Meat tastes good. Vegetables taste good. Why choose one? Some kind of morality issues? Beh.
We humans be the conquerors, an’ as such, we be eatin’ what we please, arr!
I’m not relying on Einstein’s advice. Long after deciding to be a vegetarian for the reasons I’ve described throughout this post I saw this quote and thought it summed up my reasoning nicely, so I decided to use it as an introduction.
Have you read further into the post?
As for W.S’s response… I’m not sure whether or not I should take it seriously.
For whatever reason, luck or fate, we “conquerors” lucked out with the ability to use language.
Yup, we can eat what we please, but I think our decision of what to decide we eat says a lot about the use of our powers.
Can anyone answer this?
I’ll ignore the “limited” in the sentence, as it is only there to promote your judgement of one experiencing a “lesser” life if they choose to abstain from certain “pleasures”. Writing “apart from moderate pleasures” makes the “limited” unnecessary.
With that said…
- I interpret this challenge as suggesting that, since we’re going to die eventually, why should we avoid pleasurable behaviors?
Is that an accurate interpretation? Or does it only apply to behavior that does not harm oneself or others?
I am guessing you are talking specifically about consumption? Eating desserts, drinking wine, etc–actions that will only have a miniscule effect on a person’s own body (in terms of a single helping, not in terms of prolonged use)-- and not other behaviors that specific individuals might take pleasure from, such as bullying other people or hunting “game”, which harm others.
Under this definition of moderate pleasure, I don’t see a problem with it.
However, I understand that your question was directed more towards the health benefits of not eating meat, and has nothing to do with the moral side of it.
If someone can, at any moment, die from some kind of accident, does it really matter how healthy they are?
Sure it does! But of course I’m assuming the person wants to feel good. Health isn’t only about living longer, it’s about the quality of day to day living as well.
And that brings us to your 2nd question… who says investing in the present moment ISN’T the better deal?
Instead of thinking of eating healthy for a healthier future you might consider thinking of it as eating healthier for a healthier present (that will increase the overall pleasure of that moment) that will come about in the future.
I can answer it by suggesting that you don’t actually believe it yourself, as follows:
When you are crossing an intersection on foot, do you make efforts to avoid being run over by a car, or do you dance in the intersection for the sheer death-defying fun of it all?
When you are driving, do you try to remain at speeds you can control, or do you throw caution to the winds and gun it for all the engine can give you?
Do you smoke cigarettes? If not, your refraining from that very unhealthy pleasure speaks for itself; if you do, do you think it would make sense to quit? If so, why?
Do you try to have unprotected sex with multiple partners?
The truth is, we ALL forego pleasures of the moment for the sake of long-term consequences. It’s all a matter of degree, and belief in the reality of a threat to health.
You basically got it right, but at the end there the point went off course. If I eat a steak about the size of my hand, that’s well seasoned, and cooked to tender perfection I will feel good. Then, if I head out into the street and get hit by a car I predict that with my last thoughts I’ll feel some sense of happiness.
The problem with your argument is that on many points you make claims that things are fun that really aren’t. Perhaps they are thrilling but not fun.
As an older man, I have in fact down some of the things that you mention, and I’m still here to tell the tale, and glad of it.
My Point:
I believe that in the last few decades westerns have somehow been co-opted by a secret cabal of old ladies, and it needs to stop. What is the point of staying alive if one builds a prison around the self based on avoidance and anxiety. Again, how healthy does one want to be at death?
I think that’s a good question.
Recently, I read a British article suggesting that as humans stay away from harmful habits they will get less cancer and heart disease, and they will live longer. However, there’s little to protect from brain deterioration and that means that a bunch of old but healthy retarded people will be running around in the future. Great!
Supposedly, this will cost society a huge amount of money. They’ll be giving cigarettes away.
If you agreed with my definition of moderate pleasures, which excludes any pleasure that harms others, than the pleasure you get from eating steak is inapplicable to this case.
But besides that, are you saying you are confidant that, after eating a steak prepared to your liking, all of your thoughts are happy ones? For how long does this post-steak only-happy-thoughts state last? Until your stomach again experiences hunger? Is eating the steak the only way you can get back to this state, or are there other means? Other means with food? Using any vegetarian food?
Oh, I disagree, sir. Dancing is always fun. The reason I don’t dance in a crowded intersection, apart from the fact that my body isn’t as grand to display as it once was, is because it’s dangerous, not because it isn’t fun. Same with driving fast, and as a former smoker I can attest that while smoking isn’t exactly “fun,” it certainly is pleasant.
But you don’t do those things any longer. That’s the point. You’re older and wiser, and you recognize that sometimes immediate pleasure needs to be compromised in service to longer-term health, safety, and general well-being.
A better one is: how healthy do you want to be in the year before you die? No one is ever healthy “at death,” that’s an oxymoron, but one’s condition in the year before one dies, and the year before that, and so on, is of some concern. If one is unhealthy, but still alive, life isn’t very enjoyable, as a rule: ill health involves discomfort, pain, and the inability to enjoy things.
