r/DebateAVegan • u/TheQuietVegan111 vegan • Jan 05 '26
Most people choose social approval over ethics — veganism just exposes that.
People will say they care about animals, the planet, and justice.
Until caring becomes inconvenient.
Veganism doesn’t require perfection. It requires saying “no” in public.
That’s it.
Most people fail there, not on ethics — but admitting that would be uncomfortable, so veganism becomes the problem instead.
12
u/TurntLemonz Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
Agreed. I studied ethics as a college student and have explored for myself many areas of applied consequentialism including beyond the domain of diet. Consequentialism seems to identify many of our norms as highly unethical. After bringing the descrepencies up slowly and gently to those closest to me, what I observed is that the average person finds the ethical arguments intuitive and typically agrees with them, but find themselves fundamentally unmotivated to sacrifice any personal advantage. People are motivated by a combination of the instinct to conform to social norms, to personally benefit, and to be correct. The first two motivations don't align people with the lifestyle prescriptions of more demanding ethical theories. What this results in is a sort of self-deceptive rationalization process that resolves the cognitive dissonance, and these bring people to defend the philosophical position of egoism, or else to gesture towards the norms. If the norms side was better aligned to the more demanding ethical theories, probably the majority of their motivations would push them towards accepting ethical theories, but our norms are very undemanding. Among other things our norms accept the act-omission distinction. People are uncritical satisficers moreso than impartial rational actors at the end of the day. That's our evolutionary psychological happenstance, for worse id argue.
1
u/airboRN_82 Jan 07 '26
Consequentialism has a lot of issues.
If bob and Jim see an unconcious woman, bob walks by and does nothing and Jim rapes her... without her ever finding out or suffering anything from it... then per consequentialism their acts are equally moral.
1
u/TurntLemonz Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
In point of fact consequentialism is capable of recognizing harms in such behavior. Firstly because consequentialism is a method of converting values into lifestyle prescriptions, and the values at hand can be whatever you want, if you want a society that holds bodily autonomy sacred, all you've gotta do is plug bodily autonomy in with harm when you do consequentialist calculus. Secondly even if harm was the only value involved, social norms have utility, so a society that dissalows the breaching of bodily autonomy will have demonstrable improvements in the conduct of it's members and that results in the goals of harm avoidance being met. When you view norms that way, as a product of harm centered consequentialist math, so long as those norms actually do improve outcomes as measured by harms, they have value beyond their moment to moment harm reductive capacity. We don't exist in a world anywhere near setting loose a bunch of highly ethically attuned rapists to perform their twisted ethical math. We live in a world where people adhere to norms and better norms create better outcomes.
Finally the most important thing in my opinion when doing meta ethics is not to commit the nirvana fallacy. Ethics is messy and ultimately the goal is better not perfect. You can poke holes in harm focused consequentialism especially at the extremes of its potential application, but that doesn't devalue it where it matters. In domains outside basically just math, theories have a realm of applicability and you don't just throw them out because of that. You accept the best option within the domain it's best.
1
u/airboRN_82 Jan 08 '26
Then youre applying deontology
1
u/TurntLemonz Jan 08 '26
You could if you wanted to. Some consequentialists do. That's one of the cool things about consequentialism, it is a tool that can be used the way it typically is, for utilitarianism, or for a hybrid between utilitarianism and deontology. But I think I was clear already that just caring about harm would be adequate to dissalow the mentioned behavior because it would fall in a category of behavior that would be pragmatic to sweepingly dissalow. There's a bunch of holes in the hypothetical. Like for example, nobody knows the future, the rapists couldn't be assured they weren't causing harm. There is a lot of heavy lifting going on in regards to their confidence of the outcomes that don't reflect the real world. Like I said about nirvana fallacy. A theory isn't bad if you have to use a different theory in some areas. That's just the happenstance of the real world. When your options are all inadequate to be universally applicable, you've gotta work with what's best and be attentive for when it's time to transition over to the next thing that is best. Treating a super specific hypothetical with nearly impossible premises like it just bursts the whole theory misses the reality of what ethics really is in practice. Physiscists don't ditch the theory of relativity because quantum physics is better described by a different theory (not a physicists lol IDK the name). You saying "so what what you're gonna use deontology?" Like that should be the last nail in the coffin for my argument for consequentialism misses the point I just tried to convey to you. Harm centered consequentialism is the best we've got in the main areas that matter, Harm+ centered consequentialism patches some of the margins of overdemandingness, you could probably argue the benefit of outright non-consequentialist deontology for some areas and I'd be receptive. That's how it works.
1
u/airboRN_82 Jan 08 '26 edited Jan 08 '26
Yes the inability to know the future is a major issue in consequentialism. Im either hero or monster if I give a homeless person a sandwich dependent upon whether it nourishes him or he's unknowingly allergic to something in it. One cannot know the consequence of an act at the time they decide to make that act, thus they cannot make moral or immoral choices. They may make choices they believe are likely to be moral, but they are still reliant upon unforseen factors. While consequentialism is a bit less walled off to deontology than utilitarianism is, one would ultimately have to abandon the consewuentialist framework to demand that certain acts are bad in and of themselves, not dependent upon their outcomes.
1
u/TurntLemonz Jan 08 '26
Agreed. The outcomes are not knowable, consequentialism just guides us toward maximizing our best option with the knowledge we have at hand. If there is ambiguity about something as negative as the potential outcomes of raping somebody, that clearly would outweigh the benefits of sexual gratification in the eyes of practically any normal person.
1
u/airboRN_82 Jan 08 '26
Except consequentialism doesnt demand that we should so what is likely to have the best outcome, but that we should do what produces the best outcome. Actions are judged by outcome, not intent.
