P3, wiping out a species is far worst than murdering someone.
It's worst as wiping out human kind.
Every species existence value are equal.
If is between my life and the life of a critically endangered species. I'd chose its life above mine. Would even risk my life to save it if there is a burning building with critically endangered species in it.
There are like 7 billions people and these species only roam in dozens to hundreds example.
So it is important to care because once is gone it's gone.
If we keep valuing people we never met like we're an endangered species above rare species, many species will vanish.
Man commited genocide to many species because of greed, overpopulation and other selfish act. Man is conscious and we should think for other species for a minute.
Many people are anthropocentric / speciesism and it is despicable and wrong. Man has more bad intention than animals.
In my views when someone care for more species, the better they are.
An endangered species is more precious than some people I never met or people with negative value such as rapists, convicted murderers and criminal against humanity.
Example If I own a dog would care for my dog more than someone I never met.
If is between a family member and my dog of course the family member would come first.
If is between the life of a poacher and an endangered species.
Poacher should be shot dead because they're scumbags .
Everything on Earth is amazing and equal and deserves respect. Humans are the only species on this planet that not only destroys themselves but Mother Nature. Humans cant go anywhere without killing someone or cutting down a tree. Don't take this the wrong way... but Pull your head out dude. We are Nature.
I think that as you drop in sentience your life goes down much more quickly than your right to minimal stress. I would definitely say that it is more immoral to buy a white egg, supporting the agonizing situations that the chickens are put in to make those cheap eggs, than it would be to eat a chicken that was raised on a minimum stress farm. In fact, if the life provided for that chicken was a good one, then buying the chicken after it's death is actually positively moral, because the loss of..
@MacabreManifesto ...that chicken's life is outweighed by the safe and carefree life it received in the coop. I'm not saying this is a commonality in the chicken production industry but the possibility exists of a moral demand for chicken. But this extends to products beyond food. If a pig is treated poorly and is slaughtered and it's body is turned into non edible pork products, then buying crayons (often made with pork products) is demanding the same slaughter. You have to calculate it in:...
@MacabreManifesto How much demand does a purchase create for the slaughter of animals? + How are the animals treated? = Actual Level of moral depravity you should hold this instance of consumption to hold
To those whom try to "Debunk" vegetarian and vegan ideology based on the concept that plants are a form of life also: PLANTS AREN'T CONCIOUS. That is the entire point, yes they are alive, just like a person whom is brain dead is alive. We pull the plug on people whom are brain dead, why? Because their CONCIOUSNESS has died. It's not about what is ALIVE it is about what is CONCIOUSLY ALIVE.
im a vegetarian cuz meat makes me sick. while i dont agree with torturing animals, i dont see a problem with eating them just as long you dont waste (the same with any food). though, you have a good point.
Of course you also need to add in the fact that eating meating is increadibly damaging to the environment. Its a massivly wasteful and inefficient way to produce food. Given that we are in a precarious environmental situation it is logical, if you care about HUMANS, to be a vegetarian. If world population continues to increase at the same rate then I suspect we will all be vegetarians as there will simply not be enough land to support meat as a viable food source.
@evilreligion That woul be a intersting trick since over half of the land on the planet is too cold or too dry to support suitable vegetation for human consumption. Growing up on a farm i can tell you cows are stupid they have no other benefit than dairy and protein the same with most herbivores. if the population is not decreased they can have harsh effects on the surrounding ecosytem.
@evilreligion people would not survive. beleive or not you actually need fat in your diet to survive vegatables have no fat also the poverty level would be 10 times as many there are towns across america that rely on the meat industry and i rely on the freed om to eat a burger
@evilreligion also it takes alot less nutrients to grow grass than crop ever seen the upper midwest a baron wasteland for crops except for wheat but cattle flourish.
Look its simple biology. Every link in th food chain is inefficient. Nurients, engery and water are wasted at every step. Eating animals puts an extra unecessary step in the food chain. Therefore it is a less efficient way of producing food. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. Growing wheat to feed to humans, rather than cattle, would be a far better use of the midwest.
@evilreligion Yes. Each time something takes nutrietns from something else, there is a loss. It's physics. So, why not cut out as many of the 'losses' as possible and each the most direct and effecient way: plants?
@evilreligion An even better way to use the midwest would be to grow grass and let the cows eat it themselves. No feeding necessary. Let the cows harvest the grass and then eat the cows. Annual cropping schemes are are horrible for topsoil, biodiversity, animal habitat, etc. Grass, as a perennial, is better for the environment because you don't need to reset ecological succession every year (with a plow or chemicals), spray herbicides/pesticides, mechanically harvest, etc.
I guess that would be ok as long as you don't mind millions of people around the world starving to death.
The American mid west is one of the main grain producing areas of the world if you turn a large proportion of this over to the less efficient grass grazing to be eaten by cattle method of food production literally millions would starve. Its simply to late for viable meat production to continue and as world population increase so meat consuption will have to fall.
@rokee1979 There are ways of making 'grass' protein available to humans. The only reason humans can't digest grass directly is due to the fact that the human digestive system can't break them down BUT they can be mechanically broken down and then edible to humans.
@evilreligion In agriculture, you can't use the word efficient without defining it. Efficiency can be measured in the amount of food grown per acre, the amount of food per unit of labor, the amount of food grown per input (fertilizer, diesel, etc.), the amount of food grown per financial cost (profitability), etc. Grazing is hands down the most efficient way to grow food when compared to inputs. In this day of climate change and peak oil, getting off petroleum-based inputs is the way to go.
@evilreligion In agriculture, you can't use the word efficient without defining it. Efficiency can be measured in the amount of food grown per acre, the amount of food per unit of labor, the amount of food grown per input (fertilizer, diesel, etc.), the amount of food grown per financial cost (profitability), etc. Grazing is hands down the most efficient way to grow food when compared to inputs. In this day of climate change and peak oil, getting off petroleum-based inputs is the way to go.
Growing crops is more efficient in water use, land use, CO2 foot print, oil usage, labour costs and pretty much every thing yuo mention. You think that meat uses less oil? Wrong. It has to be transported, processed, chilled or frozen, then all the crops that they feed to cattle when there isn;t enough grass needs to be harvested etc. The single best way of lowering your carbon foot print is to become a vegetarian. Thats before you take into account the land wastage of meat...
... when you consider that all those millions of acres of rainforest that are cut down are mostly used to grow soy to feed to chickens or other animals or are used directly for grazing cattle on you then amplify the envoronmental impact of meat eating further still. I don't really care about animals I'm a vegetarian because of humans. In 50 years time, if population continue to rise, no one will eat meat much. The world simply can't support a poulation of 10billion meat eaters.
First off, not a single meat eater ever proved conclusively plant feelings etc. So any arguments deriving from that are logical fallacies, i.e. they don't follow. Furthermore, assuming the situation post hoc, in which conclusive proof for plant feelings has been provided then still vegans and vegetarians kill less plants as a direct cause of their plant consumption than meatarians do indirectly by eating farm animals that require plant fed.
Typical human always thinking that your better than anything else on Earth! How would you know who is more sentient?! Animals are just as sentient as humans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"humans are the most sentient" LOL. How in the world do you measure sentience?. Science can easily tell when an animal is sentient based on stimuli. But no one can tell whether an animal is less or more sentient. How do you know who feels more or less? And even if you did feel more than a non-human animal, how do you practice and apply a moral hierarchy when you are the only one who is actually aware and can determine this. You are simply proposing an immoral doctrine of speciesism.
@truth2748 "You are simply proposing an immoral doctrine of speciesism." You know what. I'm a proud "specieist" (or whatever)! You know why? Because I'm ALLOWED to be. Therefore, I CAN be. And since I don't consider being a "specieist" "immoral" (morality is subjective) THERE IS NO REASON WHY I SHOULDN'T BE.
