Vegetarians or Vegans?

College Confidential Community
61

<p>
[quote]
You put a baby in a crib with an apple and a rabbit. If it eats the rabbit and plays with the apple, I'll buy you a new car. ~Harvey Diamond

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You put a baby in a crib with a string tied to the trigger of a handgun pointed at its face. If it doesn't pull the string, I'll buy you a new car. ~aristotle1990</p>

<p>
[quote]
is it okay for me to eat more than I need for no other reason than my own convenience and desires?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's immoral for all of us to be posting on this board now, as we could be out in Africa saving lives. Every 5 minutes you spend on CC is another 5 minutes during which a child in some poor country dies a miserable death.</p>

62

<p>Exactly. I CHOOSE to eat x number of animal-based calories a day. My hypothetical population chooses to use 40 acres of land for meat production.</p>

<p>The crux of this argument is choice. If you choose to use a scarce resource more than others, you cannot feign innocence when it turns out that others are left unable to survive. That's the ultimate issue at hand. By choosing to use our scarce (in the economic sense) arable land to produce animal-based foods, thus reducing the amount of food that is potentially available to the world-at-large, we thereby actively engage in allowing others to starve.</p>

<p>Again, that is if you believe that morality extends beyond the borders of your nation-state. If not, then you're scot-free. I think that naturalexponent's argument, while sound, depends on a globalist paradigm that is perhaps not pervasive in this world.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And ultimately, I'm not talking about coercing farmers out of ranching or producing what they want, but about creating the demand through your own dietary choices.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Right. Markets are determined by both suppliers and consumers. For some reason most people seem to think that demand is created out of the aether.</p>

63

<p>
[quote]
But you just said that the heavy-intensity food consumer was immoral. How can I be immoral when I am trading my honest labor for another person's honest labor? How can you put a positive moral obligation on me to feed another without my permission? You cannot. To be consistent with this belief, you would have to allow me to impose moral obligations on you without your consent.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're dangerously close to opening a new can of worms here that has nothing to do with vegetarianism and the scarcity of arable land and the human food supply. i.e. the issue how honest your (or anybody's for that matter) labor actually is. I take it you're a student.. how much of your life have you worked? And how much of that correlates to the quantity and quality of your possessions? I'm sure we'd find a disparity. Anyway...</p>

<p>You seem to have a vested interest in defending what is supposedly honest labor over any other moral concerns. Let's think of this on a smaller scale. Say it's just me and you in the world. Are you saying it's okay for me to leverage my wealth to preclude you from obtaining whatever it is necessary to live? I doubt the answer is yes. While you're preoccupied with preserving your freedom to eat meat, you're essentially depriving others of other more basic freedoms, and most critically, the right to live.</p>

64

<p>
[quote]
It's immoral for all of us to be posting on this board now, as we could be out in Africa saving lives. Every 5 minutes you spend on CC is another 5 minutes during which a child in some poor country dies a miserable death.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You know what they say about two wrongs...</p>

65

<p>
[quote]
It's immoral for all of us to be posting on this board now, as we could be out in Africa saving lives. Every 5 minutes you spend on CC is another 5 minutes during which a child in some poor country dies a miserable death.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And I'd agree with you if I actually had the resources to both fly to Africa and spend more than two weeks away from my job.</p>

66

<p>
[quote]
And I'd agree with you if I actually had the resources to both fly to Africa and spend more than two weeks away from my job.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's sort of the point...</p>

<p>
[quote]
The crux of this argument is choice. If you choose to use a scarce resource more than others, you cannot feign innocence when it turns out that others are left unable to survive. That's the ultimate issue at hand. By choosing to use our scarce (in the economic sense) arable land to produce animal-based foods, thus reducing the amount of food that is potentially available to the world-at-large, we thereby actively engage in allowing others to starve.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The cause of starvation in Africa is not that there isn't enough arable land. Africa is a continent with vast (albeit underutilized) natural resources.</p>

67

<p>aristotle1990,</p>

<p>Northern Africa has only about 26% arable land, Southern Africa has only about 7% arable land, Central Africa has only about 8% arable land.</p>

