Korean Job Discussion Forums

[The Bobster]

Many vegetarians � we might accurately say most � cite mercy and compassion for other living creatures as a guiding principle and often a primary motivation for their dietary choices. This is true not only for those places where religious edicts teach reincarnation and a oneness of all life, but is especially and perhaps more true in the West, where the influence of philosophical systems from India, China and other parts of Asia have encouraged a shift in thinking not only among intellectual elites, but in many other sectors of society. People are � logically and correctly concerned that what they eat might have a detrimental effect on other forms of life around them.

Regardless, vegetarianism (for obvious reasons) does not respect and cherish ALL life, but rather only animal life. Plants are allowed to be killed - and if they were not, of course, there would be no vegetarians � and the common argument made is that plant life lacks a central nervous system with which to feel pain, and they do not struggle or call out when death comes to them. The truth is a little more complicated when we discover that there ARE plants that exhibit movement away from danger, and a little more complicated again when we find that there are some animals that do not, and many that have such rudimentary nervous systems that it is difficult to know with certainty that pain is a part of the creature�s experience of life.

Whatever we argue regarding the nature of pain among living creatures, the fact remains that the plant will still die, and die for no other reason than to allow us to live. If animals are said to have a right to live on this earth, then how can we (using the same principles) deny the same to plants? And if we cannot find a method that does not give favoritism to one phylum over another, how can we really say we are reducing the amount of death and pain, overall � especially considering that many of the animals we spare from our own stomachs will later dine on other animals and plants? (E.g., by refraining to eat a very large fish for dinner and allowing it to live, we are condemning a host of smaller fish to be killed and eaten by it.)

I think one can be forgiven for harboring the assumption that for many who are concerned about participating in the death of living things to provide their own sustenance, the key issue just might be whether and to what degree the pain is displayed, and how strenuously the death is fought against � and NOT specifically whether the pain actually occurs or the death happens.

Here are two examples to illustrate this.

1) Let�s imagine a particular subspecies of broccoli that is capable of movement, and will make a cry of distress when being uprooted � will the vegetarian feel the same about broccoli as a food source as he or she does now? Will it affect our reactions regarding other creatures that lack this ability to writhe its stalks and call out? In other words, is it the actual existence of pain as experienced by creatures that is important, or is it rather our perception of it and our ability to witness it that matters?

2) Conversely, if livestock animals were to be treated with utmost respect, fell well and given shelter in clean and disease-free accommodations, and provided with both animal and human companionship and kindness, and then killed quickly and without pain � will this affect the vegetarian�s view of the ethical nature of the animal as a source of nutrition? Why or why not?

Vegetarianism cannot escape the real facts in the world that display clearly to us that our own continue life depends on the death of other creatures, even if only plants. Likewise, most who partake of the practice must dwell within assumptions about how much, and the nature of, the pain experienced by animals, and possibly plants as well - and these assumptions are ones that have not yet, and possibly cannot be proven with any certainty.

Therefore, if done solely for reasons of compassion, vegetarianism is a bad idea.

________


By the way, I voted the third option, and all who are reading this should be aware that I�m submitting these propositions only tangentially as expression of personal opinion, but rather more as discussion fodder. Food for thought, if you get my drift.
________

Boilerplate disclaimer: The Bobster in no way wants to dissuade anyone from a life of legumes and soy products. There are many ways to be happy.

________

This is part of a series of discussion threads surrounding the overall topic of vegetarianism. Obviously, anyone reading has the option of ignoring it and moving on to something else if it lacks interest value.

I want to thank a few members of the Caf� whose discussions with me in the past weeks and months (and in some cases, years) have stimulated my thinking and taught me things I didn�t know about this topic. Among them are such posters as RTeacher, kermo, littlelisa, peppermint, Darashii and Bramble (formerly, red dog), though others ought to be included in this list and my apolies here for leaving them out.

My thanks go in sincerity for the chance to articulate and clarify my thinking, and modify my views according to things learned along the way.

[Bramble]

Here we go again. Of course this is just more baiting, but for the benefit of any onlookers who may not have followed past discussions, I will attempt to address the OP�s arguments seriously (despite his obvious intentions).

[Darashii]

If a tree falls in the forest...

[inukshuk]

hunter tribes hunted to survive. Now we eat to grow fat. Don't need meat anymore (except in korea).

[Rteacher]

Bhakti yoga acknowledges that there is still some karma involved in killing plants. There is no material solution to avoiding sinful karmic reactions.

Only vegetarian food and milk products prepared in a devotional mood as an offering to God (i.e. Krishna - who won't accept any meat and loves milk) is "karma-free"

When God transcendentally eats the offering (by hearing the prayers or by glancing on it) it's understood to be transformed into "spiritual food"/ prasadam - the Lord's mercy...

[Czarjorge]

"I'm a level three Vegan. I don't eat anything that casts a shadow."

[inukshuk]

tomatoes would cast a shadow. Especially around 1:30pm when the sun has begun its descent.

[SuperFly]

Karma, shmarma

I love to go hunting with friends for wild game, then skin the animal and bbq the meat. Good eatin!

[canuckistan]

In some parts of the world, eating meat is a more efficient way to get protein than trying to cobble it together from plants.

I love vegetables, but I can't live without shashlik....it's....just...not....possible.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/17/Shashlik.jpg/400px-Shashlik.jpg

[Bramble]

[Underwaterbob]

and if your reason for being a vegetarian (like all of the ones I know personally) is not out of compassion for animals but rather because raising meat consumes far more resources than it provides?

[The Bobster]

[Bramble]

[The Bobster]

[Bramble]

Well, good luck getting anyone to discuss anything with you.