Are you a vegetarian?

[Alcon]

Yes.

[Alcon]

I'm always surprised by people's perceived difficulty of living without meat.  I was never a big steak guy, but I definitely enjoy the taste of meat.  What exactly is the difficulty?  Do you all not eat a wide array of food?  You don't have a substantial number of non-meat dishes you enjoy?  That's kind of hard for me to fathom.

[Alcon]

So those here that are vegetarians, what is the primary reason that caused you to become one? Health reasons or treatment of animals? Or a mix of both?

Ethical reasons...I'm skinny enough as it is.  Animals are tasty, but I'm not compelled by the ethical case for valuing human life so infinitely higher than animal life to justify eating 'em.  Honestly, I've met few people who don't concede that killing animals is an ethical grey area.  It seems odd to put taste preferences over such an ethical grey area...especially because I can't imagine why anyone with a reasonably diverse palate would be especially inconvenienced.  I don't think this is a cut-and-dry ethical issue.  I'm just surprised more people (maybe even most) aren't vegetarian.

I suppose "humane slaughter" is marginally preferable, but: 1) It doesn't address the main ethical issue; and, 2) I don't think many people are willing to put their money where their mouth is anyway.

[Alcon]

So those here that are vegetarians, what is the primary reason that caused you to become one? Health reasons or treatment of animals? Or a mix of both?

Ethical reasons...I'm skinny enough as it is.  Animals are tasty, but I'm not compelled by the ethical case for valuing human life so infinitely higher than animal life to justify eating 'em.  Honestly, I've met few people who don't concede that killing animals is an ethical grey area.  It seems odd to put taste preferences over such an ethical grey area...especially because I can't imagine why anyone with a reasonably diverse palate would be especially inconvenienced.  I don't think this is a cut-and-dry ethical issue.  I'm just surprised more people (maybe even most) aren't vegetarian.

I suppose "humane slaughter" is marginally preferable, but: 1) It doesn't address the main ethical issue; and, 2) I don't think many people are willing to put their money where their mouth is anyway.

It is a gray area, since obviously it is ethical for one species to kill another species for sustenance, but in our case, we can survive without eating meat. Furthermore, we are for the most part not living in hunter gatherer societies where animals provide us more "bang for the buck" so to speak. They tend to be high in proteins, but in today's society we can easily substitute that with plant products. In a hunter gatherer society you might not necessarily have that luxury as it might be too much effort to gather enough of those products, which tend to be small parts of the plants. In our society we can just run to the supermarket and grab a lot of vegetables and peas/legumes/beans and eat a balanced diet....or go to the drive-thru and get a double cheeseburger with bacon.

I have to say that I'm increasingly finding the environmental argument more compelling, too.  Meat is really a major resource waste.  Trophic levels and sh**t.

[Alcon]

Oh yeah, that too. Again, as someone who does eat animals but is trying to cut down on it, eating vegetarian makes a lot of sense from many angles. I just wish there was even more variety of vegetable products we could purchase here. Things like banana roots taste so, so good but I don't think I have ever seen them here. That is one thing I like about India, the vast variety of vegetarian options. All of them tasty (though many are fried so yeah).

Yeah, living on a university campus or in an urban area makes things markedly easier if you're low-income.  The suburbs are a mixed bag; around here I'm sure it's relatively easy to live vegetarian if you have a decent income, but in the Midwest, it could be annoying.  I find the "I couldn't imagine living that way!" excuse hilarious in most urban/college areas, though, except for people who are extremely finicky.

[Alcon]

No.
Yet, I find the motives of most vegetarians honorable and I hold those vegetarians in high esteem who don't try to convert carnivores with missionary zeal and don't give you the feeling that they're morally superior.

You have a +4.00 social score and you're complaining about others personally advocating for their moral beliefs?

No. While I accept that humans can live a vegitarian lifestyle (obviously), humans are omnivores, so I see nothing wrong with eating meat.

What's the argument here?  It's instinctual, therefore it's moral?

[Alcon]

Never said it was moral. More amoral. I know where you're going with this though. I understand there are some "instincts" that are wrong, but that opens another can of worms, doesn't it?

Right.  But we're a higher-order animal that forms higher-order societies and has more latitude to think ethically than its forebearers.  Why shouldn't we open that can of worms?  We have with plenty of social and legal principles that apply to humans.

[Alcon]

Whoa, Alcon is more of a hipster than I thought.

yeahhh man, corporate aggro...Monsanto and sh**t, y'know?  F'ed up.

[Alcon]

Never said it was moral. More amoral. I know where you're going with this though. I understand there are some "instincts" that are wrong, but that opens another can of worms, doesn't it?

Right.  But we're a higher-order animal that forms higher-order societies and has more latitude to think ethically than its forebearers.  Why shouldn't we open that can of worms?  We have with plenty of social and legal principles that apply to humans.

I never said we shouldn't open that can of worms. I just worry we could get off topic. But anyways, I can recall coming to the conclusion whilst in Kindergarten that "if other animals eat other animals, it is therefore okay for me to as well". Since then I never really thought about it, until a friend of mine suggested just what you did. Made me think. It just seems so ingrained in nature though, that some animals eat other animals.

I think it's kind of in the category of religion/spirituality and capitalism. They all don't really make sense, but they are so ingrained in human nature that they must be at the very least tolerated, and regulated to ensure that they are not excessively harmful. I.e. certain characteristics of human nature are undesirable, but can be tolerated.

But isn't that a problem when there's a third party involved that may be impacted?  I think the same limit of tolerance applies to religion.  And based on your economic score, you seem to think there are not only ethical limits on capitalism, but it's a tendency so potentially harmful it should be restricted by government.  So, why tolerate this in oneself?

[Alcon]

There are third parties affected by capitalism and religion as well. One could argue they are more harmful to humans than meat intake, although some would argue eating meat is harmful to one's self as well.

As for myself, I am guilty of dabbling in all three. I eat meat, I go to church, and I participate in the capitalist system.

Right...and you're evidently willing to governmentally enforce regulation of the negative effects of capitalism.  You're not even willing to personally limit the negative effects of meat consumption.

I'm also not sure what kind of ethical excuse "we do it, even if it's wrong" is in the first place.  If it's wrong, shouldn't we try to seek a means to limit this harm or stop this behavior?  I assume that's why you support government regulation on capitalism.  I'm not sure I follow your argument.