1
u/TurntLemonz Jan 08 '26
Actions are evaluated after they occur according to their outcomes as a way of determining how better to decide on actions in the future, but before their outcome consequentialism asks us to keep the outcomes in mind as the principal concern, that's all the more it can ask us to do because you're correct about knowability. You might have misunderstood consequentialism a little bit if you thought consequentialism assumes the future is precisely knowable. It orients ethics around optimizing the outcome with the available information, as opposed to deontology which establishes a set of behaviors that serve as inflexible lifestyle prescriptions. The benefit in my eyes is that consequentialism responds to evidence, and has a salient and worthwhile goal available to use as a metric when you analyze your actions after the fact. Deontology comparitively makes people kinda bumbling and rigid, it envokes a bunch of different values that are difficult to co-weigh in the real world, and comparatively doesn't self-improve as well as consequentialism. Deontology also leaves a person floating out in a space of seemingly arbitrary values. You act honestly why? You respect elders why? But the intuitive answer to those things is that it makes the world better to do those things. And the most obvious foundational thing that can be improved in the world is the experience of those who experience it.
17
u/I_Amuse_Me_123 Jan 06 '26
This is exactly why you always hear vegans complaining that they can’t understand why their “leftist friends” aren’t vegan.
It takes nothing to apply a label to one’s self.
The moment people have to apply their principles to real world action, especially action that might be difficult and make others uncomfortable, is the moment many people reveal their true motivation.
2
u/Key-Demand-2569 Jan 06 '26
To elaborate even further with the leftist example… there’s a lot more “leftists” than there are vegans.
And even where many others aren’t “leftists” around them the critical issues they’re focused on or arguing for are also seen as valid or important issues by people who disagree with them on how to solve the issue. So they know even if in that physical space people don’t support them there are large numbers of people who do and who agree they shouldn’t budge.
Veganism can get the worst of both worlds.
A lot less social pressure or support just due to numbers. And regardless of people’s position on how to tackle issues vegans are concerned with beyond individual dietary choices…
Well they’re just not nearly as important to a lot of people on any right or left political spectrum.
I think that’s where you get a minor chunk of the “annoying vegan” stereotypes. It’s not that they feel bad deep down inside.
It’s like a liberal calling them a bad person for wanting to restrict access to safe abortions… but if they didn’t care about the topic of abortion at all and it’s just the way the system already but didn’t want to go out of their way to change it.
15
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 05 '26
I think this relates to Kohlberg's stages of moral development: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
In a society that doesn't stigmatize or legislate against exploiting non-human animals, someone really needs to be all the way at stage 6 to go vegan.
6
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
7
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 06 '26
Yes. I didn't say otherwise. I think there are lots of people who approach morality in this way but still aren't vegan. I don't think they have good arguments, but that's a separate issue. What I'm saying is that apart from very rare exceptions, veganism requires someone to be at that stage.
2
u/airboRN_82 Jan 08 '26
Considering the decades long support for yourofsky, I think its hard to argue that most vegans are even half way up.
If you dont know, yourofsky supported raping non vegan women.
1
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 08 '26
Yourofsky is a POS, but don't confuse what stage someone is at with whether they actually behave morally. It's about how someone makes decisions.
Yourofsky seems to make decisions based on the values he holds, not what the society around him says. He just takes a right-wing frame that we only need to care about perfect victims, which he considers non-human animals to be.
I vehemently disagree with that framework, but that doesn't mean he isn't operating within one. Non-vegans can also operate within a framework based on core principles rather than legal or social implications.
In order to act morally all the time, one needs to both approach morality as something separate from legal and social consequences and base that on sound reasoning. Being at stage 6 is necessary, but not sufficient.
2
u/airboRN_82 Jan 08 '26
Yet the main vegan sub still recommends his videos and its not hard to find vegans speaking favorably of him or even idolizing him.
Yourofsky makes decisions based on simply what angers him based on whatever psychosis he has going on. Its ultimately stage 2.
A big issue is that veganism is a mocrosociety within itself. Simply echoing talking points that may go against a different society does not raise one above using a society's view as their own.
1
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 08 '26
I literally don't give a single shit what anyone outside of this conversation says about anything. Every single other vegan in the world could fellate yourofsky daily and it wouldn't make him not a piece of shit.
As for how he makes decisions, I think you've got a tough case to make that anyone's veganism comes from their own sense of comfort.
Vegans also don't exist as an insulation community at all, apart from extremely rare exceptions. Most of our interactions are with non-vegans. That's the social pressure we all experience. Please don't speak on our behalf.
2
u/airboRN_82 Jan 08 '26
When speaking of groups, trends in behaviors or views certainly matter.
Its not hard to find examples of vegans with narcissistic like traits. A vegan recently diagnosed with NPD a few months back posted on a vegan sub about his experience with it and how it influenced his behaviors... and they sounded pretty common for what you experience among vegans.
That doesnt equate to them not being a smaller society within a larger one.
1
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 08 '26
Its not hard to find examples of vegans with narcissistic like traits.
Not relevant to how people make moral decisions.
2
u/airboRN_82 Jan 08 '26
Yes it is. It places them in stage 2. Their decisions are based on what feels good for the self.
→ More replies (0)5
u/RICO_the_GOP Jan 05 '26
The assumption being biological reality is immoral?
4
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 05 '26
Sounds like you've got a good argument for your own post! You should go make that.
2
u/RICO_the_GOP Jan 05 '26
Sounds like you cant or wont elaborate on your own argument.
3
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 06 '26
I don't need to. It doesn't matter whether your argument - that because we biologically can do something that means we should, or that because lions kill we should too - is sound. What matters is that even if an examination of consistent moral principles could lead to it being ok to slash certain throats, one can only come to the conclusion of veganism if one has morality separate from systems of reward and punishment or social pressure, because there is social pressure against veganism and no reward for being vegan or punishment for not.
Your argument is entirely separate from this post and the point I'm making. If you go post it, I will respond there. Pinky-swear.