So what are you going to do? Eco-terrorism perhaps? Until then, I WILL ENJOY IN SUFFERING OF INNOCENT COWS! And you can do NOTHING! The AMAZING FEELING of POWER and SECURITY! FUCK YEA!
OH MY GAUD its nice to see another meat eating human on this Earth! Thank you for not being afraid to kill and eat a Cow! I totally agree with you man!!!!!!!!
how about if u can give me an animal that can talk and carry out an intelligent conversation with a human then i might have feelings for that animal
plants do feel pain and react to it as well they have nerves and organs, why do u vegetarians say plants have all the nutrients u can get from meat? cuz they have many similar features
Well said. You are one of the first vloggers (is that right?) I've found to address the variable of perspective when discussing vegetarian or vegan lifestyles.
It seems many who abstain from animal products have mounted themselves upon pedestals of moral righteousness. Glad to see someone bring the issue back to earth.
But ultimately, humans are the ones who make the value system by which we judge our superiority over nonhuman animals.
I don't see a great deal of value in the human who decides to play video games hours a day and contributes near nothing to society. He's similar to the animal you think is inferior.
I'm sure you can come up with a list of people who don't deserve to live.
I agree. Sentience is the main factor we can use to determine what is 'moral' or 'immoral' with our eating choices. That is, very few people would morally disagree with eating a banana, whereas many people would disagree with the consumption of a human infant. Of course, other factors could come into play such as, if I ate a banana that came from a plantation that used slave labour, or if i was stranded on an island and ate a human infant that had already died from natural causes.
Since when are there grades of sentience? Good for you, that leaves more for me. Going downtown, gonna pick out a nice tender puppy for some tender fillets.
Well, one must agree that a rock has very little sentience, more than likely, no sentience. Nobody would morally question me over eating a rock, would they? (Although it may be seen as strange). On the other hand, a puppy has some sort of sentience, yes? It has at least a basic ability to sense the world around it. We know that dogs are good at tracking with their sense of smell.
So at the very least, there are 2 states of sentience - no sentience, and some sentience.
True. Most of us are not in a situation of dire survival, so those who eat meat do so are doing so because they 1)think its the right course (however wrong) 2)its pleasurable and they don't care about morality (food in itself is not a moral issue, its what that food used to be and how it was acquired that matters.
maybe i am taking it the wrong way but are you realy saying that eating is imoral, and can be measured by it. and by eating i mean just eating, not the death or any pain caused etc, or do you mean it as a whole as in the "full process"
Eating alone is not really applicable to morality. But if your eating is responsible for the unnecessary murder of a sentient being, then it should be applicable to morality.
so then would you accept the eating of animals that have a necessary death apart for being eaten?
and you say that it's bad because you are killing an animal, the only thing wrong with that i can think of is that you are shortenting it's life.
if so then wouldn't the fact that by farming animals (some of them) can increase the average life for a species mean that we are actually doing good, example, sheep and cows that have other uses (for profit) kept alive until old then killed for food
Why is your morality more rational than any other? You're just saying "These random qualities are important to me and therefore valuable". This is the same as any other form of morality. I could just as rationally say that the fastest runner is the most valuable because it always wins in a race. Values- and therefore morals- are not rational and people shouldn't try to make them so.
The moral value that is the most logically consistent is the one that is the most objective. The one that has all kinds of exceptions and arbitrary lines in the sand is less objective. We can debate subjective vs objective some other time, but hopefully you will agree that a theory that is logically consistent is more objective than one that isn't.
I don't think that's the case. While something that is objective must be logical(as far as we can determine), something can be completely logical and also completely subjective. I don't believe there are gradations of objectivity. Furthermore, the very premise to any moral code is an arbitrary line in the sand. The way you define that line in the sand (either with many statements, or just with one) doesn't really affect the fact that you're doing the same thing in both cases.
Can you give me an example of a theory that is subjective, but is completely logically consistent? You should realize subjective simply means an opinion and objective simply means not an opinion. What part of the following reasoning is an opinion? "Value is a subset of morality. Morality must have the axiom of a choice being involved. Choice must have the axiom of being sentient. Therefore, value can only be placed on sentient beings."
Therefore the person who eats the most eggs is does the most good. --This is a logical and consistent conclusion. Still, it's subjective.
2. Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The proper conclusion is that value can only be placed BY sentient beings. You have to be sentient to value things, not to be valued. There's no reason to exclude non-sentient beings.
2(continued). I think what you're essentially saying is that we should only value those things which are capable of being moral. If this is the case, then you're missing the fact that morality is not the ONLY source of value. Not everyone values another's ability to value things and there's nothing that says that they should.
If you are going to choose a "least sentient" diet, then why aren't eating an all fruit/nut/whatever diet. Stuff from plants that is meant to be eaten by animals in order to spread its seeds and therefore not killing the plant? If you are in such a situation of luxury and choice and morality, then stop killing altogether, hypocrites.
I'm not claiming to be a saint. I still eat cheese and eggs from time to time. I know I can take on a more moral diet than what I am eating, but I'm happy with the progress that I've made so far. I only wish people stop being speciesists and start looking at this issue from a more objective viewpoint.
The most objective? Either something is objective or it's not. There is nothing about morality that exists in reality. If you're going to claim otherwise you're going to have to back that up.
If you would agree with me that logic is objective, then I would say that this theory of morality as it pertains to the value of species is indeed objective.
Logic is conceptual, it does not exist outside of the mind and therefore is not objective. You could say it is contextually objective in that it is object in the context of humanity but you did not make that distinction and it is not necessarily implied.
And while the case you make is sound, one can easily just say that they value animals little enough as to justify their consumption.
And I wouldn't call it "morality", I'd call it ethics. Morality is consistent universally applicable preferred behavior within human society.
Ethics are principles based upon personal preferences and not universally applicable.
I don't find your video particularly objectionable so far as the main point is concerned though, I just disagree with your interpretation of the value of the "lesser" levels of sentience.
Oh and how do you get your hair so straight? I'm envious...
Look up the word objective in the dictionary . . . it doesn't mean an "object." I'll quote it verbatim for you, "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." Where in that definition does it talk about material things?
Yet, if one were to acquiesce to the logic, then no matter how you slice it, a plant has infinitely less value than an animal does.
I do eat almost anykind og food, and I do not like fanatics telling me what to do. You are not one of those, and if I where ever to change, you´re way of doing it would be the way. Change comes by will, not by force ;) peace.
Well I disagree I think if you love cows you will eat more meat... why?
Simply because of what would happen to the animals if we didnt eat them... you think cows can survive in the wild by themself? you think we need every caddle thats alive now for milking purpose? not only would that ruin the bussiness of everyone selling milk but the demand would never get that high.
Instead of the cows dying to become food they will just die to save money cos theres no other purpose for them.
But what cows can fend for themselves? remember there are predators out there lol. Not to mention that the cows wont even be able to feed from the farms they used to cos that would just be a waste for the farmers that could use that ground for something else. The reality is the less meat we eat the less we need the animals and the more of them will die for nothing instead of dying for a food... everything needs a purpose to exist, its natural selection.
You do realize cows fended for themselves just fine before we domesticated them? The only reason they can't fend for themselves is when we stuff them with so much hormones they can barely support their own weight and then chop their horns off. Otherwise they could defend themselves just find. In Mexico they let bulls run around in the street and it's like letting a tank loose.
lol ok it wasn't a comment pertaining to abortion. It was whether or not it's ok by his standard to consume something with the known potential to be sentient.
If you want my stance on abortion it's the same as it is for just about everything: do what you want, just stay the fuck away from my freedoms. You can be vegetarian, just don't smear yourself in pig blood and camp on my lawn to interrupt my BBQ.
