Hacker News Reader

You were just complaining in another comment about vegans being painted as unreasonable and proselytizing, and then immediately posted this comment comparing non-vegans to slave owners. I can't tell if you're trolling or if you honestly can't see what's wrong with this picture.

Not trolling. Maybe you could say what's "wrong with this picture", unreasonable, instead of darkly implying..something. The animal-eating issue is unusual, in that it involves not only ethical considerations, but turns on whether you count groups of life-forms as worthy of any ethical consideration whatever or not. Similar to racism, slavery, etc. They either seem totally normal, or horrific and unimaginable. If you can think of other examples you'd prefer were used, let me know. That's the point, that to vegans, these are indeed apt comparisons, but to people used to treating e.g. cows as walking bags of "meat" whose only value is to people, they seem, well, like trolling, apparently. Yes, they are very different ethical outlooks on life, but to call one "unreasonable" because it's different from yours, isn't what the word means.

What's wrong is that you act indignant about people's hyperbolic descriptions of vegans, but when your opinion of non-vegans is invited, you immediately trot out the most hyperbolic, damning analogy (and a poor one at that) possible. Of course, your angle is that you're correct, and therefore the comparison of meat eaters and slave owners is simply a matter of fact, while calling vegans "proselytizers" is an unfounded and offensive opinion.

As for the analogy itself, I'm not going to get into why it's absurd. I've had that conversation enough times to know that the correctness of the analogy is not what's important to you. All that matters is that it riles up those you see as morally inferior to yourself. You chose that analogy because you get off on the reaction it gets, plain and simple.

Just know that when people portray vegans as rabid ideologues, they're talking specifically about vegans like you. You are the sort who gives vegans a bad name. If you think proselytizing is the right thing to do, then by all means, do it. But admit to yourself that that's what you're doing. You can't simultaneously proselytize and get offended by people pointing out that that's what you're doing.

> to call one "unreasonable" because it's different from yours, isn't what the word means.

See, the thing about words like "unreasonable" is that they're in the eye of the beholder. It's like the word "asshole"--you don't get to decide if you're an asshole. That's for others to decide. You get to hold whatever opinions you want about meat-eaters, and they get to decide if they think those opinions are unreasonable. Opinions are subject to critique. That's how this works.

Wow. Um.. I don't think I acted indignant, certainly didn't feel it. "All that matters is that it riles up those you see as morally inferior to yourself. You chose that analogy because you get off on the reaction it gets, plain and simple." Wow, going to stop reading right there. That kind of hate and unsurpassable bad faith doesn't deserve to be read, let alone answered.

You're over here comparing people to slave owners for eating a hot dog, but I'm the one spreading "hate" by pointing out that you're being a dick. Whatever you say, buddy.

But why are you entitled to enslaving and killing plants to feed you? after all, plants are alive and have senses, too.

Do you think plants are not worthy of any ethical consideration? Why is ok to eat them?

Thank you for saying this.

Ok so I am going to address your comments:

1) I don't have any ethical issues with any organism killing another organism to help sustain their life. And by the way, you don't either. Unless you've spawned the ability to photosynthesize light (in which case all props to you), your body is sustained by killing off biological life, breaking that life into macro molecules, and using that to sustain yourself. You make a distinction that you are ok with extinguishing the life of Bacteria, Protozoa, Plants, and Fungi, while I do all of that and add on animals. I'm not sure what the difference is there if you are arguing that life is sacred because if you believe all life is precious and shouldn't be extinguished, then you can't exactly live. Which btw is a totally feasible and admirable viewpoint - Jainism takes an approach like that and I respect that religion. I just personally don't see self actualization as giving all up earthly desires and extinguishing my life as a part of nirvana.

2) I don't have an issue with domestically raising a species and treating it purely as a thing for me to eat. To me that's actually a better way to do things, because domestic consumption ensures that I'm not eradicating wild and unique ecosystems of life. Btw, unless you forage for all your produce, you don't have an issue with that because if you eat vegetables from a grocery store you are consuming a highly genetically modified organism that has been evolved purely for your consumption. The fact that grocery bananas don't have seeds should disturb you greatly if you have a problem with evolving organism for your benefit. The distinction again, is that you have a problem with domestication of animals, but you seem not treat other organism as purely something for you to eat.