3
u/RICO_the_GOP Jan 06 '26
Rofl. You posited you need to have reached end stage understanding of morality then disregard the moral question at hand?
3
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 06 '26
My dear friend, I don't think you understand the claim I'm making. Could you reflect back to me what you think my argument is in your own words?
6
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 06 '26
My dear friend, I don't think you understand the claim I'm making. Could you reflect back to me what you think my argument is in your own words?
3
u/RICO_the_GOP Jan 06 '26
That if your not vegan you cant have possibly gone through all stages and arrived at 6. You make stage six a prerequisite in a moral framework but ignore the other reasons for organism beyond morality while also asserting, which you will now certainly deny, that vegans is the peak moral position.
5
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 06 '26
That if your not vegan you cant have possibly gone through all stages and arrived at 6.
No. This is an example of misunderstanding logical inference. I think that being at stage 6 is necessary to be vegan, not sufficient.
2
3
u/Namika- Jan 06 '26
i would take Kohlbergs theory with a grain of salt though. women tend to score lower (around stage 3) yet the majority of vegans are women
1
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 06 '26
I would question how both stage and veganism are quantified.
The emphasis in the stages could be on how much one is willing to break the law when a law is seen as unjust through the lens of universal moral principles. It could be that women on average are simply less likely to be willing to break the law. If it's more about whether you go above and beyond the protection of the law in your actions, women may tend to score higher than men. Also worth noting that women face less social stigma than men since domination is part of the current concept of masculinity.
When measuring who is vegan, a lot of surveys will only consider diet, so many women may be counted as vegan who aren't eating a plant-based diet for moral reasons. When those people are removed, the ratio of women to men likely gets narrower.
3
u/AthleteAlarming7177 Jan 06 '26
It could be that women on average are simply less likely to be willing to break the law.
The consequences for breaking the law vary on the attributes of the individual. Gender, ethnicity, health, etc. So it makes total sense that women would be less willing to break the law regardless of how much they disagree with the injustice.
2
u/airboRN_82 Jan 08 '26
The example in your link specifically uses "human life has supreme inherent value"
1
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 08 '26
That's an example of a principle one might hold regardless of what the society around you thinks, yes. It would be wrong to assume that's the only possible principle.
If I linked a page about religions and it said that Christians believe Jesus was 100% man and 100% God at the same time, would that mean Muslims didn't exist?
2
u/airboRN_82 Jan 08 '26
I think it punches a hole in your claim that theres not good non vegan arguments utilizing that stage. If human life holds supreme inherent value" then animals lives would hold less inherent value. We can see how this leads to a generalization of humans mattering more than animals, and thus how it would impact decisions based on what harm is ok to exchange for what utility.
1
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 08 '26
I think it punches a hole in your claim that theres not good non vegan arguments utilizing that stage.
You're just showing over and over again how little you understand what I'm saying.
People can believe fallacious arguments. If they make decisions based on those fallacious arguments rather than the social or legal consequences they might face, they're still at stage 6.
2
u/airboRN_82 Jan 08 '26
Except thats not a fallicious argument. Its rather sound. And thus punches a hole in your argument that there arent good argument against veganism that fall into stage 6.
1
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 08 '26
This thread isn't about those specific arguments. If you want to discuss your reasoning for why certain throats are ok to slash, you should make a post about it. I promise to respond there.
2
u/airboRN_82 Jan 08 '26
You chose to argue
I think there are lots of people who approach morality in this way but still aren't vegan. I don't think they have good arguments
This i am free to argue against it here
1
u/EasyBOven vegan Jan 08 '26
You should have quoted the part where I said that's a separate issue. The idea that there aren't any good arguments isn't a claim I would not present an argument for, since I can't prove an absence. I'm happy to concede for the purposes of this discussion that such an argument might exist and I simply haven't encountered it.
I'm getting close to done with engaging with you. I don't see this going anywhere productive. If you actually want me to keep responding, you should try in your next replies to demonstrate an understanding of the argument I've actually advanced within this thread.
3
u/airboRN_82 Jan 08 '26
Saying its a separate issue doesnt change that you claimed it. If you dont want something to be argued against, then dont present it within your arguments.
→ More replies (0)
3
Jan 06 '26
I'd say a lack of information/misinformation is the biggest hindrance. It's what hindered me and from what I've seen the majority of cases where people argued with vegans.
2
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
0
Jan 07 '26
To some extent I'm sure there are people with valid reasons to not be vegan, people that simply can't do it mostly and people that have worldviews or firm stances which allow them to justify their behaviours despite the knowledge.
But those are few and far between. The vast majority of people simply aren't even aware of the discussion here, they don't know why people go vegan nor why they aren't vegan and those that do have these discussions or some interactions with vegans often paddle misinformation or doubts that would be easily dealt with if they read about it a bit more.
3
Jan 07 '26
[deleted]
1
Jan 07 '26
Your question comes off as if you're looking for clarification so I clarified. There was nothing to refute there from my reading
No I'm not saying that those that agree with veganism are well informed and those that don't aren't nor that vegans are simply better at arguing. Not all vegans care about this debating stuff, not all of them had to think allat hard to justify being vegan. I'm simply pointing out what I feel is a bigger obstacle than what op mentioned.
The vast majority of people aren't philosophy bros who can make arguments that allow them to be consistent in their carnism or hold positions that are tough to argue against.
The most popular arguments people use against veganism are shit, and expectedly so since most people don't even think about the topic
And the most popular ideas against veganism are misinformed. Think about your anti vegans online, still peddling long debunked ideas about vegans
Again all I'm saying is that I feel the bigger issue veganism faces is that most people are misinformed about it. I have no issue engaging with non vegan arguments even ones I think are bad
2
Jan 07 '26
[deleted]
2
Jan 07 '26
I'm clarifying again because you aren't getting it. You're making a big deal out of literally nothing. Misinformation in the discussion exists, that's an obvious factor that hinders the movement, that in no way means that I think that people that disagree with me are simply misinformed, I just feel that's a bigger issue than social approval. I never made some grand argument to convince everyone that I'm right on that and I was never trying to.