<p>Northern Africa is the only portion of the entire continent with significant arable land, and even that is highly threatened by desertification.</p>

68

<p>I'm from north africa.........but yea, not very arable..at least where im from...</p>

69

<p>I would tend to doubt that we're getting our beef from Africa.</p>

70

<p>aristotle1990,</p>

<p>That's not the point. The fact is that arable land is a scarce resource worldwide. There is only so much of it. If you use it for intensive projects like meat production, you reduce the amount of food you can produce for everyone.</p>

<p>A pound of meat takes more land than a pound of grain.</p>

71

<p>Yes, but you're assuming that if beef were not being produced on the plains of America or Canada or Argentina it would be used to produce cheap grain for Africans. In reality it would be used to supply demand. Africans can hardly afford to buy grain from their local farmers; how could they possibly do so from American or Canadian or Argentinian farms?</p>

72

<p>Grain is a commodity. Its price is relatively unaffected by the location where it's produced.</p>

73

<p>We have all the technology needed to bring irrigation to Africa. The problem is with the politics in many of the nations. I can tell you that Zimbabwe was much better off with the "oppressive" white people owning the land than they are now, with their violent government owning the land.</p>

74

<p>I agree that politics will get in the way of good policy.</p>

<p>However, there is no doubt that arable land is a scarce commodity that is growing scarcer, and the high-protein diet in the West is leading to a tragedy of the commons.</p>

<p>Just look at the fisheries, for example. Their collapse means no fish for everyone else.</p>

75

<p>We are seeing Thomas Malthus' theory go into effect, with the population booming in the last century. The world will go into crisis one day if technology does not vastly improve the overall standard of living for a population as large as 11 billion.</p>

<p>This can lead to a large scale war, maybe even the final days if you believe in Biblical prophecy. For the meantime, the corrupt world governments will take care of everything.</p>

76

<p>make sure to take vitamins, and make sure you're doing it right.</p>

77

<p>@UCLAri</p>

<p>
[quote]
Fine. But slavery it ain't. It's just unjust regulation.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Being forced at gunpoint to give up your labor is not slavery? Try running a farm without adhering to the regulations and men in suits will come and take you away. </p>

<p>
[quote]
So then you think it's acceptable for these people simply starve and die? All so that the lucky minority can eat more protein than they need anyway?</p>

<p>Is that really moral?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're immoral by your standards. If you want to talk about morality and you do not fit your own definition of moral, why should I listen to you? The only time something is immoral is when you initiate force against someone. Taking away someone's property is essentially forcing them to be enslaved for whatever amount of work it took to obtain that property.</p>

<p>@naturalexponent

[quote]
Leave labor and entitlement out of this for a second and just think, is it okay for me to eat more than I need for no other reason than my own convenience and desires?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But labor, work, and ownership are central to this question. To ignore this aspect would be like ignoring the gun used in an armed robbery.</p>

<p>As I told UCLAri before, you do not meet your definition of "moral", so why should I listen to you? Unless of course you are on hunger strike now.</p>

<p>Furthermore, this "injustice" of which you speak of is not defined very well. If I eat one more leaf of spinach than I need, am I immoral? This further proves to the fact that consuming more than is "needed" (another highly subjective standard) is not a form of aggression. If I punch someone, that is wrong. If I kill them, that is wrong. If I eat one more spinach leaf than I need, am I wrong? If not, how can we extrapolate that eating a high-protein diet is wrong?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Nobody has to. Again, you're presupposing that morality somehow involves coercion. It involves decisions, and your decision to disregard the the connection between your diet and the suffering of others is your own. Whether you acknowledge it or not is also your choice.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If a man has to live a certain lifestyle through no choice of his own to remain moral and this choice has nothing do with negative rights of others, how can this be called a choice?</p>

