Beyond Meat: Your best simple arguments for not eating meat

[Seitanist]

Hello friends!

A group I'm in, the Louisville Vegetarian Club, is going to be presenting a series of classes in the theme of "Vegan 101" at a local health food store. We are doing four: an intro, one on dairy, one on meat, and a closing class.

I am in charge of the meat class, and while I know lots of basic reason why eating meat sucks for both the body and animals (and the earth), I'd like to hear your take on the simplest but convincing arguments for not eating meat. If you have anything to link to like a study or picture that would be great as well. I will mention VF (and you if you want) in my credits!

We're really stoked and the ball is rolling in Louisville right now for vegans; we just had a huge vegan potluck and Forks Over Knives showing, we're having a vegetarian (mostly vegan) tasting fair at the end of March and then these classes will be in April. Our website is http://www.louisvilleveg.com for those interested.

Thanks in advance!

[xrodolfox]

The simplest reason for me is based on two assertions and one conclusion, and then stating the inverse. If P and Q are true --> P+Q --> ~(P+Q).

1) Eating meat is not nessesary either for human survival or to thrive
2) Eating meat means animals have to die.
thus
3) Eating meat means animals have to die for something that isn't needed.
and thus the inverse is true...
4) Going veg*n is a (simple) way to avoid many of those uneeded deaths.

TL:DR
I don't eat animals because I don't have to.

[Konstantin]

I am a ground-dwelling primate.

There is so much to eat that there's no place for meat in my diet.

[sosso]

Shut up. That's why.

[JS]

For me I feel as a human I evolved empathy. There is no reason an animal should suffer for me. It really upsets me to think of the pain and anguish an animal might suffer all so I can eat them or use any part of them. I have yet to hear one good reason why we do use animals like we do.

[Konstantin]

I like that JS.

It extends (for me) into the fact that food consumption is a massive part of overall product consumption. An an adult eats about 7 times their bodyweight in a year, which is a massive number of animals, and comes through in the massive stats you can get about the animal food industries. So giving a dog a home, not buying from the company that uses animals badly in adverts, not going to the circus, stopping the seal cull are all helpful things that help animals but are dwarfed by the numbers used for food.

[skoptic]

For me I feel as a human I evolved empathy. There is no reason an animal should suffer for me. It really upsets me to think of the pain and anguish an animal might suffer all so I can eat them or use any part of them. I have yet to hear one good reason why we do use animals like we do.

+1

[Richard]

You can look at other things that a person believes to be wrong, and make comparisons with eating meat, or even particular kinds of meat. The closest thing that people think is wrong is killing and eating things like dogs, cats, horses etc. So that's quite an easy way to prove your point:

Is it wrong to kill and eat a horse?

Yes

Why?

_______

Then that reason can also be applied to cows, pigs, chickens...

(In the case that someone says that it's fine to kill and eat all animals, you can replace it with "human", and see what they say. Normally people freak out and will not talk about it. But if they say everything else is fine, what's so special about humans, in terms of consciousness it is possible to prove we are comparable with other animals)

But the fact is that you don't need an argument to not eat meat, they need an argument to eat meat. Then you have to disprove their argument, that's all. Veganism doesn't need an explanation because it is a non-action. It would be like explaining why you didn't head butt a random person in the street - it doesn't need explaining, because nothing happened. Likewise, to not eat an animal is nothing at all, nothing has happened, and so doesn't require explanation. To pay someone to kill something, is an action, and needs explanation.

[Seitanist]

But the fact is that you don't need an argument to not eat meat, they need an argument to eat meat. Then you have to disprove their argument, that's all. Veganism doesn't need an explanation because it is a non-action. It would be like explaining why you didn't head butt a random person in the street - it doesn't need explaining, because nothing happened. Likewise, to not eat an animal is nothing at all, nothing has happened, and so doesn't require explanation. To pay someone to kill something, is an action, and needs explanation.

Great stuff! Just like theism vs. atheism. Thank you, Richard, and everyone!

[Fallen_Horse]

But the fact is that you don't need an argument to not eat meat, they need an argument to eat meat. Then you have to disprove their argument, that's all. Veganism doesn't need an explanation because it is a non-action. It would be like explaining why you didn't head butt a random person in the street - it doesn't need explaining, because nothing happened. Likewise, to not eat an animal is nothing at all, nothing has happened, and so doesn't require explanation. To pay someone to kill something, is an action, and needs explanation.

Great stuff! Just like theism vs. atheism. Thank you, Richard, and everyone!

Except for that it doesn't work. For example, if you see someone being mugged in the street, and you choose to not do anything, that is a non-action. But if you were asked later why you hadn't done anything, your defense can't be, "Why would you HAVE stopped the mugging?"

Non-action is, simply, an action in itself. People need a reason for their beliefs, whether their beliefs involve DOING something or NOT DOING something. Omnivores need to provide reasons for their choices, and vegans also need to provide reasons for their choices.

[Richard]

I'll try to explain how I see ethics a bit more dude, see what you think, I'd be interested in hearing another perspective on non-action, and I think it's a really interesting thing to consider. I am not 100% sure of my approach, but it makes most sense to me at this time

The reasoning is behind the ethics of why it's wrong to kill an animal, not why it's right to not eat meat. If you try to explain why it's "right" to not eat meat, ultimately you are describing doing nothing, and you have to describe the problem, which is killing animals. To not eat animals in itself is neither good nor bad, it's just nothing. Promotion of veganism is the + because you can make others reduce their consumption, and without your input they would not have done so.

I think that taking action which causes harmful results is bad, and I think that taking action which has positive results is good. I think that taking no action at all is neither good nor bad. But the thing is that people should aim to be good, if you don't try to help people, you're nothing, you are not taking good action. So the analogy of standing by while someone is mugged - the mugger is performing the bad action, and the by-stander is taking no action, they are not to blame. But they are not "good" as a result, they have done nothing. Of course you can say that they should have helped, and that is correct. But, I don't think that the default is "good", and anything below that is "bad". If you were to score the mugger and the by-stander on some kind of ethics scale, where would you place them? I say that the mugger is in the red, the by-stander is on 0, and if someone helped out, then they get a + rating.

If the world was full of people who did nothing when something bad is happening, then there would be no prevention, and things would work out for the worse. But, those who did nothing are not responsible, they are just useless, at least that's how I see it. I aim to be a good person, not a useless person!

In a society where it is "wrong" to do nothing, do you arrest people who don't help people who are being mugged? What level of positive action or self-sacrifice is required to avoid legal action?

If someone is begging on the street, and you give them 1 dollar, you could give them 2. Are you wrong to give them nothing at all, are you wrong for just giving them 1 when you can give 2? and so on. On my scale, I say that giving nothing earns you no good points, and the more you give in relation to what you earn and can afford, earns you good points

[ColleenE]

Would you take a knife to your dog's throat, slit it, and then roast him in your oven?
No?

Why not?