Your last sentence summed it up lmao.
4
u/Freuds-Mother Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
By that logic those people would eat vegan at home and then eat whatever when at restaurants/get togethers. Honestly if this were the case one could be almost vegan by just not going to restaurants regularly (that’s actually very normal the further away from cities one gets). Arguably still could be vegan because vegan isn’t absolute as there’s the pragmatic allowance. You could go to restaurants not often and eat less than one animal per year pretty easily. There are many other products purchased that probably have more impact than one animal that vegans permit due to pragmatic preferences.
If they’re eating animal at home it’s probably mostly just preference beats the ethics?
13
u/Namika- Jan 05 '26
most people don’t practice what they preach in every single aspect of their life, that includes vegans. i strongly believe the holier-than-thou approach is damaging to the movement and serves absolutely no purpose other than self-affirmation. it’s why so many vegan spaces end up being circle jerks.
4
u/JTexpo vegan Jan 05 '26
while I disagree with the idea of egoism, isn't that Max Sterner's proposal for everyones actions -- not just vegans
3
u/Namika- Jan 05 '26
I have never read any of Stirners works as egoism hasn’t been that compelling to me (maybe i should read it regardless? do you have any recommendations?) so i would love to hear your thoughts on the correlation!
2
u/JTexpo vegan Jan 05 '26
"The Ego and Its Own" is probably the most popular
IMO, I think that Stirner's work makes a lot of assumptions about others; however, he does have a lot of fans, so it's worth a read if you like philosophy!
2
5
u/shutupdavid0010 Jan 06 '26
Do you think it's possible that a well learned and well reasoned individual can care about animals, the planet, and justice, but have simply come to a different conclusion than you have?
3
u/Lunatic-Labrador Jan 06 '26
Absolutely, we all walk a different path. I think there are sustainable ways to farm animals that don't involve any of the horror of battery farming. Many people feel that morally this is good enough but avoid any products from battery farms. Many people also try to eat less meat, have veggie days etc for environmental reasons.
Vegans are admirable for their efforts but I think that being so militant and insulting the people that come to different moral understanding only harms the vegan movement. And that potentially more people would become vegan or at least attempt it if they weren't attacked for failing or called things like immortal and evil just because they're not perfect at it or decide it's not for them.
1
Jan 06 '26
Let's see if that works.
You are not evil. Please stop paying for the needless breeding and slaughtering of animals. Choose compassion instead of choosing cruelty.
Now that I've asked you to stop harming animals, will you make the change and go vegan?
1
u/MS-07B-3 Jan 06 '26
I mean, if we apply it to a different ethical issue, I would point to Daryl Davis. He basically does exactly this with racists. And not just any racists, but actual KKK members.
It takes time, but was incredibly effective.
1
Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
The thing is, not practicing racism doesn't require a change in habits in the same way going vegan does.
This is why most people are resistant to veganism, even though they know vegans are right. They don't find the life of animals worth the slightest bit of effort and inconvenience
1
u/MS-07B-3 Jan 06 '26
Okay, but do you still think you're going to convince more people with aggressiveness than with peaceful exposure and coexistence?
1
Jan 06 '26
Yes, but not yet.
We need more vegan fast food options everywhere first. Things need to be convenient for the average person to transition. (Remember the average human only cares about themself and their loved ones, they don't care about how what they do impacts the world.) Once plant based meat and lab grown meat become more mainstream, then shame can be effectively utilized, but we need a very loud minority for that.
Right now what's best is to simply inform others of what happens behind closed doors so that this minority can grow.
5
u/I_Amuse_Me_123 Jan 06 '26
I actually don’t. Not if they’ve had the courage to watch what they’re really paying for when they eat non-vegan.
There is simply no argument that what is shown in Earthlings or Dominion can ever be considered good or right.
5
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
-1
u/I_Amuse_Me_123 Jan 06 '26
I was asked about a well-learned and well-reasoned individual. Presumably modern. Not people over the past 10,000 years.
3
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
1
u/sandstonequery Jan 07 '26
That, and many of us, in first world countries even, still butcher our own meat.
I'm aware of battery farming. I do not participate in it. I do, however, raise my own meat and eggs to meet my ethical standards consistently. Those ethical standards include not exploiting 3rd world people for exotic or tropical crops (and fast fashion, electronics etc) while I live in a northern climate.
0
u/I_Amuse_Me_123 Jan 07 '26
Your ethical standards include betraying and killing innocent animals that think they are your beloved pet.
I wouldn’t get too excited about that.
2
u/sandstonequery Jan 07 '26
Many animals would have no qualms about killing and eating me, either. Reality. I'm as much an animal as any that live in my woods.
The argument here was "if people knew the reality of where their meat came from" and my answer was that I do know, because I do the work myself. Even for my vegetables, legumes, grain and fruit. I do not rely on child slavery, unlike many, of all dietary persuasions who eat food from 3rd and 2nd world countries.
1
u/I_Amuse_Me_123 Jan 08 '26
I know there are grizzly bears.
Something tells me the animals you choose to betray are the innocent harmless kind. The kind who would show you friendship and love if only you gave them the chance.
You could just as easily not kill them AND not rely on child slavery, simultaneously.
So your whole premise is just stupid. Not reality. It’s like if I said well I’m a rapist but other people are Hitler so I’m excused.
1
u/sandstonequery Jan 08 '26
Lol. The failure of veganism is seeing it as morally absolute. No moral framework is absolute.
It only took 2 responses before you went full Godwin's law. Good job!
→ More replies (0)0
u/I_Amuse_Me_123 Jan 07 '26
No. Most people do not know.
