawed. The flaw lies in the fact that man is not of the animal kingdom, although people are similar to animals.

God spoke the animals into existence. God didn't make man in this simple fashion. God formed man out of the dust of the ground (chemicals of the earth) and breathed into him the breath of life. Man is different than the animals, though of similar physical structure in many ways.

At first, before there were mistakes made in this world, people were instructed to eat of the plants (except for the fruit of one particular tree, that they were instructed not to eat).

Then later, long after mistakes came into the world (the original perpetual nature of the universe was destroyed), God gave the animals to man for food along with the plants. However, after it was shown that man misused the animals in ways that were unfair, God, also, instructed people to use their animals fairly. This would include a quick, painless death for the animals that man is going to consume as food.

If you don't include the things that God has done with man, you will miss the truth.

[TECSHARE]

The only difficulty in our societies is the group pressure from non-vegans. That is the main reason why vegans experience difficulties.

Really? I can't remember a single incident of meat eaters giving a vegetarian flack for choosing to not eat meat. I can however remember endless incidents of vegans trying to push their lifestyle onto meat eaters, and then act as if they were minding their own business when they are told to fuck off and mind their own affairs as they wag their finger at omnivores as if they occupy some kind of moral high ground. Veganism is more of a cult than a dietary choice.


I thought I was going to find at least one logical argument against eating meat in here like for example how much grain and water has to be used for every pound of meat you eat, therefore reducing the available food supply by that much more, but no. All I read was a bunch of ideological drivel. Your diet is not a question of morality, and just because you eat plants and twigs doesn't make you any better than anyone else. Hitler was an environmentalist and a vegan too. IMO this type of ideology is often just anti-humanism disguised as some new agey spiritualist bullshit. Now take your malnourished ass back out the door you came in from and find some more cult members so you can reassure each other of your moral superiority.

[Stijn]

The whole basis for this kind of thinking is flawed. The flaw lies in the fact that man is not of the animal kingdom, although people are similar to animals.

God spoke the animals into existence. God didn't make man in this simple fashion. God formed man out of the dust of the ground (chemicals of the earth) and breathed into him the breath of life. Man is different than the animals, though of similar physical structure in many ways.

well, I think the whole basis for that is flawed: there is no evidence that God created man. There is plenty of evidence that humans evolved from non-human ancestors, that humans and non-human animals have common ancestors, and that no clear dividing line can be drawn between humans and non-human animals. Looking at our ancestors, all intermediates between a human and a chicken once lived. And there is a possibility of human-animal hybrids, chimaeras and genetically modified humanlike beings. In other words; there is no essence related to homo sapiens.
Basing ypu erhics on religious beliefs about creation is very dangerous, because it is very arbitrary to believe in those things and not in other religious beliefs that have the same lack of evidence. Why God and not Krishna, Tohr, Osiris, Quetzal or whatever? Why the Bible and not the Bhagavat Gita or whatever?

At first, before there were mistakes made in this world, people were instructed to eat of the plants (except for the fruit of one particular tree, that they were instructed not to eat).

yes, acoording to the story, God made everyone vegan, even lions. But why did he put that particular tree in the middle of the garden of eden? Why did God ask for problems? If he didn't want humans to eat its fruits, why did he make it so tempting and easy for humans?

Then later, long after mistakes came into the world (the original perpetual nature of the universe was destroyed), God gave the animals to man for food along with the plants.

which is an odd move of God. Humans did something wrong and therefore God said that they are from then on allowed to harm innocents? Why did he make a vegan world in the first place? Why did God suddenly turned 180°? A bit crazy.

However, after it was shown that man misused the animals in ways that were unfair, God, also, instructed people to use their animals fairly. This would include a quick, painless death for the animals that man is going to consume as food.

and God also said that we should not consume a single drop of blood. Which is impossible unless you're vegetarian.

If you don't include the things that God has done with man, you will miss the truth.

well, the Christian God has an incoherent ethic. He is inconsistent. And he does terrible, highly immoral things. He's like the emperor in star wars who said (referring to the genocides he initiated in Jericho and other cities): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmVyUdHtxbU

[Stijn]

The only difficulty in our societies is the group pressure from non-vegans. That is the main reason why vegans experience difficulties.

