>

I'm saying that to a lesser degree it is. Just like someone with depression is lacking happiness that is needed to be happy and healthy I think the absence of meat means we aren't fully happy.
/u/BallKey7607 (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

You being slightly happier, does not excuse the murder of animals.
If I got the same satisfaction from throwing a kitten from a bridge, that you do from eating a meal with meat, would you accept me doing so?

I would extend this argument to say that not only are we entitled to survive, but we are entitled to live our lives without feeling deprived.

Would you say the same about sex? Could someone use this excuse for rape, and thus had their rape justified? >

When I say satisfaction I'm not really talking about a superficial pleasure. I am saying that without meat there is a feeling of deprivation and lacking. Nobody needs to kill kitten's or rape people to be happy, maybe for some people there is some kind of sick pleasure but I'm talking about a deeper sense of fulfillment. >


When I say satisfaction I'm not really talking about a superficial pleasure. I am saying that without meat there is a feeling of deprivation and lacking

Same about sex. Incels talk about it all the time, does that excuse rape?

Nobody needs to kill kitten's or rape people to be happy, maybe for some people there is some kind of sick pleasure but I'm talking about a deeper sense of fulfillment.

I think meat is a sick pleasure. You want to kill an animal, and if you don't do so, you won't be happy. How is this different from killing puppies and kittens, and raping?
In all instances you are taking something from someone, that is not yours to take. In all instances you hurt someone, when you don't need to, because you have a fulfillment that you place above the wellbeing of others. >

You make a good argument that killing an animal could be sick but I'm talking about the feeling you get after eating meat rather than killing an animal. >

But you can't have one without the other. If a person's satisfaction comes from kittens being thrown off bridges and killed, what practical difference is there from doing it themselves or paying someone else to do it? The cruelty that you've already acknowledged still happens. >

I mean the satisfaction isn't in the actual killing of the animal. Thats a consequence which I agree needs to be weighed up. >

But you said yourself that you can't get that satisfaction from plants, so you NEED to kill for that satisfaction, that means your satisfaction can not be met, without you being responsible for the murder of an innocent
The fact is that you don't need meat to survive, so you kill for sensory pleasure. >

But had you never eaten meat in your life, you wouldn't be less happy for not having eaten it. You aren't made to eat meat, you are made to be able to eat meat. >

I don't know how I would feel but it feels like meat does add something which would be lacking without it. >

If you're going vegan, you'd have to supplement with vitamins for sure. Meat is quite healthy food, but we eat too much of it.
I am not a vegan either. But I do eat meat only 2-3 days a week usually. I'd say if you're concerned enough with eating meat that you create a post here trying to defend yourself, maybe it's a good idea to assign one day in the week to not eating meet? You'll be helping the environment with that significantly already, as 1/7 is 14% less meat!
There's no need to go full vegan if you really don't want to. But you can chip in a bit without hurting. >

This isn't a bad idea, I would definitely consider having a day or two off a week. >

Apply this same logic to other things and see if it holds true. 

'I do think rape and sexual assault is really cruel and I love women so I feel bad about all the cruelty. My justification is that I need sex to be fully happy. I'm not just talking about the feeling, there is a sense of deep satisfaction that only comes after forcing myself on someone, which is always lacking after consensual sex, no matter how great it is...I think if nature made us this way then we are entitled to live without being deprived.'

Something feeling good is not reason enough to justify doing it. There are an unlimited number of things that could feel good to someone that are not morally or ethically justifiable. >

The satisfaction I am talking about is more of a deep wholesome fulfillment. Like similar to eating when your hungry but just another step. Like something is fundamently lacking from life without it. I don't believe that anyone feels the same way about rape, maybe people get some kind of sick pleasure but I don't believe that anyone could say they need to rape someone to feel content and happy. >

Describing something as wholesome doesn't make it so. What makes your feeling of fulfillment different from the sick pleasure of others? 
Jeffery Dahmer, a serial killer, when describing his feelings after killing his first victim said, “it just seemed like I had control of my life from there on in."
Out of context, that sentence sounds pretty wholesome. He even used the word "satisfaction" when describing cannibalism his victims. 
I think we would both agree that Jeffery Dahmer's satisfaction or wanting to feel in control of his life are not justification for his cruelty. 
You acknowledge that your eating meat causes cruelty to animals. Why is your satisfaction different than Mr. Dahmer's? >

∆ I'm not able to give a good explanation on why my justification is different to Dahmer's. My answer is that it feels like eating meat is more of a natural fundamental satisfaction that is required for being alive but I don't think this is a good answer. Not being able to properly explain why its different has made me question it. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Wellfooled (2∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