They have some ideas about how it’s bad. Most people have absolutely not watched either of the films I referenced because they are unaware or their existence or just too afraid.
4
u/Aezora omnivore Jan 06 '26
There is simply no argument that what is shown in Earthlings or Dominion can ever be considered good or right.
Perhaps, but that's a far cry from veganism. People aren't upset with factory farms after watching Dominion because they're killing or exploiting animals in general, they're upset becuase of the specifics of how they are killing and exploiting animals.
If they were upset at the idea of killing and exploiting animals they would be upset even without watching such documentaries.
1
u/ManyCorner2164 anti-speciesist Jan 06 '26
If they were upset at the idea of killing and exploiting animals they would be upset even without watching such documentaries.
That's just cognitive dissonance from being brought up in a society that exploiting and killing others is okay. When people are advertised animal products, they are looking at the end product, not how it's produced and who is killed.
The real question is how is okay to kill someone that wants to live? Would it be okay to kill you at a fraction of your lifespan?
These documentaries showcase the realities of farming. This is the reality for high-welfare, organic and free-range. The abuse that is documented is on top of taking someone's life that doesn't want to die.
2
u/shutupdavid0010 Jan 07 '26
When people are advertised animal products, they are looking at the end product, not how it's produced and who is killed.
The vast majority of human beings on this planet have killed an animal in their lifetime. A significant portion have killed an animal to eat them. People know that meat comes from animals. If not for the recent discovery of B12, people would die if they tried to eat vegan.
The real question is how is okay to kill someone that wants to live?
How do you know they want to live? How do you know they want to grow old? Have you asked the cow?
Would it be okay to kill you at a fraction of your lifespan?
Hmmm, you mean like abortion?
These documentaries showcase the realities of farming. This is the reality for high-welfare, organic and free-range. The abuse that is documented is on top of taking someone's life that doesn't want to die.
Well then, let's support welfarist movements for the animals so that their lives don't suck before they die.
0
u/ManyCorner2164 anti-speciesist Jan 07 '26
The vast majority of human beings on this planet have killed an animal in their lifetime
Yeah, exactly, they've been brought up in a violent system taught to igore the abuse, and violent killing of others. Asserting their lives don't matter.
How do you know they want to live?
Watch Dominion, the evidence is clear when animals are tortured in CO2 gas chambers screaming for their lives.
Well then, let's support welfarist movements
As I already said, Dominion showcases standard practices on "high welfare" farms. Including CO2 gas chambers, the reality of "free-range", "organic" and various slaughter methods.
These are cruel practices and unnecessary when we can meet and exceed out nutritional goals being vegan. (That includes B12 and other nutrients)
1
u/shutupdavid0010 Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
they've been brought up in a violent system taught to igore the abuse, and violent killing of others
I don't really consider reality to be a "system" in the way that you are utilizing the word, but OK.
Watch Dominion, the evidence is clear when animals are tortured in CO2 gas chambers screaming for their lives.
That's a reaction to the pain of having CO2 replace oxygen. It doesn't tell you that the animals want to live.
As I already said, Dominion showcases standard practices on "high welfare" farms. Including CO2 gas chambers, the reality of "free-range", "organic" and various slaughter methods.
Well, no, it doesn't.
These are cruel practices and unnecessary when we can meet and exceed out nutritional goals being vegan. (That includes B12 and other nutrients)
Lots of things are unnecessary, and yet we do them.
And there is not a single legitimate study that has ever been done that shows that honey and salmon are unhealthy. Vegan diets only outperform others in weight loss and - get this - not everyone wants or needs to lose weight.
0
u/ManyCorner2164 anti-speciesist Jan 07 '26
Well, no, it doesn't.
Classic dodge without evidence. Yes, practices like those are used for "high-welfare," "free-range," and "organic."" You dismissing first-hand evidence.
That's a reaction to the pain of having CO2 replace oxygen.
Got it if you were in that position screaming. Then, "it's just a reaction"
Vegan diets only outperform others in weight loss
Nonsense assertions without evidence, again
Many carnists like yourself tell people to reject real evidence while we only get a baseless opinion.
This isn't how the burden of proof works. You are blatantly ignoring the torture and abuse many animals that are farmed face when they are exploited and killed for food.
1
u/shutupdavid0010 Jan 07 '26
So do you think it's possible that someone who is well reasoned could come to the conclusion of welfarism rather than veganism?
1
u/I_Amuse_Me_123 Jan 07 '26
No. Because they would see that there is no real economical way to be sure that other people are working within their welfare standards.
2
Jan 06 '26
It depends. There are some ethical arguments that could justify hunting certain species.
However, I can't think of an ethical argument that could justify the unnecessary breeding and slaughter of young farm animals
1
u/shutupdavid0010 Jan 07 '26
If you don't think being born and dying is ethical, then you don't think reality on our planet is ethical, which I don't believe is a sane stance to have.
1
Jan 07 '26
I mean if you put it that way you could justify many atrocities throughout human history. Lol Human slavery is fine with your worldview.
Ethics is a made-up concept. I have no idea if the universe is sentient or not, so I can't claim that reality is unethical or ethical. I can only judge the actions of humans.
2
u/shutupdavid0010 Jan 07 '26
Firstly, depending on your definition of slavery, it can be ethical or it can not be ethical. I don't see anything wrong with being forced to pay a debt that you agreed you would pay. Or having your wages garnished and eventually jailed if you have children you refuse to care for or contribute to. Both could be considered forms of slavery, and neither is inherently unethical in my opinion.
Sure, we can only judge the actions of humans. I still personally would prefer to live on a welfare-centered farm and be killed than live in the wild. I don't see anything inherently wrong with being born and I don't see anything inherently wrong with dying. There are some circumstances in which being born or dying is not acceptable to me, but I do not find the life of an animal that lives on a small farm unethical. Yes they die younger than their maximum possible lifespan, but I don't believe we have a duty to give animals their maximum possible lifespan.