Really? I can't remember a single incident of meat eaters giving a vegetarian flack for choosing to not eat meat.

do you know how group pressure works? I was refering to groupthink or conformity bias (http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/video/conformity-bias), as was demonstrated in the experiments of social psychologist Solomon Asch and others

I can however remember endless incidents of vegans trying to push their lifestyle onto meat eaters, and then act as if they were minding their own business when they are told to fuck off and mind their own affairs as they wag their finger at omnivores as if they occupy some kind of moral high ground. Veganism is more of a cult than a dietary choice.

well, ethical vegans are at the moral high ground. Meat eaters are really pushing their lifestyle way too far on others, when they even kill and eat others just for taste. Not harming someone, not subjecting someone in slavery, not raping someone, not killing and eating someone are not mere lifestyle choices. And yes, the rapist responds that I should not push my anti-rape lifestyle on him. But it is he who pushes his pro rape lifestyle on his female victims.

I thought I was going to find at least one logical argument against eating meat in here like for example how much grain and water has to be used for every pound of meat you eat,

and what is wrong with the given argument that you should not use someone else against his will as merely a means, that your body belongs to you and no-one else, and that counts equally for everyone, without any arbitrary exceptions? What about the argument that lifetime well-being is what matters and that livestock farming decreases someone's lifetime well-being? What would you prefer: not being able anymore to eat someone else, or being killed and eaten by someone else? You prefer the former, so that indicates the importance of the interests at stake.
You do agree that we are not allowed to choose our victims arbitrarily, that someone else's muscle tissue belongs to that individual and that we cannot claim his or her muscle tissue, and that we should no do something that someone else seriously dislikes.

Your diet is not a question of morality,

it is, because a meat based diet harms others, and morality is about not harming others.

 

and just because you eat plants and twigs doesn't make you any better than anyone else.

but the act of eating plants is better than the act of eating someone's muscle tissue. You do agree with that, I hope.

Hitler was an environmentalist and a vegan too.

he was not even a vegetarian. And I have a different notion of environmentalism.
But suppose he was a vegan: do you have any idea how irrelevant that would be? It's like the rapist who responds to the anti-rape activist by saying that Hitler did not rape anyone.
Why do you give such highly irrelevant (and even incorrect, as Hitler was not vegan) statements?

 

IMO this type of ideology is often just anti-humanism disguised as some new agey spiritualist bullshit.

like the rapists who says that all this anti-rape talk is anti-androcentrism (anti-male)
It is not new agey spiritual bullshit, because you agree with my starting points. You agree that discrimination is wrong, that mentally disabled humans have an intrinsic right not to be used against their will as merely a means for food,...
Here is another argulentation scheme for veganism
http://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/argumentation-scheme-veganism-2/
If you disagree with the moral conclusion that we should eat vegan, then you should be able to point at an assumption in the argument that you reject.

 

Now take your malnourished ass back out the door you came in from and find some more cult members so you can reassure each other of your moral superiority.

that sounds like an ad hominem. You lose credibility if you give fallacies in a discussion.

[Balthazar]

1) Hitler was not an ethical vegetarian, and not even a vegetarian.

It's still disputed.

2) He also did not protect the rights of jews, so he was not consistent in protecting animal rights. (jews belong to the species Homo sapiens, who belong to the class of mammals, who belong to the kingdom of animals)

In 1931 Hitler proposed a ban to vivisection, and it was enacted when he came to power. He signed a Reichstierschutzgesetz (i.e. Reich Animal Protection Act) in 1933.

[Stijn]

1) Hitler was not an ethical vegetarian, and not even a vegetarian.

It's still disputed.

yes, and some sources claim he wasn't vegetarian http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html
I guess we will never know the truth. Luckily, the truth doesn't matter here.

