Visitor:

FAQs Index

VeganAngel_RI wrote:

Thus if I purchase meat killed by a slaughterhouse person I am in essence paying for the animals violent murder and then feasting upon its corpse. Both scenarios are violent and both are sins.


I'm not a meat eater myself, but I'm not vegan either (I travel and eat in restaurants a lot and being vegan would be much harder for me than for someone who cooks at home - I do, however, tend to avoid eggs/dairy). Many believe, that eating eggs/dairy is also violent and wrong. I disagree. We live in a sick world and refusing to be a part of it doesn't make much sense. If you followed your logic to extreme, it would also be wrong to pay taxes (because your country allows/supports meat/fur/vivisection industry) or to drive a car (oil is often produced unethically, a lot of innocent Iraqis were killed for your oil).

Think of resistance during WW2. Resistance fighters didn't exclude themselves from Nazi world, they lived in it and fought from within. On the street, they greeted people with "Hail Hitler", wore Nazi uniforms and tried to blend in. We admire them because they fought, not because they, for example, refused to wear jewelry extracted from Jewish teeth.

While eating meat/diary/eggs is not an ethical thing to do, it's far from murder. For me, being vegan is just not enough - I feel the need to fight. I have plenty to worry about preparations for my AR actions, so I don't have the time or will to think about poor abused cows, when I eat cheese on my vegetarian pizza slice I grab on my way.


FreeQ,
You make some logical points, and you are probably doing the moral things (which is important) but your logic fails on some points.

For example, you say

Quote:

"Many believe, that eating eggs/dairy is also violent and wrong. I disagree."

then you concede that

Quote:

"While eating meat/diary/eggs is not an ethical thing to do..."

One might conclude that you believe that something that is not ethical is not wrong. Hopefully you mean that it may be the lesser evil.

You use the Straw Man fallacy, which is arguing any point by going to the extreme. The definition of a Straw Man fallacy: attack an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.

Quote:

We live in a sick world and refusing to be a part of it doesn't make much sense. If you followed your logic to extreme, it would also be wrong to pay taxes (because your country allows/supports meat/fur/vivisection industry) or to drive a car (oil is often produced unethically, a lot of innocent Iraqis were killed for your oil).


You should recognize the ethical difference between doing something wrong directly, and the effects of actions that you can't control. Its the difference between running over someone in your car deliberately, and doing it accidentally. The consequences of paying taxes you can't control. You MIGHT hurt someone if you drive a car. The ethics of these are NOT logical extremes of directly causing harm by supporting factory farming.

The argument you presented dances around a point that is valid: Money can improve the lives of sentient beings. Time is money. In today's world, sometimes being a vegan takes time (and money) that costs more lives than it saves.

Example of this folly: One vegan proudly described spending 10 hours researching animal ingredients in a certain product that she will never again buy. By never buying that product, she might save 0.0001% of a life. She earns more than 25-Pounds per hour. Had she worked for 10 hours, that money could have made a bigger difference at an animal shelter.

Fair Use Notice and Disclaimer
Send questions or comments about this web site to Ann Berlin, annxtberlin@gmail.com