Beyond Carnism and towards Rational, Authentic Food Choices

Can't believe I missed that post:

Your argument on discrimination seems to be missing the point of what discrimination is and when/where it is expected/applicable. If you want to reduce pain then obviously you stop doing what it is that causes pain (eating animals), yes that is 'discriminating' on the grounds that they have a nervous system but that argument is akin to saying a heterosexual person "discriminates" against men when choosing a sexual partner. It might be true if you are choosing to word it in those particular terms (which I do not think is appropriate), but just because it's true doesn't mean we need to tell heterosexual men to stop discriminating against guys when wanting to have sex...

Congratulations on finding out what "discrimination" means. Small clarification though, it's only heterosexual men who discriminate against men when choosing their sexual partners, heterosexual women obviously discriminate against women. Any time you have a preference for something, you discriminate against another (as long as another exists).
Since you mention discrimination in sexuality, what about discrimination on racial grounds? religious grounds? Blood type? These forms of discrimination are very common... Some people can be very vocal about certain forms of discrimination yet completely ignore other forms, not realizing the irony of their very own bigotry. (note: I'm also correctly using the word "irony" here. I have yet to figure out what hipsters mean by it)

Actually the symbol o0n the keyboard is "equals" not "equality", equality includes but is not limited to the alleviation of such problems as social inequality and economic inequality. Depending upon how you wish to phrase it equality is synonymous with fairness. But this is a semantic argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equals_sign
"The equals sign or equality sign ( is a mathematical symbol used to indicate equality."
bwahahahahaha

Equality is not in any way synonymous with fairness. Fairness is a concept that varies. What you consider fair is not what others consider fair. Your idea of fairness comes from your judeo-christian socialist background, others do not share that background. Fairness is a moral concept, and if you don't know what the doctrine has to say about that, I urge you to read it. Point is, fairness isn't even equal to fairness.

If giving more money to those in need is "discrimination on economic grounds" then I'm absolutely fine with it. Should we not give poor and disadvantaged people more assistance when they are clearly in need of it?

Discriminate on economic grounds for economic matters, discriminate on nutritional grounds for nutritional matters?

ren wrote: Discriminate on economic grounds for economic matters, discriminate on nutritional grounds for nutritional matters?

And discriminate on the capacity to feel pain on compassionate grounds.

Treating animals/plants as just "nutrition" or "food" is to treat those animals/plants as a means rather than an end, as a way only of alleviating our own hunger rather than respecting their 'inherent worth'.

Knowing the fact that "equality does not equal homogeneity" is helpful in sorting information in my mind when equality and discrimination enters a topic. I am glad it entered this thread.

Just a bit of creativity here . . . perhaps beyond carnism (the speakers invented word) there is a new profile word "Carnacist" one who is beyond carnism as a result of an accidental paradigm shift . . . .(just making things up here) and who takes on the mantle of teaching/sharing their revelations with others utilizing a combination of facts and experiences.

It seems I have to sub-divide the Carnacists into two categories as well . . those that believe the the entire world "should" have the same world-view and those that don't.

Forgive me if this seqways . . i have been observing forms of profiling of late.

Akkarin wrote:

ren wrote: Discriminate on economic grounds for economic matters, discriminate on nutritional grounds for nutritional matters?

And discriminate on the capacity to feel pain on compassionate grounds.

Treating animals/plants as just "nutrition" or "food" is to treat those animals/plants as a means rather than an end, as a way only of alleviating our own hunger rather than respecting their 'inherent worth'.

Once again compassion is a matter of belief, I find it incredibly cruel to treat plants as lesser lifeforms. They do not deserve death more than others do just because they are not capable of doing things others can. That's nazi ideology dude, not commonly associated with "compassion". Actually now that I think about it hitler was a vegetarian on "compassionate" grounds too. It all makes so much sense now.

Also I really wonder what you understand to be "inherent worth" and why plants do not possess it. My understanding is that neither animals nor plants exist for the purpose of serving us. When I choose my food it's based on my nutritional needs, not on what the non-nutritional properties of the plant or animal are worth to me. What's your take?

i dont want any part of the battle element of this - im not saying anyone is wrong

i want to submit my own interpretation in response to ren's words "neither animals nor plants exist for the purpose of serving us..."

my understanding is the inverse of this; that we exist in service to each other

i benefit more from the overall world around me than it will benefit from me, but i play my part to repay what i am given both with my lifestyle choices and also eventually by giving my body back to the earth when i die

OB1Shinobi wrote: i dont want any part of the battle element of this - im not saying anyone is wrong

There is no "battle" in my mind, I'm certainly not thinking about this discussion in terms of "winning" or not, I'm doing what I can to build the most compelling argument possible and presenting that argument. I think ren's argument is wrong but it doesn't offend me.

I'm certainly not angry or anything, and I doubt ren is either, this is just a mature discussion.

ren wrote: Once again compassion is a matter of belief, I find it incredibly cruel to treat plants as lesser lifeforms. They do not deserve death more than others do just because they are not capable of doing things others can. That's nazi ideology dude, not commonly associated with "compassion". Actually now that I think about it hitler was a vegetarian on "compassionate" grounds too. It all makes so much sense now.