2) He also did not protect the rights of jews, so he was not consistent in protecting animal rights. (jews belong to the species Homo sapiens, who belong to the class of mammals, who belong to the kingdom of animals)

In 1931 Hitler proposed a ban to vivisection, and it was enacted when he came to power. He signed a Reichstierschutzgesetz (i.e. Reich Animal Protection Act) in 1933.

yes, the nazi's had (for those days) very progressive animal and environmental protection laws. Not really consistent with what they did to jews. But at least we learn again that not everything is black or white. Even the nazi's did some good things or abstained from doing some bad things.

seriously now: when refering to Hitler's diet, what argument did you really try to make? Can you explain the logic of your argument, and the point you wanted to make? It seems you wanted to make an argument against vegetarianism, but that would be strange, because it would be an obvious fallacy. So what were your intentions? 

[TECSHARE]

The only difficulty in our societies is the group pressure from non-vegans. That is the main reason why vegans experience difficulties.

Really? I can't remember a single incident of meat eaters giving a vegetarian flack for choosing to not eat meat.  I can however remember endless incidents of vegans trying to push their lifestyle onto meat eaters, and then act as if they were minding their own business when they are told to fuck off and mind their own affairs as they wag their finger at omnivores as if they occupy some kind of moral high ground. Veganism is more of a cult than a dietary choice.

do you know how group pressure works? I was refering to groupthink or conformity bias (http://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/video/conformity-bias), as was demonstrated in the experiments of social psychologist Solomon Asch and others

well, ethical vegans are at the moral high ground. Meat eaters are really pushing their lifestyle way too far on others, when they even kill and eat others just for taste. Not harming someone, not subjecting someone in slavery, not raping someone, not killing and eating someone are not mere lifestyle choices. And yes, the rapist responds that I should not push my anti-rape lifestyle on him. But it is he who pushes his pro rape lifestyle on his female victims.

First of all, I could give a shit less what your diet consists of, until you try to force me to share your beliefs (and diet) too. No one is attempting to stop you from being vegan. To be clear, let me get this right.... You are saying eating meat is equivalent to rape and slavery?  

I thought I was going to find at least one logical argument against eating meat in here like for example how much grain and water has to be used for every pound of meat you eat,

and what is wrong with the given argument that you should not use someone else against his will as merely a means, that your body belongs to you and no-one else, and that counts equally for everyone, without any arbitrary exceptions? What about the argument that lifetime well-being is what matters and that livestock farming decreases someone's lifetime well-being? What would you prefer: not being able anymore to eat someone else, or being killed and eaten by someone else? You prefer the former, so that indicates the importance of the interests at stake.
You do agree that we are not allowed to choose our victims arbitrarily, that someone else's muscle tissue belongs to that individual and that we cannot claim his or her muscle tissue, and that we should no do something that someone else seriously dislikes.

By "someone", "individual", and  "victims", you mean an animal correct? By "arbitrary exceptions" you mean the difference between humans and animals correct?

Your diet is not a question of morality,

it is, because a meat based diet harms others, and morality is about not harming others.

Again, by "others" do you mean animals?

and just because you eat plants and twigs doesn't make you any better than anyone else.

but the act of eating plants is better than the act of eating someone's muscle tissue. You do agree with that, I hope.

No. There are a lot of reasons eating meat in moderation is more nutritional than most vegetable matter.

Hitler was an environmentalist and a vegan too.

he was not even a vegetarian. And I have a different notion of environmentalism.
But suppose he was a vegan: do you have any idea how irrelevant that would be? It's like the rapist who responds to the anti-rape activist by saying that Hitler did not rape anyone.
Why do you give such highly irrelevant (and even incorrect, as Hitler was not vegan) statements?

This is under dispute. Your notion of environmentalism is irrelevant. The reason Hitler being a vegan is relevant is because it demonstrates that some of the most twisted antihuman reasoning and actions can be delivered under a platform of moral authority. As far as your fascination with rape, your gynocentric neo-feminist brainwashing is showing.

IMO this type of ideology is often just anti-humanism disguised as some new agey spiritualist bullshit.

like the rapists who says that all this anti-rape talk is anti-androcentrism (anti-male)
It is not new agey spiritual bullshit, because you agree with my starting points. You agree that discrimination is wrong, that mentally disabled humans have an intrinsic right not to be used against their will as merely a means for food,...
Here is another argulentation scheme for veganism
http://stijnbruers.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/argumentation-scheme-veganism-2/
If you disagree with the moral conclusion that we should eat vegan, then you should be able to point at an assumption in the argument that you reject.

