Does anyone know any effective arguments against vegetarianism?

Question

I've never really heard one. I'm not sure if anything can truly undermine Peter Singer's concept of 'speciesism'. Since we're in the philosophy section and all, try to give me a philosophical reason. Rather than pointing out the existence of meatball marinaras from Subway, 'cause I know they exist already! Believe me, if anyone convinces me to eat meat I'll go get one right away.

The above comment about going back to eating meat is a joke (although the sub is my main temptation I suppose). I'm not expecting to be swayed but I do think it's important to see what people can come up with to criticise my position because I don't think I have heard all the arguments against vegetarianism. I've been one for about six or seven years now, and generally the people that argue against me are passionate but not logical in their attempts. So I'm looking for logic I guess, because I get yelled at enough by the farming background kids in my Philosophy and Ethics class already.

I suppose also I'd better add that I don't try to 'convert' people that do eat meat, it's really up to them, so please don't assume I think I've got some moral high ground because I'm just doing what's right for me really...
It's just people are having petty little digs in their answers at parts and it's annoying...

Answer 1

Ugh.

This is the expression of my total disdain for this thread.
Uggggggh......

I'm just going to respond losely to what has been said.

1) Humans don't have a nature. If you argue that they do, then I can show you plenty of data to support that humans aren't "designed" (whatever that means vis a vis evolutionary biology) to eat meat.

2) A person can thrive on a vegetrian diet without supplements. Nutrition as a scientific field hardly knows anything. A carnivore cannot survive without vegetables. Meat is a supplement. And it's arguable whether the benefits of eating meat outweigh the penalties, nutritionally speaking.

3) To the anemics, I am sorry. If you really want to be a vegetarian, however, you simply need to drink fresh green juice from dark leafy green vegetables. There's a ton of iron, B vitamins, etc in vegetables. Buy a juicer. You have a stove and all sorts of tools to cook meat; juicing kale is a fraction of the difficulty.

4) To the inconsistency rant: a bunch of things, all very boring and invective. A) Vegans aren't necessarily pro-life, that was a confused argument. B) Sentience IS THE ISSUE for Vegans, and you say that it is not-- for unknown reasons. C) If you don't grant sentience is an issue, yes plants are "living" therefore "everyone is a murderer". But this argument is very childish, because it has no understanding of the quantitative SCOPE of the so-called murdering. Every animal bred in captivity requires nourishment, which comes from plants, and on a purely productive level you lose 90% of the murdered plants to the metabolic upkeep of the livestock. That is, conservatively, every dead cow = 10,000,000 blades of grass, or whatever, while wasting 90,000,000. D) I forget, but I'm sure there's something. E) This is really boring.


If non-vegetarians want an argument, look, it's very easy: Just complain about Ethics in general. WHY are we committed to human rights in the first place, so that we even question whether we're being racist to animals? The reason why veganism is false is beacuse ethics is, in a nutshell. There's no demonstration of any of the universal laws that ethical theories adhere to. You want to eat meat? Go ahead~ the universe doesn't care. If it's pleasurable to you, that's a fine reason to do it, notwithstanding the possibly beneficial side-effects.

Answer 2

Many vegetarians believe it is morally offensive to kill animals. Their worldview allows no morally relevant distinction between killing animals and killing human beings.

Without writing a book, there are many philosophical problems with this position.

First, once the vegetarian defines his/her terminology, inconsistencies abound. Vegetarians KILL plants every time they eat. What right have they to kill plants merely because the plants are different? Against this, they argue the "sentient" angle, but it is readily seen that this is an artificial distinction. Sentience has no rational connection to the value of life, given the worldview of the vegetarian in the first place. Killing, then, becomes a matter of choice and the vegetarian's feeling of moral superiority is readily discovered to be rather lacking in heft.

Second, it is socially unworkable. If a human being is found dead, law enforcement is *required* to discover, if possible, the cause of death. This is necessary, of course, to determine whether a crime has occurred. Criminal activity disrupts society and must be restrained. However, if we philosophically equate human life with "animal" life, society would grind to a halt. Imagine a policeman examining the grill of your car for every insect you killed (insect slaughter or outright insecticide). What about stepping on an ant? Would that be involuntary ant slaughter, negligent ant slaughter or anticide with malice aforethought? What about finding a dead duck in a pond? Who's going to investigate to determine whether the death was accidental?

Third, the elimination of the human race. As with the first point, not only is vegetarianism inconsistent, any consistent remedy from the morality angle would entail we refrain from eating at all. Of course, we would all starve to death, but we would feel great knowing we were morally superior to...to...well, nothing, I guess (since the animals eat each other and plants, too).

In sum, vegetarianism is inconsistent, unworkable and unsurvivable (if consistently played out). If somebody chooses to eat plants only, that's one thing; but when they point the finger of self-righteous indignation at others, it is obvious they've got three fingers pointing back at them.

Oh consistency, thou art a jewel!!

Answer 3

I'd like to be a vegetarian. I believe it's healthier. I believe it's more moral.