Compassion is the "sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others".
To be compassionate would therefore be to try and reduce the suffering or misfortune of others.

One form of suffering is the experience of pain.
I.e, if you see someone in the street in obvious pain (because they're being crushed to death by something for whatever reason), then a compassionate action (but by no means the only possible action) would be to free them from being crushed, thus reducing their pain.

If one form of compassion is to reduce pain then if one wants to live their life compassionately then they should feel compelled to try and reduce the pain in others.

Animals absolutely feel pain, and animals that are "factory farmed" suffer much more pain than they would if they were not kept in those same conditions.

Plants may or may not feel pain, but as I have already pointed out not eating animals actually reduces the total amount of plants that would be eaten, thus reducing the total amount of pain/suffering.

That is not treating plants as "lesser lifeforms", if plants don't feel pain then eating plants instead of animals will reduce the total amount of suffering in the world; if plants do feel pain then eating plants instead of animals still reduces the total amount of suffering in the world. Bearing in mind that seeing as pain is a product of a nervous system and a brain (of which plants have neither) I would argue it is up to you to demonstrate that they feel pain in a way that is comparable to animals. They might feel something when they are cut in half, but is that feeling actually comparable to pain? Again I would argue that it is you who has to demonstrate this is the case.

ren wrote: Also I really wonder what you understand to be "inherent worth" and why plants do not possess it. My understanding is that neither animals nor plants exist for the purpose of serving us. When I choose my food it's based on my nutritional needs, not on what the non-nutritional properties of the plant or animal are worth to me. What's your take?

Treating something as a "means" or "mere means" is to treat something only as a way of achieving a particular end.
Take the example of slavery. If someone is being treated merely as a way of satisfying production then they are being treated as a "means" rather than an "end". I.e in using this person only as a source of production you are denying them any option to choose otherwise, they can only do what is forced upon them and they are beind denied the option of persuing their own self-interest.

If animals/plants are being treated merely as a way of satisfying hunger then they are being treated as a "means" rather than an "end". I.e in using animals/plants only as a source of food you are denying them any option to "choose" otherwise, they can only do what is forced upon them and they are being denied the option of persuing their own self-interest.

Regarding the latter paragraph I said "choose" rather than choose intentionally, because obviously in the case of plants they cannot technically "choose" anything, because they lack the capacity to make choices (see lack of brain comment earlier). Animals of course are able to make a limited range of choices, and I would hold that it is a fair assumption that if an animal had to choose between being kept in a cage for its entire life and subject to painful practices or choosing to remain in an environment where it was not subject to pain, then that animal would choose the latter*.

This of course can be tested, if you train an animal to press two buttons that drop the same piece of food, except one of the buttons also delivers a painful electric shock, then unsurprisingly the animal will opt for the option which does not cause it pain. From this we can infer that animals prefer to not be in pain.

So knowing that animals don't like pain, and that they would choose not to experience pain over experiencing pain it seems plausible that when an animal has the option of acting in its own self-interest it will not want to suffer.

So we return to treating animals as either "means" or "ends", in my view inherent worth includes the option of all beings having the option to pursue their own self-interest, to deny them this would be treating them merely as a means to an end.

You seem to think that my compassion argument is centred on some form of self-gratification that I am just imposing upon the animal/plant but it is entirely the opposite! I am acting based on what the animal/plant would consider a want/need.

Eating things based on their nutritional value is treating things merely as a means to satisfy yourself, treating things based on their nutritional value but also respecting them as free agents with the ability to make decisions which one adheres to is treating things as an end in and of themselves.

*Edit: Earlier I said "former", instead of "latter", my mistake!

Just to broaden the frame of the last arguments on "compassion"

Compassion is a feeling about "others" and a concern for their misfortune.. Technically, the definition for compassion does not include animals. To be compassionate is technically the "desire" to do something about it. It is the state of feeling compassion. No action is required to be compassionate.
Therefore, a broader definition for compassion which includes animal suffering has to be is sourced from some other system of belief outside of what the simple definition of what compassion is.
If one is not raised with the tradition of not eating meat based on compassion for animals, than it is chosen.
In some Hindu traditions they eat meat because they believe those that do not eat meat based on animal compassion are very wrong; because they belive the basis of non eating meat based on suffering is an act of pity and all acts of pity are wrong.

Regarding means and end:

Anthromorphism is the term for placing human characteristics on anything other than humans.
Self interest, self concept, self awareness like humans is being studied at this time. So I am not able to understand the mean /ends argument in the way it is presented.

Further, meat eaters can be compassionate beings. For example, person eats meats, practices buying meat from non-mass produced factory venues because person does not support the cruel and abusive treatment of animals at big business mass production farms. In this way animal may be a food source and treated compassionately. Also, meat eater person does not own one as a pet because they believe that is animal mistreatment in the way of saying that if it is not a respected food source, don't lock it up for personal pleasure. This is an ancient view sourced in worth, life and compassion and still practiced today.

Another observation is that this entire thread has touched every one of the Jedi Believe themes.