So those of us who make our luxury choice to enjoy the flesh of less sentient animals should what, give livestock IQ tests?
If you don't like the taste of meat it's fine, but dividing the world up by sentience is both subjective and flawed. If a human fetus is determined to have the same amount of sentience as a piece of broccoli, would it be ok for you to consume it?
What if that plant you're eating is a precursor to a new form of sentient life?
I disagree in that I think it's much more subjective dividing the world up into human and everything else. That's simply complete speciesism. Being as that fetus (before it becomes sentient) would be the exo facto property of it's mother, I'd say it's up to the mother to decide that. If any mother does decide that (and isn't in a survival situation), I'm not sure I'd invite her over for tea, though. Already existent sentient life has much more value than a precursor to sentient life.
Then I'm afraid I don't understand your position. In the video you said your highest value was sentience when determining what to eat. Is that not speciesism, considering we are thus far the "most sentient" on the planet?
I agree we as humans should not forget we are just a small branch of the animal kingdom; in fact, I feel that is a big part of what most vegetarians forget when arguing their position.
Speciesism is the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals. Stating that humans are the most sentient beings on this planet is not an assumption, but a fact. However, making such a statement forces one to also place value on all sentient forms of life and not just humans as a human speciesist would.
justifies vegetarianism better than most jackoffs, personally i just apply the "do whatever the hell you can get away with" concept to morality and everything else
I do have one question—by grading the sentient on how sentient they are, I know this is as hypothetical as "lol but if u wer on a dessert island nd the onli fuud there wuz a cow", would this put the comatose etc at a lower position? We have to also consider possible emotional attachment to beings, it could turn out.
He addressed the survival issue in the video, and he said humans are more sentient than other animals, therefore, the life of a cow is less valuable than the life of a human, and eating the cow would be the right thing to do.
You should have started by defining what you mean when you use the term 'value'. 'Value' is too vague a term to be useful. Plant life is integral to the continuation of life on the planet, and so could be said to be of superlative value, yet we still eat it.
Don't you think that it is ironic you value sentience as a sentient being? Like you would not place value on malevolence or least destructiveness to environment which is more valuable to ALL life because you would not qualify...Kinda like a society of cheetahs placing value on who can run the fastest imo - or great white sharks on who can stay awake the longest
I believe vaule is more relating too 'use', the more 'use' something has the more vaule something has, I believe you have great logic, but poor choice of words. just my opinion.
Ps: Seeing as tree's and plant life produce oxygen, technically vegetarians are trying to kill us?
Actually I'd argue the opposite. Vegetarians actually consume far less plant matter than meat eaters do because you also have to count the huge amounts of plant matter you must feed to the livestock. Even the most efficient factory farms still have inefficiencies of around 10 pounds of plant matter and 100 pounds of water for every one pound of meat.
Orly??? Does the pleasure a paedophile gains from raping a child outweigh the negativity of his actions? (please realise I am NOT equating meat eating with paedophillia, it was the first example that sprang to mind).
Does the pleasure a moral agent feels when undertaking an action have most bearing on the ethical value of their actions? Shouldn't the effect on others be weighed? And if it is weighed wouldn't terror and pain followed by extinction of life outweigh the pleasure of a hamburger?
"(please realise I am NOT equating meat eating with paedophillia, it was the first example that sprang to mind)."
Yes actually, you are. Nice try though.
"And if it is weighed wouldn't terror and pain followed by extinction of life outweigh the pleasure of a hamburger?"
Trust me toots, cows aren't in any danger of becoming extinct. I'm sure the skin-and-bones children in Ethiopia wouldn't consider any "animal rights" before nomming down on a hamburger. We're made to eat meat...get over it.
Your retort does not answer any of the questions I asked.
1.) I could change the paedophillia example to something else, for instance what if I enjoyed punching you in the face. Would my pleasure in this act outweigh your interests in not being punched in the face? Could I sensibly claim that the pleasure I derived from punching you in the face outweighed the 'moral negativity' of my actions? Do you like that example better?
2.) I was not discussing endangered species, if I were I would...
...mention that humans are not an endangered species either. If not being an endangered species means you can ethically be killed and consumed does that mean I can eat humans?
3.) Of course starving people do not consider ethics, the primative brain takes command and you are forced (by and large) to do whatever it takes to survive, hense the cannibalism obseverved in survival situations.
If you have any sensible counter arguments I'll be glad to hear them, otherwise I am done with you.
2) If you assign moral value to harm, you do to pleasure as well.
3) I do weigh the effect against others, it hurts nobody...except the cow that I don't give a shit about.
4) Extinction? The animals I eat are breed for consumption...They aren't going extinct anytime soon.
About pedophilia and "meat-holocaust" arguments...When I eat meat it doesn't harm another human being. I give MORE value to a human than a cow, you have your priorities fucked up.
3) I do weigh the effect against others, it hurts nobody...except the cow that I don't give a shit about.
At least you are honest. Your position is "I don't give a shit about non-human animals", therefore human pleasure always outweighs animal suffering. It doesn't make sense to me, and wouldn't fit with any ethically consistent moral framework that appeals to me, however at least you understand this is a philosophical argument.
I use thought experiments to prompt people to examine their...
...ethical stand point, comparing something in which the situation is different but the ethical ramifications are the same. Using an example in this way is NOT the same as saying the two things are the same. The example asks you to think whether it is morally right for a strong individual to exploit or kill a vulnerable individual for no more gain then mere pleasure. It does NOT posit that all meat eaters are paedophiles. It's usefulness in this instance was to reveal that your argument was...
...based on nothing other then speciesism. Therefore it is no use debating further because we have reached the root of your argument and you are happy with it and feel no need to justify it.
As for my priorities being fucked up I feel no contradiction between supporting human and non-human causes. I work in community services with vulnerable people, in my free time I do vegan activism.
No need to bother yourself about the rest of the points, they were between myself and OneLastStatistic.
But you too draw a line. You just draw it at micro organisms and plants. I draw it at humans, endangered animals, and a few other exceptions. You're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand just like I am...Just in a different spot. You are no more justified than I am.
Perhaps not maybe, the difference between you and I is that the line in the sand I draw has the potential to reduce the huge amount of pain and suffering caused to sentient beings every year for a reason no more noble then preference and tradition. I actually cannot help killing micro organisms, the bugs I accidentally step on etc but as for plants veganism actually reduces plant deaths.
Maybe your moral framework doesn't hold these things as important but I think most ppls does to some extent.
I've met cows. They are very stupid creatures. Also, I don't eat meat for preference alone and not at all because of tradition. I eat it because it's the easiest way to get the nutrients I need.
Hmmm, I've been an omnivore and I've been vegan. In terms of 'gaining nutrients' it isn't inconvenient to gain them from non-meat sources. In fact if you consider the massive, long term health benefits I've experienced, measured against the couple of weeks in the beginning when I had no idea what I was doing and experienced regular inconvenience, for me anyway it is actually much easier for me to be vegan. I didn't know it before but tradition and preference are the main reasons most ppl in...
...the developed world continue to eat meat. There is no physical requirement to do it.
"I've met cows. They are very stupid creatures."
I've met babies, they are also imbeciles but it is obvious that they are able to suffer. The main argument for veganism is sentience, the possession of senses. Intelligence has no bearing on the ability to suffer, stab me or a developmentally retarded persion and we will suffer equally.
Anyhow, thanks for conducting a civilised debate with me :-)
I totally agree. People eat what they're told to eat at a young age. It becomes imbedded in our psyche. I don't blame people for eating meat for this reason. In effect, we were 'brainwashed' from a young age to do so. I know I was. My aunt constantly told me that if I want to be strong, I should eat more meat. She often tricked me into eating such things as lambs' brains and livers etc, despite my disapproval. I imagine one day, as atitudes change, more and more people will have the strength...