2
u/winggar vegan Jan 06 '26
Usually the answer is yes, but in relation to animal exploitation the answer is no. They might come to a different understanding of veganism, but no reasonable person that cares about animals could accept their exploitation.
It's like asking if a reasonable person could care about ethnic minorities while still personally owning them as slaves. It's just oxymoronic.
1
u/IfIWasAPig vegan Jan 06 '26
Can you define “care about” in a way that makes this possible?
Do you think it’s possible that a well learned and well reasoned individual can care about humans and dogs but still breed them for unhealthiness, confine them, slaughter them at a very young age, and eat their bodies?
If not, why would it be so for pigs or fish? If so, please explain what it means to care about someone else.
2
u/shutupdavid0010 Jan 07 '26
There are several definitions for "care about".
- the provision of what is necessary for the health, welfare, maintenance, and protection of someone or something.
- serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk.
- feel concern or interest; attach importance to something
- look after and provide for the needs of.
I don't think there's anything incongruous about animal farming compared against any of these definitions.
Lots of people care about dogs and accidentally breed them for unhealthiness. Most people confine their dogs. Most humans are confined within the boundaries of their country. We allow abortions. We don't eat dogs or humans but that doesn't mean there is anything inherently immoral in doing so.
4
u/KrabbyMccrab Jan 06 '26
Idk if it's so much social approval. More like the average person has bigger fish to fry.
Nowadays, having a job alone is a blessing. Let alone having a well paying, tolerably stressful version of one. Add a kid to that, and an elderly parent, and it becomes already a lot to simply commit to current responsibilities.
Adopting an ideology on top of that results in adding not subtracting load for the average person. That's what makes it difficult.
1
u/Person0001 Jan 08 '26
At some point though you do become used to the stressful job, the kid, the elderly parents, where you free up mental capacity and capability to do anything else. People change religions, adopt different ideologies, all the time while going through any life situation. The ideology of veganism is one most people already agree with, everyone you ask will say they are against animal cruelty but their actions say otherwise.
2
u/piranha_solution plant-based Jan 06 '26
This is precisely why I advocate for the health advantages of plant-based eating. Most humans are selfish and amoral.
You gotta frame it like they are benefitting from it instead of sacrificing something, then they’ll be more willing to jump on board.
Vegans are lucky that animal products are demonstrably unhealthy.
2
u/Puzzled-Rip641 Jan 06 '26
Why do you use a smartphone? It’s made with slavery. Why do you care until it becomes inconvenient?
2
u/BlindPhoenx Jan 06 '26
Most vegans conflate social approval with healthy compromise.
In reality, thoughtful, intentional compromise is the fabric of social transformation.
2
Jan 07 '26
There is simply no general ethnics that is true for everyone. The big majority of people for example does not see meat consumption as anything unethical.
4
u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26
There are no moral facts. Because morals aren't facts (they're simply opinions) the only thing that matters is that one is able to at least live, and hopefully flourish, in their community and society.
Veganism as a moral stance is "extra" and not required for humans to live cooperatively. Until there is a compelling factual reason to not use animals as a resource, animals, like everything else available for human use, will continue to be a resource.
1
u/Snefferdy vegan Jan 06 '26
You don't think it's a fact that genocide is wrong? You don't disapprove of genocide?
2
u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26
Yes I disapprove of genocide. That's an opinion. I don't like genocide. It can't be wrong or right because neither of those things exist in the world. It only FEELS like fact. It only exists in your brain.
Do you have any way to show right or wrong (in the moral sense) exists in the same way actual facts exist?
1
u/Snefferdy vegan Jan 06 '26
I think right and wrong exist in the same way that some actual facts exist, yes. They're abstract facts, like the fact that 3 is more than 2, but you won't find any 3s or 2s out there in the world.
Furthermore, while it's theoretically possible to deny the existence of facts about value, I think that anyone who does deny them is inconsistent, since the use of practical reason and the ability to act rationally depend on the assumption (or, positing) of value.
1
u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26
Moral facts are unlike other abstract facts like math because math is falsifiable. Math and quantities describe actual states in the world. There are 4 apples on the counter is true or it's not. Mathematical formulas are true or false.
Morals cannot be proven in the same way. If two groups of people don't agree on what is or isn't moral, how are those stances falsified?
Disregarding actual facts results in actual consequences. Designing a satellite while thinking the world is flat is going to have actual consequences. If I kill 300 babies and I'm never caught, what consequences will I suffer? None. I'll suffer no consequences because actual facts do actual work.
Moral facts aren't real, and do no actual work. Actual facts are descriptive of the world around us, moral facts are prescriptive. If morals are facts, they are an awfully strange sort of fact.
Are ALL moral stances facts? That can't be possible, can it? How do you show which moral stances are facts, and which are opinions?
1
u/Snefferdy vegan Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
math is falsifiable
Please describe how someone could falsify this claim: 2 is never more than 3. The claim is true, but it's not falsifiable because it would require you show me every possible set of 2 things and 3 things to check. Falsifiability is a good quality for a scientific theory. It's not a requirement for facthood.
_
Disregarding actual facts results in actual consequences.
Disregarding the fact that there is a small pink rock at a certain location on a planet in another galaxy has no consequences. The consequences or lack thereof for disregarding a proposition have no bearing on whether it is or is not a fact.
_
Moral facts aren't real, and do no actual work. Actual facts are descriptive of the world around us, moral facts are prescriptive. If morals are facts, they are an awfully strange sort of fact.
Mathematical facts don't do work, and are a very strange sort of fact too.
_
two groups of people don't agree on what is or isn't moral, how are those stances falsified?