I agree that it’s possible to take this to an extreme. I’m just not at all convinced that vegetarianism crosses that line. Considering that I’m able to cook one hell of a fine gourmet vegan meal myself, and there are a lot of restaurants near where I live that also do so. One doesn’t even need to sacrifice culinary pleasure.
I would also say that, whatever arguments may be raised in favor of strict vegetarianism, much stronger arguments may be raised to the effect that Americans eat far too MUCH meat than is good either for themselves or for the environment. A lifestyle change in the direction of vegetarianism, even if it doesn’t go all the way there, would benefit the entire world. Einstein was right on that point.
Animals aren’t “others” except in some romantic notion. So, eating a steak does not harm others.
Is any state of happiness constant?
No, and I don’t expect it to be. Also, why should I have anxiety about a harmless pleasure and attempt to replace it with another one? That actually creates unhappiness mixed with my pleasure. So, why should one do that?
On what grounds do you consider an animal to be an “other” only if he or she possesses human DNA and/or human intelligence?
Raising animals for meat and killing them certainly does harm to sentient life-forms with feelings. To say, then, that eating meat does no harm to “others” merely because in historical English usage that term has normally been confined to animals that are human, is a misuse of semantics to make a point that isn’t justified.
No, the term “others” is perfectly good as the word contains lots of meaning about types and quality of life. I would guess that most understand what it means with little explanation.
Eating meat is not a moral issue. I already covered this on another forum (forums.philosophyforums.com/thread/21425/8 ), so I’ll just cut and paste it here.
Edit: Out of like concern, people wanted only to read the summary, not the original blog / Millerian rant that I powdered over the argument. You deserved the clearer set first, and that is what follows.
Also, vegetarianism is not healthier for you: beyondveg.com . People who say this would have to quote someone like Einstein, who was not an expert at nutrition.
But in the context of the current discussion, you do need to justify why you don’t consider non-human animals “others.”
We do have laws against animal cruelty, and also laws that protect endangered species. So the distinction between human and non-human animals, while significant, is not absolute, and we do recognize that non-human animals have some rights that human animals must observe. Granted, in general society the right not to be eaten isn’t one of them, still to dismiss the sentience of non-human animals blithely by denying that they are “others” is a bit much.
I am reminded of Descartes’ insistence that animals didn’t really feel pain because they didn’t have souls. Such a disjunct from common-sense reality on the part of a philosopher is not to be encouraged.
Philosophemer:
Any behavior objected to by anyone on moral grounds becomes a moral issue. No behavior can be ruled off-limits to moral considerations. All decisions are potentially moral ones.
That vegetarianism is healthier than meat-eating is not dependent on Einstein, and many sources may be quoted in support of this.
Animals show no evidence that they have the emotional or intellectual range of a human. So, most do not relate to them as “others” meaning others of the same quality.
If one needed directions to the movies and your friend said, go ask the others, and you saw a group of dogs and a group of humans, then who would you ask. It’s pretty clear that the word has a sound meaning.
All other ideas about animal equality rely on reductionistic ideas that relate to humans and aren’t valid.
No, morals are a social construct and are only an issue for those that believe in them.
It should be clear to you that by “others” I meant those that experience the sensation of pain that we relate to. This includes animals.
You can decide whatever you think “others” more appropriately describes, but at least now you have no reason to not understand what I was expressing.
Once again, you bring about the idea that morals is a social contruct. And?
The experience of pain tells us to avoid to avoid what is causing the pain.
Yes you can say “morality is just a social construct” and decide that, objectively, there is no definite force (such as pain) preventing us from causing an “other” (based on the idea of a human OR animals that feel physical pain) pain.
The driving force behind your contributions to this topic seem to center around “I can/I want.” You will do what you can in the moment, and you will do what you want. Living life to the fullest. No problem with that, I agree with this outlook. However, I think it comes second to preventing others from feeling pain.
As for philosophemer, I’ll read your post now, it looks like it iwll take awhile, but I don’t think you’ve read all the posts here if you are comfortable enough to assume all I had to say was the quote by Einstein. I have previously explained why I used it, as it sums up my ideas on why people shouln’t eat it meat; it doesn’t explain my reasoning behind it.
If one recognizes that any moral issues exist, then one believes in morals.
You do understand the distinction between saying that animals have equal rights with humans, and saying that they have any rights whatsoever, do you not? What’s more, if I were to deny all rights to others who did not have my own emotional or intellectual range, then not only non-human animals but over 99% of humanity as well would not be considered “others.”
There is always an implied qualifier about “others” in any practical statement using that word. In your example about the movies, the implied qualifier is “others who can give me useful information.” Dogs and cats would not qualify. In the statement “X does no harm to others,” the implied qualifier is “others capable of suffering meaningful harm.” In that case, non-human animals DO qualify.
You may assert that your desire to eat meat outweighs the suffering inflicted on non-human animals so that you may do so. I’m not saying that is self-evidently wrong. But to say that your eating meat does no harm to others IS self-evidently wrong.