... to go against 'tradition' and 'normalcy' and become more concerned about the ethics of their food choices. I guess this would involve the giving up of meat and animal based products. With this, I presume our knowledge of plant based diets will evolve and people will no longer complain that "being a vegan is difficult" but rather "being a vegan is normal".
I know that it's a common argument for animal rights activists to argue sentience as the ability to feel pain and pleasure, but sentience is more complex issue than as such. Basically sentience is the knowledge of ones own existence on a concious, cognitive level, which no animal that is commonly eaten, at least in the west, is likely to be able to.
You are welcome to argue that you dont eat animals because you believe they feel pain, you are probably right. But dont argue sentience. Please
The word is being used in the correct context. Non-human animals are sentient because they have the same 5 senses that we do, that is the Latin root of the word
"Latin sentins, sentient-, present participle of sentre, to feel; see sent- in Indo-European roots."
How can you respond with "exactly" when you were stating that sentience related *only* to self awareness?
So, lost in the woods: Would you eat a squirrel to survive, if the plant matter was not keeping you strong enough to live? Even more interesting, would you sooner eat a fish or a squirrel? I'm not asking as a joke I would like to know.
No your wrong. All organisms besides plants or microorganisms are just as sentient has humans. They feel SUFFERING before death, unlike plants or small insects, they have a lot more nerve endings.
macwild1234, It doesn't matter, I don't care for animals feelings. Its besides the point. The point is always from human perspective, the current method of raising and slaughtering animals en mass is not sustainable to the environment and energy. But I just want to eat meat from time to time, it tastes so gooood.
Here is my morality: The companies are raising and killing the animals whether you eat it or not. So if you don't eat it, the animals died for no reason. I'd rather see the animal fulfill its destiny by the fact of it being killed already, than go to waste like a piece of garbage.
The less meat eaters out there the more expensive its going to be. It will become an unaffordable commodity that only the rich can afford. This is unacceptable.
If it wasn't profitable to raise and kill chickens and pigs and cows, then they wouldn't do it. Take away the profit incentive and you take away the meat industry. Care about the living, not the dead. A dead cow is meaningless. It's the living cows that deserve value, and by making use of the dead cow, you are creating the incentive for more cows to be slaughtered.
P.S. The fewer meat eaters there are, the cheaper meat will become; supply and demand economics 101.
Hmm really. I'm afraid of when there aren't a lot of people to eat meat, initially the price may drop as there are too many animals and not enough customers. But eventually, production will be reduced and prices will rise sky high.
The companies are making Plasma TVs whether I buy one or not. Oh my, I better buy one otherwise all that plastic, metal, and plasma is going to waste. Unacceptable. ;)
wait in a later video you said you were a vegetarian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IndiaGarrod 1 month ago
P3, wiping out a species is far worst than murdering someone.
It's worst as wiping out human kind.
Every species existence value are equal.
If is between my life and the life of a critically endangered species. I'd chose its life above mine. Would even risk my life to save it if there is a burning building with critically endangered species in it.
There are like 7 billions people and these species only roam in dozens to hundreds example.
So it is important to care because once is gone it's gone.
zaxtor 2 months ago
P2.
If we keep valuing people we never met like we're an endangered species above rare species, many species will vanish.
Man commited genocide to many species because of greed, overpopulation and other selfish act. Man is conscious and we should think for other species for a minute.
Many people are anthropocentric / speciesism and it is despicable and wrong. Man has more bad intention than animals.
In my views when someone care for more species, the better they are.
zaxtor 2 months ago
Something value is based on its rarity.
An endangered species is more precious than some people I never met or people with negative value such as rapists, convicted murderers and criminal against humanity.
Example If I own a dog would care for my dog more than someone I never met.
If is between a family member and my dog of course the family member would come first.
If is between the life of a poacher and an endangered species.
Poacher should be shot dead because they're scumbags .
zaxtor 2 months ago
Hey dude...you should worry about your haircut first,before anything else. hohoho Merry Christmas
FomulaForex 2 months ago
Everything on Earth is amazing and equal and deserves respect. Humans are the only species on this planet that not only destroys themselves but Mother Nature. Humans cant go anywhere without killing someone or cutting down a tree. Don't take this the wrong way... but Pull your head out dude. We are Nature.
edstar83 3 months ago
Just stop talking.
OnRockIT 4 months ago
I think that as you drop in sentience your life goes down much more quickly than your right to minimal stress. I would definitely say that it is more immoral to buy a white egg, supporting the agonizing situations that the chickens are put in to make those cheap eggs, than it would be to eat a chicken that was raised on a minimum stress farm. In fact, if the life provided for that chicken was a good one, then buying the chicken after it's death is actually positively moral, because the loss of..
MacabreManifesto 8 months ago
@MacabreManifesto ...that chicken's life is outweighed by the safe and carefree life it received in the coop. I'm not saying this is a commonality in the chicken production industry but the possibility exists of a moral demand for chicken. But this extends to products beyond food. If a pig is treated poorly and is slaughtered and it's body is turned into non edible pork products, then buying crayons (often made with pork products) is demanding the same slaughter. You have to calculate it in:...
MacabreManifesto 8 months ago
@MacabreManifesto How much demand does a purchase create for the slaughter of animals? + How are the animals treated? = Actual Level of moral depravity you should hold this instance of consumption to hold
MacabreManifesto 8 months ago
To those whom try to "Debunk" vegetarian and vegan ideology based on the concept that plants are a form of life also: PLANTS AREN'T CONCIOUS. That is the entire point, yes they are alive, just like a person whom is brain dead is alive. We pull the plug on people whom are brain dead, why? Because their CONCIOUSNESS has died. It's not about what is ALIVE it is about what is CONCIOUSLY ALIVE.
ValkyereHowie 10 months ago
im a vegetarian cuz meat makes me sick. while i dont agree with torturing animals, i dont see a problem with eating them just as long you dont waste (the same with any food). though, you have a good point.
ScalzaAmericana 10 months ago
So, an adult bird has more sentience that a new born baby and, by your lagic, they are superior?
marcluc1988 1 year ago
Value, were just making all this up as we go LOL it doesn't really matter.
johnnyroyal75 1 year ago
I agree with you dude. We do have more value, so I think we have a responsability to choose the best choice esp when its luxary ; )
Respect
GOVEG
wingchunming 1 year ago
Of course you also need to add in the fact that eating meating is increadibly damaging to the environment. Its a massivly wasteful and inefficient way to produce food. Given that we are in a precarious environmental situation it is logical, if you care about HUMANS, to be a vegetarian. If world population continues to increase at the same rate then I suspect we will all be vegetarians as there will simply not be enough land to support meat as a viable food source.
evilreligion 1 year ago
@evilreligion That woul be a intersting trick since over half of the land on the planet is too cold or too dry to support suitable vegetation for human consumption. Growing up on a farm i can tell you cows are stupid they have no other benefit than dairy and protein the same with most herbivores. if the population is not decreased they can have harsh effects on the surrounding ecosytem.
rokee1979 1 year ago
@rokee1979
Of course that very same land is mostly unsuitable for grazing cattle as well.
The fact is using land for grazing cattle is completely inefficient.
I agree with you about cows I say get rid of them there are far better ways of producing protein.