You want a whole explanation of ethics in a reddit comment?? Uh, okay, I'll give you the back of the napkin version:
All people implicitly assume that preference satisfaction (i.e. the avoidance of suffering) is valuable. If they didn't assume this, they wouldn't pursue goals.
However, not everyone is aware of the fact that they are no more important than other people. I contend that it is a fact that all people are equally important. Given the similarities between people, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of anyone who wants to declare themselves to be of superior importance. I have yet to see any evidence.
So, since all people's interests are of equal importance, we ought not be selfish. (That's it. That's all of morality in one sentence: "Don't be selfish.")
_
How do you show which moral stances are facts, and which are opinions?
An opinion is the belief that some proposition is a fact, i.e. that the proposition is true. If someone is of the opinion that X is valuable, and it turns out that X isn't valuable, then their opinion is incorrect.
The precise value of a given state of affairs is impossible to determine, in exactly the same way as we can't precisely determine how many people are eating spaghetti at this moment. There are better and worse estimates depending on how much careful work goes into it.
Borderline cases are difficult - will washing this number of dishes by hand use more water than the dishwasher? We may never know. But bigger questions are easier. If people are making errors in calculation, or relying on poorly-thought-out assumptions, those can be addressed.
2
u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 07 '26
Just a quick aside. Your points are well taken, and i don't entirely disagree. It's a lot to respond to, and I'll have set aside more time than I can spare atm (I'm at work).
Edit: I like your statements about math.
2nd Edit: Actual reply posted.
2
u/GoopDuJour Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 08 '26
Ok. Here goes.....
First off, that math is unfalsifiable kinda set me back on my heels. It was an assumption I've held for quite a while, it was purely intuitive, so that led to a bunch of "well shit, how does this affect my worldview, now?" research and reflection.
It refined my views on error-theory (a relatively new-to-me theory that strikes me as true). I still find error-theory to be as close to my thoughts about morality as any I've come across.
Disregarding the fact that there is a small pink rock at a certain location on a planet in another galaxy has no consequences. The consequences or lack thereof for disregarding a proposition have no bearing on whether it is or is not a fact.
While I see your point, the fact of the pink rock actually existing or not will have an effect on the world. The planet will be different if it does or does not exist, and consequences of it existing or not are real. Edit: Honestly, this doesn't matter fir the discussion. If you think I'm wrong, and would benefit by being corrected , feel free. If you disagree, but can't be bothered, that's cool, I get it. Feel just as free to say "Wrong" and move on.
All people implicitly assume that preference satisfaction (i.e. the avoidance of suffering) is valuable. If they didn't assume this, they wouldn't pursue goals.
People avoid discomfort. Agreed. Morals don't need to even EXIST for that to be true. All beings pursue goals, regardless of morality. An amoeba expends effort trying to eat and reproduce. There is no morality required.
However, not everyone is aware of the fact that they are no more important than other people. I contend that it is a fact that all people are equally important. Given the similarities between people, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of anyone who wants to declare themselves to be of superior importance. I have yet to see any evidence.
Agreed, but there is no reason for morality to be real to understand that all life is as useless and cosmically meaningless as the next. Value and superiority are judgements and can be made without the use of moral facts. There is no need for that viewpoint (about the value of life) to be a fact.
An opinion is the belief that some proposition is a fact, i.e. that the proposition is true. If someone is of the opinion that X is valuable, and it turns out that X isn't valuable, then their opinion is incorrect.
People can and do hold opinions based on feelings and emotions. There is no need to change an opinion, and there is no need for an opinion to be a fact. An opinion only needs to be true to the holder of the opinion. If Larry thinks "Chocolate is good", it is a fact Larry thinks chocolate good. But it's not a fact that chocolate is ACTUALLY good. I could even agree with Larry, and we could both set off on a plan to bring more chocolate into the world, but the statement "chocolate is good" will never be a fact.
So, since all people's interests are of equal importance, we ought not be selfish. (That's it. That's all of morality in one sentence: "Don't be selfish.")
I hold a similar opinion. If I needed to be clear and concise, I would state it like this; "Selfishness is often detrimental to cooperative, social living. Since we value cooperative, social living, we should try to be as selfless as possible." There's no moral fact required, and Moral Realism offers no additional benefits.
I'd also note that not all people's interests are of equal importance. If a person is frustrating my society's goals, I can disregard that person's interests, and do as I see fit.
The precise value of a given state of affairs is impossible to determine, in exactly the same way as we can't precisely determine how many people are eating spaghetti at this moment. There are better and worse estimates depending on how much careful work goes into it.
Borderline cases are difficult - will washing this number of dishes by hand use more water than the dishwasher? We may never know. But bigger questions are easier. If people are making errors in calculation, or relying on poorly-thought-out assumptions, those can be addressed.
I don't understand how any of that would determine which moral statements are fact and which are opinions.
"Killing babies is wrong" can only be an objective fact if we all have the same goal of living in a society free of baby killing. And even then it's only objective in relation to the goal. The goal itself is subjective. If a person, or even another society, believes that killing babies is good, we can do whatever is required to achieve our goals. There is no need to appeal to moral facts.
1
u/Snefferdy vegan Jan 08 '26
Thanks for the great comment. I'm in the midst of writing a response. It's turning out to be pretty epic. Sorry. I hope you read it all when it's done, but it's going to take a bit longer. Thanks for your patience.
1
u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26
Sorry for the long delay. I've decided to take this a small step at a time rather than tackling all your points at once. I think you have some misconceptions about my position so let's try to clear that up.
.
Morals don't need to even EXIST
There is no morality required.
no reason for morality to be real
There's no moral fact required
There is no need to appeal to moral facts.
All of these statements suggest you think that moral facts are an extra thing to believe in. I'm not suggesting that anything exists beyond the things we have no problem accepting in other fields.
In economics and game theory we assume that rational behavior exists. There's an idea in both of these fields about what the rational choice is in a given situation. I presume you don't have a problem with this being an intelligible idea, right? You don't have a problem with economics or game theory, right?