<p>
[quote]
You're dangerously close to opening a new can of worms here that has nothing to do with vegetarianism and the scarcity of arable land and the human food supply. i.e. the issue how honest your (or anybody's for that matter) labor actually is. I take it you're a student.. how much of your life have you worked? And how much of that correlates to the quantity and quality of your possessions? I'm sure we'd find a disparity. Anyway...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I have done research on grants from a privately-funded organization. My parents work non-governmental jobs, so I'd say all my sources of income/wealth are honest.</p>

<p>Labor is honest when the tools (e.g. land, a hoe, or a centrifuge) are not illegitimately obtained. Land can be obtained by homesteading when nobody else has homesteaded that land or voluntary exchange with the rightful owner.</p>

78

<p>afruff,</p>

<p>
[quote]
Being forced at gunpoint to give up your labor is not slavery? Try running a farm without adhering to the regulations and men in suits will come and take you away.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I really don't get how you get to this. What does this have to do with the consumer making a decision to eat less high-intensity foods? You realize, I hope, that market equilibriums are the product of both the consumer and producer.</p>

<p>
[quote]
You're immoral by your standards. If you want to talk about morality and you do not fit your own definition of moral, why should I listen to you?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The moral argument is never absolute. That's the point. I never said that this argument was the truth of scripture. I just said that an argument can legitimately be made. Whether you agree with the assumptions of the argument, however, is your prerogative. You clearly do not.</p>

<p>And who said that I have to be a paragon of morality to understand that something is immoral? I've lied. That does not mean that I do not recognize the immorality of the act. I need not have never told a lie to know that lying is wrong. </p>

<p>Really though, your definition of morality is, in my mind, too specific. How is it not immoral, then, to cheat on a spouse? To lie to a dear friend? Neither of those requires application of force.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The only time something is immoral is when you initiate force against someone. Taking away someone's property is essentially forcing them to be enslaved for whatever amount of work it took to obtain that property.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>First of all, very little of this is clear-cut.</p>

<p>Let's use an example that is a common issue in US-Mexican relations. The water from the Colorado River now almost never makes it to Mexico. The US has managed to basically suck it all dry by the time it makes it to San Diego, leaving nothing or little more than the dregs for Mexico. Sure, it used to make it, but not now.</p>

<p>So is the water from the Colorado River ours to suck dry simply because it originates in the US's territory, or do the Mexicans have some right to the water that would otherwise flow into their territory? And if the agriculture that Mexicans would do using that water is now made impossible, are American farmers to blame? Or is it the Mexicans' fault for not winning a war some time ago? Or is our fault for consuming too many goods from California?</p>

<p>Is it ever really that clear?</p>

<p>
[quote]
As I told UCLAri before, you do not meet your definition of "moral", so why should I listen to you? Unless of course you are on hunger strike now.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's a pretty wild assumption. It also suffers the same flaw as your response to my "morality." You assume that one must be Moses himself to ever recognize a moral dilemma. That is just not true.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If a man has to live a certain lifestyle through no choice of his own to remain moral and this choice has nothing do with negative rights of others, how can this be called a choice?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why does everything have to be based on negative rights? Why can't it be based on that which benefits your fellow human being? I don't have to be a nice, polite, kind, compassionate human being. It doesn't mean that a jerkhole, lying, cheating swine is by any means moral just because he doesn't apply force on others. Morality is a choice. It's always a choice. That's why it's so hard to actually be a moral human being: you have a choice. Nobody's saying that you have to be honest. Nobody's saying you can't cheat on your spouse. Nobody's saying you have to be polite to people. Nobody's saying that you have to be a good, caring parent. It's your right to not do any of them. It doesn't mean that you are moral, however, if you choose to not do those.</p>

<p>
[quote]
My parents work non-governmental jobs, so I'd say all my sources of income/wealth are honest.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Dangerous assumption. Plenty of private sector jobs are not exactly honest. Plenty of public sector work is perfectly honest. Again with the overly defined lines...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Labor is honest when the tools (e.g. land, a hoe, or a centrifuge) are not illegitimately obtained. Land can be obtained by homesteading when nobody else has homesteaded that land or voluntary exchange with the rightful owner.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Find me arable land remaining that can still be homesteaded. You'll find that very very little remains. Humans have essentially come to utilize all but the remaining forests and deserts.</p>