To put into your own words, it's a matter of widening your field of ethical concern from the arbitrary "Animals" to all organisms. Otherwise you will sound like, say, a white-supremacist racist talking as if only white people matter, all others have no value, mean nothing except as they can serve whites. (I have to use these analogies to try to get you to hear what plant-eater arguments sound like to me)

I learned how bad the conditions are in animal factories and I don't want anything to do with it. If you look at these conditions and feel no compassion for the animals, then I won't try to change your mind. I also don't consider myself somehow a better person or something like that.

Some people believe in God, others don't. Some are tall, some are short. Some feel attracted to the same gender, some to a different one. I don't think we have influence on these things. However, if you are like I was simply ignorant of what is going on, I encourage you to look into it.

The whole thing about saving the planet... I don't think that'll work out even if all humans become vegan tomorrow.

Yes, that is a fair point and I agree that the way we are raising animals today is drastically different from 100 years ago. Mad cow disease starts from US farmers feeding cows shitty animal parts to herbivore cows. Turkeys have to be artificial inseminated because they are engineered too fat to have sex. Chickens are fed growth hormone and then given a square foot to live in and are pumped with anti bioticd so they don’t die from their living conditions. Lots of terrible things there.

I personally don’t have a problem with killing animals for energy, but the manner in which we are raising the animals seems wrong to me. So I see your point there and it does make me question my diet.

I'm curious, how to vegans like you square away the idea that it's horrible for humans to eat animals vs it's okay for other animals (like lions) to eat animals?

Genuinely curious since I understand you points but it doesn't seem possible to apply that philosophy universally (and I see that as a sign of an incorrect philosophy)

To be clear, there are three different arguments in favor of eating less meat:

1. Personal health

2. Environmental benefits

3. Moral requirement

I'm only asking about the moral argument since that what you focused on in your post

Hi :-) I'm not sure what philosophy "it doesn't seem possible to apply universally".. Maybe "Killing any animal is wrong" (By any animal/person, for any reason, etc)? I don't think that. Also, I don't see this as an "argument in favor of eating less meat", or a "moral requirement".. Is it hard for you to not hunt, kill and eat people? Do you need arguments in favor of having less slaves. No.. Those things seem morally repugnant to most of us now, while they were normal in other times and places.

Two points from the many that bear on this:

1. The line between "humans and uh cats and dogs" and everything else seems arbitrary, human-centric etc. "Those in my group have value, those outside are nothing" comes naturally to humans, but there's nothing reasonable about it. For me, I don't like pain. I think inflicting pain/suffering is bad--not to mention painless killing, which seems worse than inflicting suffering. I would prefer someone inflicted pain on me than killed me painlessly! (How strange that I felt the need to explicitly make that point.)

There is a range of life-forms on this planet, from simple to complex, some of which, like single-cell bacteria, viruses, probably don't feel pain. (Neither do trees, it seems--they can't run away so it didn't evolve. But I respect them for other reasons. I hate seeing heavily graffitied trees, I wonder who could do that desecration.) There seems no obvious line to draw between animals whose pain/suffering, and lives, are worthy of ethical consideration, and those whose aren't. (And conveniently, we put humans at the top of that range, presumably other animals might see things differently) Doctors/vets kill lower-life forms to save higher ones. Personally, I put it fairly low (Oysters?..).. but to save worrying about the exact place to draw the line, I've found it simpler (and painless, I've never missed 'it') to avoid animal products altogether.

2. The matter of need. If it's a matter of killing animals for food or dying, I would do the same. (or even eating people, see the movie Alive.) If it's a matter of, for you and I, wanting a steak, when there's no need whatsoever, it's an entirely different thing. I stopped dairy products when I learnt about what people do to cows and their babies in that industry. And learn about factory farming of chickens, pigs, cows, go on a tour of an abattoir--the gruesome realities are hidden from us.

Also, I'm just talking about ethical considerations for humans, how we treat other life-forms. Because we realize other people than ourselves matter, other species than ourselves. (Not really sure what to say about the lions in your example.)

Thanks for the reply. It sounds like your argument is "we should minimize the pain in the world" which could make sense when it comes to humans eating animals.

Two counter questions come to mind though:

1. What if you could kill the animals painlessly (e.g. euthanize them) in a way that still left them fit to eat? Would that be okay

2. Would you consider it immoral to feed a dog or cat (and perhaps we should just kill them instead)? The pain that dog will feel from being killed once is probably much less than the combined pain of dying experienced by all the various animals that the dog will eat in it's life. That would minimize pain in the world