If you are going to use big words like "androcentrism", please learn their definitions first.
andro = male
centrism = centrally oriented

Therefore androcentrism means a male focused world view. The word you invented anti-androcentrism would therefore mean "against a male oriented central viewpoint", and I am not sure why a rapist would be arguing against a male centric viewpoint, but thats ok. This is just one of those double negative word games that disingenuous people such as yourself like to play so that no matter how one replies the response will be guaranteed to be nonsense. What is your obsession with rape by the way?

As far as your other comments, are you saying disabled humans are equivalent to animals? Who is eating disabled people?

I don't disagree with your personal choice to be vegan. I disagree with your application of moral value to your dietary choices, and your resulting grandstanding as if you hold a moral high ground because of it in a pathetic attempt to shame meat eaters into adopting your worldview while simultaneously claiming meat eaters are pressuring you to not be vegan.

Now take your malnourished ass back out the door you came in from and find some more cult members so you can reassure each other of your moral superiority.

that sounds like an ad hominem. You lose credibility if you give fallacies in a discussion.

Take it however you like, I find it to be a most likely accurate observation. I also am willing to bet you live somewhere in western Europe, like The Netherlands, or perhaps Sweden where this brand of brainwashing is all too common.

[Stijn]

First of all, I could give a shit less what your diet consists of, until you try to force me to share your beliefs (and diet) too. No one is attempting to stop you from being vegan.

that's like the rapist who responds to the judge: "No one is attempting to push you to rape someone"

To be clear, let me get this right.... You are saying eating meat is equivalent to rape and slavery? 

yes. And if I look at your basic moral intuitions and judgments, you have to come to the same conclusion. You think rape and slavery are very bad, and the very reason why they are bad, according to you, is the same reason why eating meat is bad. Rape is very bad because someone's body (someone's vagina) belongs to that individual and not to you, so you should not use someone's body in a way that she strongly dislikes. The same can be said about someone's muscle tissue.

By "someone", "individual", and  "victims", you mean an animal correct?

yes. or a woman, in the case of rape.

By "arbitrary exceptions" you mean the difference between humans and animals correct?

yes

Again, by "others" do you mean animals?

in this context: yes

but the act of eating plants is better than the act of eating someone's muscle tissue. You do agree with that, I hope.

No. There are a lot of reasons eating meat in moderation is more nutritional than most vegetable matter.

vegan diets can be nutritionally adequate for all humans: http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357

The reason Hitler being a vegan is relevant is because it demonstrates that some of the most twisted antihuman reasoning and actions can be delivered under a platform of moral authority.

it rather might have demonstrated that hitler did not do 100% bad things.
You refer to antihuman, but reference to humans is morally arbitrary. You and I are as much primate and as much mammal as we are human. So when you speak about antihuman, you could as well use antimammal or anti dry nosed primate. And if you are white, you could have said antiwhite.

As far as your fascination with rape, your gynocentric neo-feminist brainwashing is showing.

what do you mean with that? My fascination with rape? Gynocentric brainwashing?

If you are going to use big words like "androcentrism", please learn their definitions first.
andro = male
centrism = centrally oriented

Therefore androcentrism means a male focused world view. The word you invented anti-androcentrism would therefore mean "against a male oriented central viewpoint", and I am not sure why a rapist would be arguing against a male centric viewpoint, but thats ok.

then how did you use the word antihuman?
Of course the rapist would not argue against a male centric viewpoint. I was comparing it with your claim. A meat eater says that anti meat talk is anti human. Well, than a rapist says that anti rape talk is anti male. You see the analogy? It is an analogy between two fallacious argumants.

What is your obsession with rape by the way?

that it is bad. But that is not an obsession. So what do you mean with an obsession, and why do you believe i'm obsessed with rape?