79

<p>UCLAri</p>

<p>
[quote]
I really don't get how you get to this. What does this have to do with the consumer making a decision to eat less high-intensity foods? You realize, I hope, that market equilibriums are the product of both the consumer and producer.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You said that it is immoral to eat a high-protein diet. Thus, anybody eating a high protein diet would be considered immoral. Deciding to eat a low-protein diet does not make you more moral than one who does not; that is my argument. If you decide to become vegan on your own, good for you. But that does not mean that I am immoral.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The moral argument is never absolute. That's the point. I never said that this argument was the truth of scripture. I just said that an argument can legitimately be made. Whether you agree with the assumptions of the argument, however, is your prerogative. You clearly do not.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you can't apply a moral rule consistently, then it is obviously not universally preferable. For example, you make a moral rule that it is okay for you to attack person B and person B cannot retaliate. Clearly, this rule fails because you disallow person B to attack you against your objections. Similarly, if you want to prescribe diet A onto people against their objections, then they should be able to prescribe diet B onto you against your objections. Diet B can be something you're allergic to or even be a diet composed of nothing.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Really though, your definition of morality is, in my mind, too specific. And who said that I have to be a paragon of morality to understand that something is immoral? I've lied. That does not mean that I do not recognize the immorality of the act. I need not have never told a lie to know that lying is wrong.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See above.</p>

<p>
[quote]
How is it not immoral, then, to cheat on a spouse? To lie to a dear friend? Neither of those requires application of force.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am not being too specific. I am merely requiring that any moral proposition be consistent in its application to be true. As for lying and such, there is the law of proportionality. You don't blow someone's head off for putting their foot on your lawn.</p>

<p>
[quote]
First of all, very little of this is clear-cut.</p>

<p>Let's use an example that is a common issue in US-Mexican relations. The water from the Colorado River now almost never makes it to Mexico. The US has managed to basically suck it all dry by the time it makes it to San Diego, leaving nothing or little more than the dregs for Mexico. Sure, it used to make it, but not now.</p>

<p>So is the water from the Colorado River ours to suck dry simply because it originates in the US's territory, or do the Mexicans have some right to the water that would otherwise flow into their territory? And if the agriculture that Mexicans would do using that water is now made impossible, are American farmers to blame? Or is it the Mexicans' fault for not winning a war some time ago? Or is our fault for consuming too many goods from California?</p>

<p>Is it ever really that clear?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not clear in this instance because there is no system to determine boundaries for homesteading water. But why is there no system is the question you should ask? Because there is no demand for a system when there are no private water rights. Just as the fence was made to make land property rights clear, a system would be made to make water property rights clear if water were privatized.</p>

<p>
[quote]
That's a pretty wild assumption. It also suffers the same flaw as your response to my "morality." You assume that one must be Moses himself to ever recognize a moral dilemma. That is just not true.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is not a flaw; this is called consistency. If X person wishes to attack Y against his strong objections, then X should also allow attacks against himself from any and all people against his strong objections.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Why does everything have to be based on negative rights? Why can't it be based on that which benefits your fellow human being? I don't have to be a nice, polite, kind, compassionate human being. It doesn't mean that a jerkhole, lying, cheating swine is by any means moral just because he doesn't apply force on others. Morality is a choice. It's always a choice. That's why it's so hard to actually be a moral human being: you have a choice. Nobody's saying that you have to be honest. Nobody's saying you can't cheat on your spouse. Nobody's saying you have to be polite to people. Nobody's saying that you have to be a good, caring parent. It's your right to not do any of them. It doesn't mean that you are moral, however, if you choose to not do those.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You are merely listing your own personal preferences. For any moral rule to be valid, it must be consistent. Is a parent who lies to his child moral? No, that is clearly a form of neglect. Lying and fraud are not moral because the liar would not want them to be consistently applied to him. A liar and a cheat would not want to be lied and cheated by everyone at all times, thus he is not consistent and is in fact immoral.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Dangerous assumption. Plenty of private sector jobs are not exactly honest.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>They are not dishonest based on their very nature though. I'm sure there are some that are dishonest, but that is not the very nature of a private sector job.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Plenty of public sector work is perfectly honest. Again with the overly defined lines...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Conversely, public jobs are funded by force so their very nature is dishonest. To be consistent, government employees must allow anybody and everybody to steal however many $ they want at anytime since government employees do that to people. Of course, this does not happen.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Find me arable land remaining that can still be homesteaded. You'll find that very very little remains. Humans have essentially come to utilize all but the remaining forests and deserts.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So then who is "immoral" if people get stranded on mountain and starve to death? Starvation is not a an act perpetrated onto anyone, thus it is exempt from being evaluated as a consistent moral rule.</p>