The problem is, I'm anemic. I don't get enough iron as it is. I need the protein. Other sources just don't cut it. I feel weak & get fainting spells. I actually crave the protein. I console myself when I'm feeling bad by recognizing that chickens, pigs & cows are bred as food sources & that even if I stopped eating them, it wouldn't "save" then. They wouldn't be roaming free. If there were no market, then farmers simply wouldn't raise them at all. They would not exist.

I draw the line at animals in the wild (rabbit, deer, moose. I never did eat lamb. I don't eat much red meat at all anymore. Mostly just chicken. I could never eat animals that I think of as pets/companion animals or wild animals.) Also, I console myself that we are carnivores, animals ourselves. I don't think that animals are evil for acting on their instinct to eat meat. & hey, we're not the top of the food chain. If I swim in shark-infested waters then I may be food for some great white & that wouldn't make him evil (though the movies show otherwise).

An effective argument against vegetarianism for me is that I would simply be too weak to function! I don't think that humans are natural herbivores. Some decide to be for moral or health reasons (red meat is hard to digest & can be unhealthy). I really should eat more fruit & vegetables but nothing is quite as satisfying as meat to me. I was raised as a meat-eater. It's a tough habit to break.

I wouldn't want to convince you to eat meat anyway! I admire anyone who is able to be a vegetarian. I can't imagine life without chicken or the occasional steak (has to be well-done though) or greasy big mac.

The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak!

Peace out.
:)

Answer 4

I have an argument against vegetarianism, and it's simple. I like pigs, and cows and to a lesser degree chickens.

If, however, we didn't have a use for them, they would be reduced to a Zoo sized population at best.

Isn't it often argued that a short life is better then no life at all? I've heard that from pro-lifers for years. Surely the argument should apply to animals.

When you look at the big picture, vegetarians are ANTI-ANIMAL! I can't see anyone having a cow as a pet. The vegans don't even use the milk, or the eggs.

I doubt pigs, or cows would ever have the secondary usage as transport, or to be raced, like horses. The cows old job, working farms, has been taken over by tractors. And only the smallest variety of pigs have any chance of being kept as pets.

The only secondary use for chickens is people who raise them to fight each other. Yuck.

So all I have to say is, if you love a cow, eat a steak, show the world you care.

Answer 5

Think about man food is delicious and nutritious. If you are being a vegetarian your missing out in life because when you eat meat is like going to heaven. Also answer your self do you really enjoy soy meat and all the vegetables that you eat. Don't get me wrong vegetables are good but they are better when they are accompanied with meat or chicken.

Answer 6

I don't. I've been vegetarian for 13 years and there is not a single argument that I've heard that has ever convinced me to go back to eating meat. I have never been anaemic (I donate blood regularly), my vitamin B12 is fine, I rarely get sick and I heal well.

There are vegetarians who are sickly and chances are that they are making poor choices within their diet range.

There are those who say to eat meat "because the animals are going to be killed anyway" - but it's still your choice to support or boycott this practice.

Basically, for me it has come down to how it feels. And it does not feel right to eat a fellow creature when I don't have to. Plants do not necessarily die when we eat them. We are often eating 'limbs' or fruit from the plant and the base still lives and can continue to produce.

The seed-containing parts are designed to attract and to be eaten to assist the spread of seed and therefore prolong the plant's life.

Do what you feel is right. Good question, I've really enjoyed reading the answers but none have even remotely come close to convincing me to go back!

Answer 7

Look, the more vegetarians there are not eating meat, the more steak there will be for those who do. Steak is delicious. And, being vegetarian is selfish because it will hurt the people who raise livestock and the fishermen and women. If no one ate meat and fish, what would those people do for money? Just like you can't stop drinking beer completely, otherwise all the people who work at the brewery would not have jobs. Who has the HP? Would you pass it here? Cheers.

Answer 8

It's all about nutrition. Vegetable proteins are incomplete: there are some essential amino acids which the body cannot make; meat contains all of them, but most vegetable proteins don't. If you eat the right mixture of vegetables, you can get all of them, but you have to refer to a textbook on nutrition to learn how to do so. Vegetables are also lacking in vitamin B -12, and that is essential; you must eat meat to get it.

Answer 9

You are really going to leave whether or not you eat meat to the debates made to you on this website?

I argue that you should make food choices on your belief and moral reasoning sans the general public's input.

Whether you eat meat is really of no consequence to me, nor should you really care about my opinion about it.

One of my dear friends is a vegetarian and she told me all her reasons for this choice, but she also told me that she would never think poorly of me if I ate a chicken taco in her presence.

I know, in her mind, she thinks herself more highly evolved. But I have my reasons why I eat meat with my vegetables.

Leave it to your conscience, not to peer pressure.

Answer 10

No one's forcing you to eat meat (at least, they better not be). If you can sustain your health without meat, and you can afford the veggies and other foods, great. Some people do need animal protein to survive... if you don't fall into that category, then you don't need to eat meat.

May God bless you.