I would miss cheese but hey its a small price to pay to stop people form starving
evilreligion 1 year ago
@evilreligion people would not survive. beleive or not you actually need fat in your diet to survive vegatables have no fat also the poverty level would be 10 times as many there are towns across america that rely on the meat industry and i rely on the freed om to eat a burger
rokee1979 1 year ago
@evilreligion also it takes alot less nutrients to grow grass than crop ever seen the upper midwest a baron wasteland for crops except for wheat but cattle flourish.
rokee1979 1 year ago
@rokee1979
Look its simple biology. Every link in th food chain is inefficient. Nurients, engery and water are wasted at every step. Eating animals puts an extra unecessary step in the food chain. Therefore it is a less efficient way of producing food. This is an irrefutable fact of biology. Growing wheat to feed to humans, rather than cattle, would be a far better use of the midwest.
evilreligion 1 year ago
@evilreligion Yes. Each time something takes nutrietns from something else, there is a loss. It's physics. So, why not cut out as many of the 'losses' as possible and each the most direct and effecient way: plants?
marcluc1988 1 year ago
@evilreligion An even better way to use the midwest would be to grow grass and let the cows eat it themselves. No feeding necessary. Let the cows harvest the grass and then eat the cows. Annual cropping schemes are are horrible for topsoil, biodiversity, animal habitat, etc. Grass, as a perennial, is better for the environment because you don't need to reset ecological succession every year (with a plow or chemicals), spray herbicides/pesticides, mechanically harvest, etc.
nichins 11 months ago
@nichins
I guess that would be ok as long as you don't mind millions of people around the world starving to death.
The American mid west is one of the main grain producing areas of the world if you turn a large proportion of this over to the less efficient grass grazing to be eaten by cattle method of food production literally millions would starve. Its simply to late for viable meat production to continue and as world population increase so meat consuption will have to fall.
evilreligion 11 months ago
@rokee1979 There are ways of making 'grass' protein available to humans. The only reason humans can't digest grass directly is due to the fact that the human digestive system can't break them down BUT they can be mechanically broken down and then edible to humans.
marcluc1988 1 year ago
@evilreligion In agriculture, you can't use the word efficient without defining it. Efficiency can be measured in the amount of food grown per acre, the amount of food per unit of labor, the amount of food grown per input (fertilizer, diesel, etc.), the amount of food grown per financial cost (profitability), etc. Grazing is hands down the most efficient way to grow food when compared to inputs. In this day of climate change and peak oil, getting off petroleum-based inputs is the way to go.
nichins 11 months ago
@evilreligion
nichins 11 months ago
@evilreligion In agriculture, you can't use the word efficient without defining it. Efficiency can be measured in the amount of food grown per acre, the amount of food per unit of labor, the amount of food grown per input (fertilizer, diesel, etc.), the amount of food grown per financial cost (profitability), etc. Grazing is hands down the most efficient way to grow food when compared to inputs. In this day of climate change and peak oil, getting off petroleum-based inputs is the way to go.
nichins 11 months ago
@nichins
Growing crops is more efficient in water use, land use, CO2 foot print, oil usage, labour costs and pretty much every thing yuo mention. You think that meat uses less oil? Wrong. It has to be transported, processed, chilled or frozen, then all the crops that they feed to cattle when there isn;t enough grass needs to be harvested etc. The single best way of lowering your carbon foot print is to become a vegetarian. Thats before you take into account the land wastage of meat...
evilreligion 11 months ago
@nichins
... when you consider that all those millions of acres of rainforest that are cut down are mostly used to grow soy to feed to chickens or other animals or are used directly for grazing cattle on you then amplify the envoronmental impact of meat eating further still. I don't really care about animals I'm a vegetarian because of humans. In 50 years time, if population continue to rise, no one will eat meat much. The world simply can't support a poulation of 10billion meat eaters.
evilreligion 11 months ago
First off, not a single meat eater ever proved conclusively plant feelings etc. So any arguments deriving from that are logical fallacies, i.e. they don't follow. Furthermore, assuming the situation post hoc, in which conclusive proof for plant feelings has been provided then still vegans and vegetarians kill less plants as a direct cause of their plant consumption than meatarians do indirectly by eating farm animals that require plant fed.
Whino100 1 year ago
Typical human always thinking that your better than anything else on Earth! How would you know who is more sentient?! Animals are just as sentient as humans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
veggiesareawesome 1 year ago 6
"humans are the most sentient" LOL. How in the world do you measure sentience?. Science can easily tell when an animal is sentient based on stimuli. But no one can tell whether an animal is less or more sentient. How do you know who feels more or less? And even if you did feel more than a non-human animal, how do you practice and apply a moral hierarchy when you are the only one who is actually aware and can determine this. You are simply proposing an immoral doctrine of speciesism.
truth2748 2 years ago 8
@truth2748 "You are simply proposing an immoral doctrine of speciesism." You know what. I'm a proud "specieist" (or whatever)! You know why? Because I'm ALLOWED to be. Therefore, I CAN be. And since I don't consider being a "specieist" "immoral" (morality is subjective) THERE IS NO REASON WHY I SHOULDN'T BE.
So what are you going to do? Eco-terrorism perhaps? Until then, I WILL ENJOY IN SUFFERING OF INNOCENT COWS! And you can do NOTHING! The AMAZING FEELING of POWER and SECURITY! FUCK YEA!
IWantToUnderstandIt 6 months ago
Congratulations, you fell! sold ..
thekapote 2 years ago
Parabéns, você regrediu! alienado..
thekapote 2 years ago
OH MY GAUD its nice to see another meat eating human on this Earth! Thank you for not being afraid to kill and eat a Cow! I totally agree with you man!!!!!!!!
Tharagus 2 years ago
@Tharagus Did you even finish watching the video. He said that he is a vegetarian.
AquariaSpirit 1 year ago
Comment removed
peacesophie 2 years ago
excuse me.........do u knw plantz have life too..........they can even cry! even when u r breathing ur killing germs.
this is answer to those who think killing for living is WRONG!
maxeric004 2 years ago
. . . show me a plant that can experience suffering the way that a cow or pig can and then I might have more empathy for that plant.
JacobSpinney 2 years ago
@JacobSpinney The plant is in your moms fungi vagina, i sticked my penis in there, and boy did she scream.
ikopiko909 2 years ago
@JacobSpinney - What do you think about eating oyster, mussels etc?
DoctorChainsaw 1 year ago
@JacobSpinney
thats pathetic
how about if u can give me an animal that can talk and carry out an intelligent conversation with a human then i might have feelings for that animal
plants do feel pain and react to it as well they have nerves and organs, why do u vegetarians say plants have all the nutrients u can get from meat? cuz they have many similar features
kilkolio 1 month ago
well said.
slackologist 2 years ago
great video
LCMPREMIUM 2 years ago
good argument man. Very logical and pretty much the same reason I'm on a strict vegan diet.
urrynater86 2 years ago
WOW WHAT A LOSE ! MORON!
cowgrull 2 years ago
Well said. You are one of the first vloggers (is that right?) I've found to address the variable of perspective when discussing vegetarian or vegan lifestyles.
It seems many who abstain from animal products have mounted themselves upon pedestals of moral righteousness. Glad to see someone bring the issue back to earth.
warha1 2 years ago
But ultimately, humans are the ones who make the value system by which we judge our superiority over nonhuman animals.
I don't see a great deal of value in the human who decides to play video games hours a day and contributes near nothing to society. He's similar to the animal you think is inferior.
I'm sure you can come up with a list of people who don't deserve to live.
NoirHammer 3 years ago
I agree. Sentience is the main factor we can use to determine what is 'moral' or 'immoral' with our eating choices. That is, very few people would morally disagree with eating a banana, whereas many people would disagree with the consumption of a human infant. Of course, other factors could come into play such as, if I ate a banana that came from a plantation that used slave labour, or if i was stranded on an island and ate a human infant that had already died from natural causes.
UndyingRevolution 3 years ago
But yes, you did cover the survival aspect in your video. That is, in a survival situation, morality becomes less consequential.