As far as your other comments, are you saying disabled humans are equivalent to animals?

yes. If you disagree, than give me a morally relevant difference betwene those humans and non-human animals. But you can't give that, because from the 1000+ people i spoke with (including philosophers, slaughterhouse workers, anti-animal rights people,...) no-one could give a relevant difference.

Who is eating disabled people?

no-one, because that is immoral.

I don't disagree with your personal choice to be vegan.

you can hide behind words like "personal choice" or "lifestyle", but you do know that abstaining from harming (eating, raping,...) someone is not merely a matter of personal choice.

I disagree with your application of moral value to your dietary choices, and your resulting grandstanding as if you hold a moral high ground because of it in a pathetic attempt to shame meat eaters into adopting your worldview while simultaneously claiming meat eaters are pressuring you to not be vegan.

conformity bias does not mean there is an intentional, conscious or overt pressure from the group. Cfr the experiment of Asch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments The group members did not overtly or consciously pressure the subject to give the wrong answer.

Now take your malnourished ass back out the door you came in from and find some more cult members so you can reassure each other of your moral superiority.

that sounds like an ad hominem. You lose credibility if you give fallacies in a discussion.

Take it however you like, I find it to be a most likely accurate observation.

including "malnourished"? That's a factual claim, and you don't even know me. You do not know what I eat and what kinds of physical activities I do. So where is your evidence that I'm malnourished?

I also am willing to bet you live somewhere in western Europe, like The Netherlands, or perhaps Sweden where this brand of brainwashing is all too common.

Belgium
But why do you use the word brainwahsing? Give me some evidence that this is brainwashed. And first give a definition, what you mean with brainwashing.

[TECSHARE]

Please FFS, learn to use the quoting system and don't be so lazy. I am tired of cleaning up the mess you call a reply just so I can respond point by point, but I will do it regardless out of pure spite of your willingness to push your ignorant twisted mental state upon others.

First of all, I could give a shit less what your diet consists of, until you try to force me to share your beliefs (and diet) too. No one is attempting to stop you from being vegan.

that's like the rapist who responds to the judge: "No one is attempting to push you to rape someone"

What in the hell are you on about? More rape ffs 

To be clear, let me get this right.... You are saying eating meat is equivalent to rape and slavery? 

yes. And if I look at your basic moral intuitions and judgments, you have to come to the same conclusion. You think rape and slavery are very bad, and the very reason why they are bad, according to you, is the same reason why eating meat is bad. Rape is very bad because someone's body (someone's vagina) belongs to that individual and not to you, so you should not use someone's body in a way that she strongly dislikes. The same can be said about someone's muscle tissue.

I agree, rape and slavery are bad. I do not agree that animals and humans are equivalent, and this type of logic, BY DEFAULT is antihuman, because it automatically lowers all human beings to the status of barn animals under this dialectic. That is a good way to justify the subservience, neglect, and slaughter of humans while you cry about the rights of cows and chickens.

By "someone", "individual", and  "victims", you mean an animal correct?

yes. or a woman, in the case of rape.

Again with the rape! You really don't believe this is obsessive behavior bringing rape into a discussion about veganism so many times? This is what I mean by antihuman. By making all animals equivalent with humans, suddenly all humans also become equivalent with animals, and it becomes a MUCH simpler task to justify bringing humanity to slaughter or other forms of maltreatment. Sociopaths and psychopaths are often known to be animal lovers too, not because they have a capacity to love in reality, but because they are of the belief that humans are just walking meat puppets at their disposal that deserve punishment, however an animal is innocent of human sin therefore they feel no need to hate the animal like they do other humans.

By "arbitrary exceptions" you mean the difference between humans and animals correct?

yes

I don't think the majority of humans on Earth would find this an arbitrary distinction. If animals were equivalent to humans they would be joining in this discussion here with us. So far I haven't heard from any pigs or cattle.

Again, by "others" do you mean animals?

in this context: yes

Again your premise that meat based diets harms "others" is based on the premise that animals are equivalent to humans. Plants are a life form too. Why are not plants included in your generalization of "others"? Are plants not harmed when you consume them as well? Is that not also destroying life to provide yourself nutrition?

but the act of eating plants is better than the act of eating someone's muscle tissue. You do agree with that, I hope.