This seems like a fairly insane justification.  If you were to apply the "suffering of others is OK so long as it brings me increased happiness" you'd be branded a psychopath wouldn't you? You describe clearly cruelty, yet justify it with personal happiness.
It's clearly not universally necessary to have meat to be happy - there are lots of happy vegans.  What is it about you that makes it ok for YOUR happiness to at the expense of cruelty to others even when you have clear evidence that nature didn't make humans "this way", it must be something about you.  
And...whoa, thats a hell of an entitlement you end your position with.  Not being deprived?  Should those who can't find sex rape others because the cruelty of it is outweighed by the happiness it brings them and the alleviation of their deprivation of sex? >

∆ I have changed my mind slightly, I was looking at as though the need for satisfaction from meat is so fundamental that its just a necessary cost of being alive but you make a good point that the satisfaction from sex is pretty fundamental but obviously rape still isn't okay because its wrong to make others suffer to satisfy yourself. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/iamintheforest (218∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

You think that your survival > an animal survival.
You have not followed this up with any logic that:
a small element of a human's overall happiness summed over the course of a few mealtimes > an animal's survival >

Its not that I think my survival is more important than an animals, its just that if I was in a survival situation I wouldn't be wrong for killing and eating one the same way a lion isn't wrong for hunting to stay alive. I am then also saying that I I am allowed to survive then surely I am also allowed to be happy >

In your last statement you are not weighing up the impact on the animal, you are considering only the impact on yourself. 
Ultimately, veganism presumes some level of altruism and depending where we are on that, we logically fall somewhere on the meat => veggie => vegan scale.
I believe the typical person's level of altruism, as shown by their care of animals which are in front of them, puts them at least at the veggie level, but then cognitive dissonance makes them eat meat anyway.
Rather than people having a logical argument for not eating meat which is justified by a low level of altruism for animals. >

I do need to consider myself, if I was in a survival situation then I feel I would be justified in ignoring the animal's welfare to keep myself alive. I am extending this to say that I am entitled to live a life where I can be happy. >

You removed the word "only" from the phrase "consider myself" - you are strawmanning this pal >

I mean that first of all I only consider myself to make sure that I'm alive and happy then with what's left over I can consider animals after that. >

OK if there is no overlap between your happiness and animals' survival on your hierarchy, then that's fine. >

There is a overlap but I need to put my self first before I have time and energy for someone else. Its like putting on your own oxygen mask on a plane first before you help anyone else. This is me making sure I'm okay and then I can look at helping animals after I've done that. >

You're instructed to put on your own oxygen mask first, because you need to be conscious in order to assist the other person. If you feint, you're no good to them. 
Now, how does this analogy work when the person you need to assist is already dead as a result of your actions? 
The cow is dead. You ate them. No matter what you do after that point, there is no helping that cow. >

There's animals and the planet and before I can think about them I need to make sure I'm alive and happy and healthy first. If I was in a survival situation I wouldn't be in a position to help animal's because my only thought would be to stay alive, I'd have to do that first before I had the state of mind where I could consider them. >

The issue is, happiness is fundamentally irrational on some level. If everyone received the level of resources that they think they need to feel "happy" the world would become unsustainable because of the resources required. We need to be able to condition what we think as happiness. >

I don't feel like I am taking too many resources though, meat isn't in short supply because we can always farm more. >

We cant though. Not everyone can eat a 1st world level of meat, at least as long as it comes from animals. >

That's true but not everybody can have lots of things we take for granted in the 1st world. Do you think that means we shouldn't use any of these other things too? >

You said this

I dont feel I am not taking too many resources though

And I was responding to that. Eating meat reduces the total amount of available food, that is simply a fact. >

Fair enough, that's probably a fair point then. I haven't thought it through from a resource perspective but you do make a good point that it is taking resources. I just don't think that the resource argument would change my overall view. >


If someone is in a survival situation I think they are justified to kill an animal to survive. I would extend this argument to say that not only are we entitled to survive, but we are entitled to live our lives without feeling deprived.

How does this argument extension work? Can you explain the reasoning in more detail?
How does feeling deprived mean that "remedying" that situation at the expense of another being becomes moral? >

For example it was the case that all humans who don't eat meat survive but suffer from horrible depression then I would say that would be the same as "needing" meat because they need it to live a happy life. >


For example it was the case that all humans who don't eat meat survive but suffer from horrible depression

But that's not the case?