UndyingRevolution 3 years ago
Since when are there grades of sentience? Good for you, that leaves more for me. Going downtown, gonna pick out a nice tender puppy for some tender fillets.
RayetWolf 3 years ago
Well, one must agree that a rock has very little sentience, more than likely, no sentience. Nobody would morally question me over eating a rock, would they? (Although it may be seen as strange). On the other hand, a puppy has some sort of sentience, yes? It has at least a basic ability to sense the world around it. We know that dogs are good at tracking with their sense of smell.
So at the very least, there are 2 states of sentience - no sentience, and some sentience.
UndyingRevolution 3 years ago
I find your reasons for vegetarianism to be the only one that I agree with fully and completely.
I've tried vegetarianism in the past and for various reasons it is just not for my way of life, but I do understand that it is for some people.
cbh08 3 years ago
True. Most of us are not in a situation of dire survival, so those who eat meat do so are doing so because they 1)think its the right course (however wrong) 2)its pleasurable and they don't care about morality (food in itself is not a moral issue, its what that food used to be and how it was acquired that matters.
mrVEGAN1 3 years ago
maybe i am taking it the wrong way but are you realy saying that eating is imoral, and can be measured by it. and by eating i mean just eating, not the death or any pain caused etc, or do you mean it as a whole as in the "full process"
Hughes97865 3 years ago
Eating alone is not really applicable to morality. But if your eating is responsible for the unnecessary murder of a sentient being, then it should be applicable to morality.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
so then would you accept the eating of animals that have a necessary death apart for being eaten?
and you say that it's bad because you are killing an animal, the only thing wrong with that i can think of is that you are shortenting it's life.
if so then wouldn't the fact that by farming animals (some of them) can increase the average life for a species mean that we are actually doing good, example, sheep and cows that have other uses (for profit) kept alive until old then killed for food
Hughes97865 3 years ago
DO YOU PLAY HALO????
HipHopJun 3 years ago
Yeah. My xbox SN is Jacob Spinney.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago 2
Why is your morality more rational than any other? You're just saying "These random qualities are important to me and therefore valuable". This is the same as any other form of morality. I could just as rationally say that the fastest runner is the most valuable because it always wins in a race. Values- and therefore morals- are not rational and people shouldn't try to make them so.
mrbluesky323 3 years ago
The moral value that is the most logically consistent is the one that is the most objective. The one that has all kinds of exceptions and arbitrary lines in the sand is less objective. We can debate subjective vs objective some other time, but hopefully you will agree that a theory that is logically consistent is more objective than one that isn't.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
I don't think that's the case. While something that is objective must be logical(as far as we can determine), something can be completely logical and also completely subjective. I don't believe there are gradations of objectivity. Furthermore, the very premise to any moral code is an arbitrary line in the sand. The way you define that line in the sand (either with many statements, or just with one) doesn't really affect the fact that you're doing the same thing in both cases.
mrbluesky323 3 years ago
Can you give me an example of a theory that is subjective, but is completely logically consistent? You should realize subjective simply means an opinion and objective simply means not an opinion. What part of the following reasoning is an opinion? "Value is a subset of morality. Morality must have the axiom of a choice being involved. Choice must have the axiom of being sentient. Therefore, value can only be placed on sentient beings."
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
1. Example theory:
Premise: It is good to eat eggs(subjective)
Therefore the person who eats the most eggs is does the most good. --This is a logical and consistent conclusion. Still, it's subjective.
2. Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. The proper conclusion is that value can only be placed BY sentient beings. You have to be sentient to value things, not to be valued. There's no reason to exclude non-sentient beings.
mrbluesky323 3 years ago
2(continued). I think what you're essentially saying is that we should only value those things which are capable of being moral. If this is the case, then you're missing the fact that morality is not the ONLY source of value. Not everyone values another's ability to value things and there's nothing that says that they should.
mrbluesky323 3 years ago
screw morals, tastes good man
himynameisdante 3 years ago
meh. lame.
reaverwes 3 years ago
lol we are also the most stupid species on this planet
emperordeath 3 years ago
So, then retards are less valuable than a super intelligent person?
mrbluesky323 3 years ago
Well, yeah.
KingCrimson776 3 years ago
If you are going to choose a "least sentient" diet, then why aren't eating an all fruit/nut/whatever diet. Stuff from plants that is meant to be eaten by animals in order to spread its seeds and therefore not killing the plant? If you are in such a situation of luxury and choice and morality, then stop killing altogether, hypocrites.
argaen21 3 years ago
Plants aren't sentient...Pay attention.
nick16watt 3 years ago
I'm not claiming to be a saint. I still eat cheese and eggs from time to time. I know I can take on a more moral diet than what I am eating, but I'm happy with the progress that I've made so far. I only wish people stop being speciesists and start looking at this issue from a more objective viewpoint.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
Dude, as a vegan you just elevated me to the position of saint! Awesome!!! :-D
Now I am REALLY holier-then-thou!
ROFLMAO XD
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
just think like this, wo would you save if they were hanging of a cliff and you could only save one of them.
A chicken or a humanbeing?
BarbarishFTW 3 years ago
I've already answered that question in the video.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
hmm, sorry about that. didn't watch the whole video to be honest.
BarbarishFTW 3 years ago
The most objective? Either something is objective or it's not. There is nothing about morality that exists in reality. If you're going to claim otherwise you're going to have to back that up.
Otherwise choose your words better.
someweirdgayguy 3 years ago
If you would agree with me that logic is objective, then I would say that this theory of morality as it pertains to the value of species is indeed objective.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
Logic is conceptual, it does not exist outside of the mind and therefore is not objective. You could say it is contextually objective in that it is object in the context of humanity but you did not make that distinction and it is not necessarily implied.
And while the case you make is sound, one can easily just say that they value animals little enough as to justify their consumption.
someweirdgayguy 3 years ago
And I wouldn't call it "morality", I'd call it ethics. Morality is consistent universally applicable preferred behavior within human society.
Ethics are principles based upon personal preferences and not universally applicable.
I don't find your video particularly objectionable so far as the main point is concerned though, I just disagree with your interpretation of the value of the "lesser" levels of sentience.
Oh and how do you get your hair so straight? I'm envious...
someweirdgayguy 3 years ago
Get bedhead.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
Look up the word objective in the dictionary . . . it doesn't mean an "object." I'll quote it verbatim for you, "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." Where in that definition does it talk about material things?
Yet, if one were to acquiesce to the logic, then no matter how you slice it, a plant has infinitely less value than an animal does.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
Jacob Spinney always wins. But meat eaters will still make excuses to why they eat meat.
thePANDEMlC 3 years ago
Because it's tasty? Lol, I don't know. I could just go pick up a bottle of protein pills from the drug store, but I'd rather have some tuna or beef.
OneLastStatistic 3 years ago
Ummmmmm do you think non-meat eaters eat protein pills???? LOL
Some vegetable foods actually contain as much or more protein then meat, meat is not the only place to get protein!
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
I like you´re reasoning.
Reason is good! ;)
I do eat almost anykind og food, and I do not like fanatics telling me what to do. You are not one of those, and if I where ever to change, you´re way of doing it would be the way. Change comes by will, not by force ;) peace.
Einherjarnet 3 years ago
It sounds like you're forcing yourself to eat veggies, based on a change of heart.
Ironic when I think about it. Ever wonder why our parents made us eat veggies?
gneerowblack 3 years ago
Well I disagree I think if you love cows you will eat more meat... why?
Simply because of what would happen to the animals if we didnt eat them... you think cows can survive in the wild by themself? you think we need every caddle thats alive now for milking purpose? not only would that ruin the bussiness of everyone selling milk but the demand would never get that high.
Instead of the cows dying to become food they will just die to save money cos theres no other purpose for them.