No. There are a lot of reasons eating meat in moderation is more nutritional than most vegetable matter.

vegan diets can be nutritionally adequate for all humans: http://www.eatright.org/About/Content.aspx?id=8357

The key words you used are "can be", as in if you scoured the globe for the finest plants and cultivated your own food painstakingly, as well as eat plant matter nearly all day long, and spend the rest of your time crapping, then yes, veganism "can be" nutritionally adequate. That doesn't make it realistic for the majority of humans just because it is possible.

The reason Hitler being a vegan is relevant is because it demonstrates that some of the most twisted antihuman reasoning and actions can be delivered under a platform of moral authority.

it rather might have demonstrated that hitler did not do 100% bad things.
You refer to antihuman, but reference to humans is morally arbitrary. You and I are as much primate and as much mammal as we are human. So when you speak about antihuman, you could as well use antimammal or anti dry nosed primate. And if you are white, you could have said antiwhite.

So you are using the glass half full argument for Hitler? Yeah your right, he may have committed genocide against millions of people, but at least he treated goats with respect. Again your argument against my use of the word antihuman depends completely upon the premise that humans are equal to animals. They are not. Additionally your attempt to muddy the discussion with neo-feminist and racial talking points is a quite disingenuous attempt to attach moral authority to your argument, as if anyone who disagrees with you is a racist, sexist, or even worse a slave owning rapist.

As far as your fascination with rape, your gynocentric neo-feminist brainwashing is showing.

what do you mean with that? My fascination with rape? Gynocentric brainwashing?

I mean that you packed so many talking points used by politically motivated neo-feminist groups that it is completely transparent to me that you must spend a lot of time around these types of people being continually indoctrinated to the point where you can't help but have those ideas that were driven into your head via repetitive conditioning leak out during an unrelated discussion about your dietary choices. Furthermore you clearly seem to be attempting to use it as a shaming tactic. Frankly, I feel bad for you. I assume you are male (I may be wrong), but if not then very clearly you have had your own gender identity stolen from you and replaced with politically motivated indoctrination substitute designed to bring your subservience and slavery. Even if I am wrong about this and you are in fact a female, I still feel bad for you, because you have no idea how much harm you are bringing down upon all females (and males for that matter) by repeating such divisive politically motivated ignorance.

If you are going to use big words like "androcentrism", please learn their definitions first.
andro = male
centrism = centrally oriented

Therefore androcentrism means a male focused world view. The word you invented anti-androcentrism would therefore mean "against a male oriented central viewpoint", and I am not sure why a rapist would be arguing against a male centric viewpoint, but thats ok.

then how did you use the word antihuman?
Of course the rapist would not argue against a male centric viewpoint. I was comparing it with your claim. A meat eater says that anti meat talk is anti human. Well, than a rapist says that anti rape talk is anti male. You see the analogy? It is an analogy between two fallacious argumants.

human = homo sapiens
anti = in opposition to
antihuman = against homo sapiens

So now you are comparing me with a rapist, but me calling you malnourished is a personal attack? Your analogy ONCE AGAIN relies COMPLETELY on the premise that animals are equal to humans. I understand what you are trying to communicate with me but your premise is fallacy therefore all analogies based on it are false.

What is your obsession with rape by the way?

that it is bad. But that is not an obsession. So what do you mean with an obsession, and why do you believe i'm obsessed with rape?

Well, you only used the word rape 15 times in a discussion about veganism... that does appear a little obsessive.

As far as your other comments, are you saying disabled humans are equivalent to animals?

yes. If you disagree, than give me a morally relevant difference betwene those humans and non-human animals. But you can't give that, because from the 1000+ people i spoke with (including philosophers, slaughterhouse workers, anti-animal rights people,...) no-one could give a relevant difference.

Your willful ignorance of the arguments of others counter to your world view is not evidence of lack of arguments against it. I have one simple proof. There are no non homo sapiens animals engaging in this discussion here today because they are unable. Therefor animals can not be equivalent to humans.

Who is eating disabled people?

no-one, because that is immoral.

Well that is good to know. I still wonder why you brought it up then if it is a nonexistent problem.