<p>Also, much of the farmlands are owned by governments which are funded through force, thus their tools for obtaining arable land are illegitimately obtained and the land is NOT homesteaded (since legitimately obtained tools is a prerequisite to homesteading). If I steal your cow and milk it, is the milk really mine? No, I stole the cow.</p>

80

<p>
[quote]
You said that it is immoral to eat a high-protein diet. Thus, anybody eating a high protein diet would be considered immoral. Deciding to eat a low-protein diet does not make you more moral than one who does not; that is my argument. If you decide to become vegan on your own, good for you. But that does not mean that I am immoral.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, I said that assuming that the assumptions of limited food production hold true, then you are potentially leading others toward starvation. If you find that immoral, then it is. You do not. </p>

<p>
[quote]
If you can't apply a moral rule consistently, then it is obviously not universally preferable. For example, you make a moral rule that it is okay for you to attack person B and person B cannot retaliate. Clearly, this rule fails because you disallow person B to attack you against your objections. Similarly, if you want to prescribe diet A onto people against their objections, then they should be able to prescribe diet B onto you against your objections. Diet B can be something you're allergic to or even be a diet composed of nothing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Universal morality is, unfortunately, harder to apply than you seem to believe. Westerners find suicide incredibly immoral. Historically, however, the Japanese found suicide acceptable under specific circumstances. Who is correct?</p>

<p>
[quote]
It's not clear in this instance because there is no system to determine boundaries for homesteading water. But why is there no system is the question you should ask? Because there is no demand for a system when there are no private water rights. Just as the fence was made to make land property rights clear, a system would be made to make water property rights clear if water were privatized.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Just because our limited (VERY limited) Westphalian views do not have ways to deal with the tragedy of the commons doesn't make it acceptable. </p>

<p>As for your private vs. public arguments, put down the Rand. Morality is not as simple as objectivism. Try reading Rousseau, Hobbes, and Locke, as well as Kant. Morality is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be-- or as simple as Rand claims it is. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Also, much of the farmlands are owned by governments which are funded through force, thus their tools for obtaining arable land are illegitimately obtained and the land is NOT homesteaded (since legitimately obtained tools is a prerequisite to homesteading). If I steal your cow and milk it, is the milk really mine? No, I stole the cow.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What makes it "legitimately" obtained, though? Money? Labor? A contract? </p>

<p>You honestly think that the legitimacy of property is that simple? Even Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau couldn't clearly define what made property legitimate. How do you come to the conclusion, other than your clearly Randian beliefs, that it's that clear?</p>

<p>Who says that because I stake a claim to it, therefore I am morally in the right to control it and suck it dry? For instance, am I in the right to dump toxic waste in my backyard?</p>

<p>
[quote]
So then who is "immoral" if people get stranded on mountain and starve to death? Starvation is not a an act perpetrated onto anyone, thus it is exempt from being evaluated as a consistent moral rule.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So you'd rather see potentially millions die than have ten thousand give up some of their surplus goods to ensure that they at least live? Sorry, but my head spins with the implications of this. Is a human life really less important than property?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Conversely, public jobs are funded by force so their very nature is dishonest. To be consistent, government employees must allow anybody and everybody to steal however many $ they want at anytime since government employees do that to people. Of course, this does not happen.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Life is not black and white. </p>

<p>Repeat after me.</p>

<p>Life is not black and white.</p>