Psycnosis 3 years ago
I'd much rather sterilize the domesticated cows and let them live the rest of their lives off and then release the cows that can fend for themselves.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
But what cows can fend for themselves? remember there are predators out there lol. Not to mention that the cows wont even be able to feed from the farms they used to cos that would just be a waste for the farmers that could use that ground for something else. The reality is the less meat we eat the less we need the animals and the more of them will die for nothing instead of dying for a food... everything needs a purpose to exist, its natural selection.
Psycnosis 3 years ago
You do realize cows fended for themselves just fine before we domesticated them? The only reason they can't fend for themselves is when we stuff them with so much hormones they can barely support their own weight and then chop their horns off. Otherwise they could defend themselves just find. In Mexico they let bulls run around in the street and it's like letting a tank loose.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
Well I dont know about Hormones im from Europe they are illegal here which is why we dont import meat from the US.
Here in Europe they dont use hormones and they got the same problems... if you tip a cow over it cant get up on its own.
And about the bulls in mexico... they make them angry and drug them before letting them loose thats why they go beserk.
Psycnosis 3 years ago
I think people are generally insulted by vegetarianism because it feels holier-than-thou.
Other than that, there is no reason to get worked up about it.
BoxCubeSquare 3 years ago
lol ok it wasn't a comment pertaining to abortion. It was whether or not it's ok by his standard to consume something with the known potential to be sentient.
If you want my stance on abortion it's the same as it is for just about everything: do what you want, just stay the fuck away from my freedoms. You can be vegetarian, just don't smear yourself in pig blood and camp on my lawn to interrupt my BBQ.
Bardlettt 3 years ago
So those of us who make our luxury choice to enjoy the flesh of less sentient animals should what, give livestock IQ tests?
If you don't like the taste of meat it's fine, but dividing the world up by sentience is both subjective and flawed. If a human fetus is determined to have the same amount of sentience as a piece of broccoli, would it be ok for you to consume it?
What if that plant you're eating is a precursor to a new form of sentient life?
Bardlettt 3 years ago
I disagree in that I think it's much more subjective dividing the world up into human and everything else. That's simply complete speciesism. Being as that fetus (before it becomes sentient) would be the exo facto property of it's mother, I'd say it's up to the mother to decide that. If any mother does decide that (and isn't in a survival situation), I'm not sure I'd invite her over for tea, though. Already existent sentient life has much more value than a precursor to sentient life.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
Then I'm afraid I don't understand your position. In the video you said your highest value was sentience when determining what to eat. Is that not speciesism, considering we are thus far the "most sentient" on the planet?
I agree we as humans should not forget we are just a small branch of the animal kingdom; in fact, I feel that is a big part of what most vegetarians forget when arguing their position.
Bardlettt 3 years ago
Speciesism is the assumption of human superiority leading to the exploitation of animals. Stating that humans are the most sentient beings on this planet is not an assumption, but a fact. However, making such a statement forces one to also place value on all sentient forms of life and not just humans as a human speciesist would.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
justifies vegetarianism better than most jackoffs, personally i just apply the "do whatever the hell you can get away with" concept to morality and everything else
Huzzagh 3 years ago
I would value it if you would shut your fucking mouth you douchebag tree-hugging fucker!
sactown96 3 years ago
I do have one question—by grading the sentient on how sentient they are, I know this is as hypothetical as "lol but if u wer on a dessert island nd the onli fuud there wuz a cow", would this put the comatose etc at a lower position? We have to also consider possible emotional attachment to beings, it could turn out.
ThatLovelyEnglishBob 3 years ago
I have a question for you, ThatLovelyEnglishBob...
lol but if u wer on a dessert island nd the onli fuud there wuz a cow?
TheSpoonRooster 3 years ago
He addressed the survival issue in the video, and he said humans are more sentient than other animals, therefore, the life of a cow is less valuable than the life of a human, and eating the cow would be the right thing to do.
BoxCubeSquare 3 years ago
Yeah, I was just being sarcastic though.
TheSpoonRooster 3 years ago
Well, I'd be completely stumped D':
ThatLovelyEnglishBob 3 years ago
When we get synthetic meat will you eat it then?
rhov233 3 years ago
Sure, if it tasted good and didn't give me cancer.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
i honestly find the notion that eating meat is morally wrong to be one of the most ridiculous things I've heard...
Starmexus84 3 years ago
I'm not sure that ridicule is a valid counter argument.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!
You rock, funniest thing I've heard all day :-D
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
You spoke too quickly; I barely comprehend what your point is.
gneerowblack 3 years ago
I'm a huge fan of semantics, but this isn't a philosophical question, is it?
I think it's psychological. Why do vegetarians eat meat substitute that tastes like meat?
You promote eating veggies and don't like the taste?
gneerowblack 3 years ago
I love the taste of veggies. But I grew up on a very meaty diet. It's much easier to change my habits if my taste buds don't really notice it.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
You should have started by defining what you mean when you use the term 'value'. 'Value' is too vague a term to be useful. Plant life is integral to the continuation of life on the planet, and so could be said to be of superlative value, yet we still eat it.
CptCoatHanger 3 years ago
Good Video, however...
Don't you think that it is ironic you value sentience as a sentient being? Like you would not place value on malevolence or least destructiveness to environment which is more valuable to ALL life because you would not qualify...Kinda like a society of cheetahs placing value on who can run the fastest imo - or great white sharks on who can stay awake the longest
MrLesWhite 3 years ago
I believe vaule is more relating too 'use', the more 'use' something has the more vaule something has, I believe you have great logic, but poor choice of words. just my opinion.
Ps: Seeing as tree's and plant life produce oxygen, technically vegetarians are trying to kill us?
DaRecka 3 years ago
Actually I'd argue the opposite. Vegetarians actually consume far less plant matter than meat eaters do because you also have to count the huge amounts of plant matter you must feed to the livestock. Even the most efficient factory farms still have inefficiencies of around 10 pounds of plant matter and 100 pounds of water for every one pound of meat.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
The huge amount of plant matter is necessary for the huge amount of livestock that consume it.
DaRecka 3 years ago
The pleasure I get from eating an animal outweighs the moral negativity of killing it.
TheStig000 3 years ago
Orly??? Does the pleasure a paedophile gains from raping a child outweigh the negativity of his actions? (please realise I am NOT equating meat eating with paedophillia, it was the first example that sprang to mind).
Does the pleasure a moral agent feels when undertaking an action have most bearing on the ethical value of their actions? Shouldn't the effect on others be weighed? And if it is weighed wouldn't terror and pain followed by extinction of life outweigh the pleasure of a hamburger?
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
"(please realise I am NOT equating meat eating with paedophillia, it was the first example that sprang to mind)."
Yes actually, you are. Nice try though.
"And if it is weighed wouldn't terror and pain followed by extinction of life outweigh the pleasure of a hamburger?"
Trust me toots, cows aren't in any danger of becoming extinct. I'm sure the skin-and-bones children in Ethiopia wouldn't consider any "animal rights" before nomming down on a hamburger. We're made to eat meat...get over it.
OneLastStatistic 3 years ago
Your retort does not answer any of the questions I asked.
1.) I could change the paedophillia example to something else, for instance what if I enjoyed punching you in the face. Would my pleasure in this act outweigh your interests in not being punched in the face? Could I sensibly claim that the pleasure I derived from punching you in the face outweighed the 'moral negativity' of my actions? Do you like that example better?
2.) I was not discussing endangered species, if I were I would...
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
...mention that humans are not an endangered species either. If not being an endangered species means you can ethically be killed and consumed does that mean I can eat humans?
3.) Of course starving people do not consider ethics, the primative brain takes command and you are forced (by and large) to do whatever it takes to survive, hense the cannibalism obseverved in survival situations.