I don't disagree with your personal choice to be vegan.

you can hide behind words like "personal choice" or "lifestyle", but you do know that abstaining from harming (eating, raping,...) someone is not merely a matter of personal choice.

Again, eating a hamburger is not equivalent to rape regardless of however you justify it in your twisted and abused mind.  Once again your analogy rests upon the fallacious premise that animals are equivalent to humans.

I disagree with your application of moral value to your dietary choices, and your resulting grandstanding as if you hold a moral high ground because of it in a pathetic attempt to shame meat eaters into adopting your worldview while simultaneously claiming meat eaters are pressuring you to not be vegan.

conformity bias does not mean there is an intentional, conscious or overt pressure from the group. Cfr the experiment of Asch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments The group members did not overtly or consciously pressure the subject to give the wrong answer.

I am not even going to attempt to address this pathetic appeal to authority fallacy.

Now take your malnourished ass back out the door you came in from and find some more cult members so you can reassure each other of your moral superiority.

that sounds like an ad hominem. You lose credibility if you give fallacies in a discussion.

Take it however you like, I find it to be a most likely accurate observation.

including "malnourished"? That's a factual claim, and you don't even know me. You do not know what I eat and what kinds of physical activities I do. So where is your evidence that I'm malnourished?

I don't know you personally no. I have however known several people who talk just like you and preach veganism as if it was a lost book of the bible, and none of them ever looked very healthy to me.

I also am willing to bet you live somewhere in western Europe, like The Netherlands, or perhaps Sweden where this brand of brainwashing is all too common.

Belgium
But why do you use the word brainwahsing? Give me some evidence that this is brainwashed. And first give a definition, what you mean with brainwashing.

By brainwashing I mean you have been conditioned mentally to have beliefs counter to facts, reality, and probably some times even your own once organically held beliefs. You have become a vessel for others to use to spread their political ideology, and chances are you have no awareness of this. In your mind you are just saying what you think is the truth, but unfortunately the people who told you this is the truth are liars. My evidence is that you used the word rape 15 times in a discussion about veganism. The gynocentric neo-feminist movement is completely obsessed with using rape as a tool of shaming against all men, rapist or not as a form of trauma based control, shaming you via negative operant conditioning to speak as if all males are potential rapists.

If anyone denies this position, they are automatically defending rape. It is much like asking some one the question "So when did you stop beating your wife?". The question involves the assumed premise that the person being asked beats their wife, and if it were to be replied to directly would either appear as if he still continues to beat his wife, or that he used to beat his wife but has now stopped. In short you are placing everything under the context of rape in order to try to make any argument against your points indefensible without appearing to be defending rape. It is very disingenuous and dishonest.

[BADecker]

The whole basis for this kind of thinking is flawed. The flaw lies in the fact that man is not of the animal kingdom, although people are similar to animals.

God spoke the animals into existence. God didn't make man in this simple fashion. God formed man out of the dust of the ground (chemicals of the earth) and breathed into him the breath of life. Man is different than the animals, though of similar physical structure in many ways.

At first, before there were mistakes made in this world, people were instructed to eat of the plants (except for the fruit of one particular tree, that they were instructed not to eat).

Then later, long after mistakes came into the world (the original perpetual nature of the universe was destroyed), God gave the animals to man for food along with the plants. However, after it was shown that man misused the animals in ways that were unfair, God, also, instructed people to use their animals fairly. This would include a quick, painless death for the animals that man is going to consume as food.

If you don't include the things that God has done with man, you will miss the truth.

You are making the common mistake of trying to learn what you think you don't know, rather than what you don't know.

That's good ^^. Hadn't thought of that one yet.

Actually, was just expressing that which I know by faith... somewhat like you, just different knowledge.

The context of the bible, and every other book ever written, is important. If you put it in the context of modern science etc it is allegorical.

I understand. Much of the interpretation of modern science is, well, simply wrong.

There are a lot of things you would say teaching a child that you would not say teaching an adult. You have the hope that when the child grows he or she will realize that the easter bunny, the tooth fairy etc were symbols not real.

You must be soooo capable because you recognize this.