If you have any sensible counter arguments I'll be glad to hear them, otherwise I am done with you.
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
1) Yes you did equate them.
2) If you assign moral value to harm, you do to pleasure as well.
3) I do weigh the effect against others, it hurts nobody...except the cow that I don't give a shit about.
4) Extinction? The animals I eat are breed for consumption...They aren't going extinct anytime soon.
About pedophilia and "meat-holocaust" arguments...When I eat meat it doesn't harm another human being. I give MORE value to a human than a cow, you have your priorities fucked up.
TheStig000 3 years ago
3) I do weigh the effect against others, it hurts nobody...except the cow that I don't give a shit about.
At least you are honest. Your position is "I don't give a shit about non-human animals", therefore human pleasure always outweighs animal suffering. It doesn't make sense to me, and wouldn't fit with any ethically consistent moral framework that appeals to me, however at least you understand this is a philosophical argument.
I use thought experiments to prompt people to examine their...
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
...ethical stand point, comparing something in which the situation is different but the ethical ramifications are the same. Using an example in this way is NOT the same as saying the two things are the same. The example asks you to think whether it is morally right for a strong individual to exploit or kill a vulnerable individual for no more gain then mere pleasure. It does NOT posit that all meat eaters are paedophiles. It's usefulness in this instance was to reveal that your argument was...
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
...based on nothing other then speciesism. Therefore it is no use debating further because we have reached the root of your argument and you are happy with it and feel no need to justify it.
As for my priorities being fucked up I feel no contradiction between supporting human and non-human causes. I work in community services with vulnerable people, in my free time I do vegan activism.
No need to bother yourself about the rest of the points, they were between myself and OneLastStatistic.
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
But you too draw a line. You just draw it at micro organisms and plants. I draw it at humans, endangered animals, and a few other exceptions. You're drawing an arbitrary line in the sand just like I am...Just in a different spot. You are no more justified than I am.
TheStig000 3 years ago
Perhaps not maybe, the difference between you and I is that the line in the sand I draw has the potential to reduce the huge amount of pain and suffering caused to sentient beings every year for a reason no more noble then preference and tradition. I actually cannot help killing micro organisms, the bugs I accidentally step on etc but as for plants veganism actually reduces plant deaths.
Maybe your moral framework doesn't hold these things as important but I think most ppls does to some extent.
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
I've met cows. They are very stupid creatures. Also, I don't eat meat for preference alone and not at all because of tradition. I eat it because it's the easiest way to get the nutrients I need.
TheStig000 3 years ago
LMAO! TheStig000, i laughed at your comment thats pretty funny "I've met cows". i just picture you walking up to a cow...
You: "Hi, im bob, whats your name?"
Cow: "moo.."
You: "cool"
Cow: *chews food*
You: O_o
HipHopJun 3 years ago
Lmao, yeah. That's pretty much how it was. He seemed pretty content to chew his grass and not speak much.
TheStig000 3 years ago
Hmmm, I've been an omnivore and I've been vegan. In terms of 'gaining nutrients' it isn't inconvenient to gain them from non-meat sources. In fact if you consider the massive, long term health benefits I've experienced, measured against the couple of weeks in the beginning when I had no idea what I was doing and experienced regular inconvenience, for me anyway it is actually much easier for me to be vegan. I didn't know it before but tradition and preference are the main reasons most ppl in...
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
...the developed world continue to eat meat. There is no physical requirement to do it.
"I've met cows. They are very stupid creatures."
I've met babies, they are also imbeciles but it is obvious that they are able to suffer. The main argument for veganism is sentience, the possession of senses. Intelligence has no bearing on the ability to suffer, stab me or a developmentally retarded persion and we will suffer equally.
Anyhow, thanks for conducting a civilised debate with me :-)
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
I totally agree. People eat what they're told to eat at a young age. It becomes imbedded in our psyche. I don't blame people for eating meat for this reason. In effect, we were 'brainwashed' from a young age to do so. I know I was. My aunt constantly told me that if I want to be strong, I should eat more meat. She often tricked me into eating such things as lambs' brains and livers etc, despite my disapproval. I imagine one day, as atitudes change, more and more people will have the strength...
UndyingRevolution 3 years ago
... to go against 'tradition' and 'normalcy' and become more concerned about the ethics of their food choices. I guess this would involve the giving up of meat and animal based products. With this, I presume our knowledge of plant based diets will evolve and people will no longer complain that "being a vegan is difficult" but rather "being a vegan is normal".
UndyingRevolution 3 years ago
Hopefully! :-)
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
Hey Jess!
middleC17 3 years ago
Hello sweetie :-)
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
Comment removed
1stCainite 3 years ago
I know that it's a common argument for animal rights activists to argue sentience as the ability to feel pain and pleasure, but sentience is more complex issue than as such. Basically sentience is the knowledge of ones own existence on a concious, cognitive level, which no animal that is commonly eaten, at least in the west, is likely to be able to.
You are welcome to argue that you dont eat animals because you believe they feel pain, you are probably right. But dont argue sentience. Please
1stCainite 3 years ago
sen·tient (snshnt, -sh-nt)
adj.
1. Having sense perception; conscious: "The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage" T.E. Lawrence.
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
exactly.
1stCainite 3 years ago
Um, excuse me, did you see definition 2?
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.
The word is being used in the correct context. Non-human animals are sentient because they have the same 5 senses that we do, that is the Latin root of the word
"Latin sentins, sentient-, present participle of sentre, to feel; see sent- in Indo-European roots."
How can you respond with "exactly" when you were stating that sentience related *only* to self awareness?
TheVeganicWitch 3 years ago
Not all meat eaters hold the value that everything other than humans has the same value as a rock.
TheStig000 3 years ago 2
So, lost in the woods: Would you eat a squirrel to survive, if the plant matter was not keeping you strong enough to live? Even more interesting, would you sooner eat a fish or a squirrel? I'm not asking as a joke I would like to know.
araciel82 3 years ago
Didn't I already address my opinion on survival situations in the video?
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
I'll take that as a yes.
araciel82 3 years ago
No your wrong. All organisms besides plants or microorganisms are just as sentient has humans. They feel SUFFERING before death, unlike plants or small insects, they have a lot more nerve endings.
macwild1234 3 years ago
macwild1234, It doesn't matter, I don't care for animals feelings. Its besides the point. The point is always from human perspective, the current method of raising and slaughtering animals en mass is not sustainable to the environment and energy. But I just want to eat meat from time to time, it tastes so gooood.
toddlerchar 3 years ago
Here is my morality: The companies are raising and killing the animals whether you eat it or not. So if you don't eat it, the animals died for no reason. I'd rather see the animal fulfill its destiny by the fact of it being killed already, than go to waste like a piece of garbage.
The less meat eaters out there the more expensive its going to be. It will become an unaffordable commodity that only the rich can afford. This is unacceptable.
toddlerchar 3 years ago
If it wasn't profitable to raise and kill chickens and pigs and cows, then they wouldn't do it. Take away the profit incentive and you take away the meat industry. Care about the living, not the dead. A dead cow is meaningless. It's the living cows that deserve value, and by making use of the dead cow, you are creating the incentive for more cows to be slaughtered.
P.S. The fewer meat eaters there are, the cheaper meat will become; supply and demand economics 101.
JacobSpinney 3 years ago
Hmm really. I'm afraid of when there aren't a lot of people to eat meat, initially the price may drop as there are too many animals and not enough customers. But eventually, production will be reduced and prices will rise sky high.
toddlerchar 3 years ago
The companies are making Plasma TVs whether I buy one or not. Oh my, I better buy one otherwise all that plastic, metal, and plasma is going to waste. Unacceptable. ;)
UndyingRevolution 3 years ago