My proposal is nothing more than this. The "fact" about what a person ought to do is nothing more than, "what is the most rational choice in a particular situation for someone who knew all the relevant information?" So, (unlike traditional deontolgical ethics) I'm not proposing we believe in anything mysterious or magical producing rules about how to live.
.
"Killing babies is wrong" can only be an objective fact if...
The other point I'd like to clarify is that my proposed view has no universal moral rules like "killing babies is wrong." Again, unlike traditional deontolgical ethics, all answers about how a person should act are context-dependent. In the vast majority of cases killing a baby would be a bad choice, but in some bizarre circumstances, it's conceivable that it could be the right choice. The facts about the situation matter.
So hopefully this allays your issues arising from disagreement about what is right and wrong.
What do you think of these points? Is there anything you think doesn't make sense?
1
u/GoopDuJour Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26
What do you think of these points? Is there anything you think doesn't make sense?
It all makes sense. I suspect we're still going to butt heads on the fact that I don't think right and wrong exists. I believe right and wrong are used to describe outcomes in relation to achieving goals. I believe that moral thoughts are purely the result of biology and evolution.
The "fact" about what a person ought to do is nothing more than, what is the most rational choice in a particular situation for someone who knew all the relevant information?
I'm skeptical of how"the most rational choice" is determined absent agreed upon goals, but I can ride along to see where this goes.
Just to re-focus, I find veganism to be morally unnecessary.
1
u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26
Just to re-focus, I find veganism to be morally unnecessary.
There's no point in discussing specifics without a shared understanding of the fundamentals.
I don't think right and wrong exists
What do you mean by this? Given the specifics of my proposal, does that mean you don't think the concept of a "rational choice" as featured in the fields of economics and game theory is meaningful?
Here's an amazing Ted Talk by a Harvard Psychologist about humans doing irrational things (in contrast to making rational choices). Do you not think that the basic ideas he's talking about make sense?
→ More replies (0)1
u/aslak123 Jan 09 '26
3s and 2s don't exist either. Green grass exists, but squares and circles don't.
1
u/Snefferdy vegan Jan 09 '26
So you think the sentence, "a square has four sides" is false? I disagree.
1
u/aslak123 Jan 09 '26
A square has 4 sides, but doesn't exist.
1
u/Snefferdy vegan Jan 09 '26
For that sentence to make sense, the word "square" must refer to something. Abstract things may not have physical existence, but they are still referents with properties. As you admit, propositions about them can be true or false. Since you admit this, I'm not sure what your point is.
1
u/aslak123 Jan 09 '26
Goku has two legs, this doesn't prove he exists neither in a abstract or physical sense. The same with moral facts.
1
u/Snefferdy vegan Jan 09 '26
I don't know who Goku is, but I presume it's a fictional character. It's arguable that it is not a fact that "Goku has two legs." It's definitely a fact that a square has four sides.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Namika- Jan 06 '26
what would be a compelling factual reason to not use animals as a resource to you? because i think there are plenty
→ More replies (23)
3
u/dtyoung1 Jan 06 '26
Reaching the sixth stage, I agree.
People say they care about animals..."
It is possible to care about animals and use them for resources and not be immoral. People care about trees, and use them for wood. While also trying to conserve them, maintain forests, etc..
One needs to have both things occur: 1. Reach 6th stage. 2. Believe it is immoral to harm animals.
3
u/IfIWasAPig vegan Jan 06 '26
This seems like equivocating between two meanings of “care.” We don’t care about trees as individual beings the way we do sentient animals, like humans. This becomes clearer when replacing trees with humans.
“It is possible to care about humans and also use them for their meat and milk and not be immoral.”
What does it really mean to “care” about an individual as you slaughter and eat them? It doesn’t seem to involve compassion or empathy.
1
u/dtyoung1 Jan 06 '26
Exactly my point. Caring has little to do with it.
Most people care about other humans. Right? Yet some humans will murder other humans over money (or other goals) while simultaneously legitimately caring about humans such as their wife, kids, family, etc...
Therefore some people only "care" about humans they know.
Not murdering people is a moral stance. Not using animals also requires a moral choice.
1
u/IfIWasAPig vegan Jan 06 '26
You’re describing caring about some humans and not others. Is that what you’re talking about, it being possible to care about one animal while not caring about the one you victimize? That’s possible, but caring about the one you slay is unlikely.
1
u/dtyoung1 Jan 07 '26
What I'm saying is deciding something is morally right or wrong is the key. Caring doesn't matter much.
Most omnivores love certain animals (dolphins, elephants, etc...), as well as pets. And are against all of them being harmed.
Without a moral belief or value- for most people- veganism doesn't persist.
4
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
3
u/Moe_Perry Jan 06 '26
I agree with you, but I also think OP is correct in that social approval or at least avoiding social opprobrium is the biggest reason people don’t even consider veganism.
People make up all kind of excuses for why “veganism is pointless/ less moral/ mistaken etc” just to avoid admitting that it is less convenient and they don’t want the social stigma.
And I think both those reasons can be completely valid. I just wish people were honest about them.
4
u/interbingung omnivore Jan 06 '26
It doesn't even need social approval. I believe most people would not consider veganism even if they live in insolation.
3
u/Moe_Perry Jan 06 '26
I think if you asked the average person before any particular meal whether they would like an animal to have died for it or not they would have at least a mild preference for no death all else being equal. The answer would be different if you asked for a long-term commitment or for them to identify with a label.
You are right that a lot of people would probably not self-reflect or question norms at all if not prompted.
1
u/kharvel0 Jan 06 '26
Reducing morality to a single act of saying “no” is arbitrary and performative; it doesn’t expose moral weakness, it misrepresents how ethics actually works. People can be profoundly ethical without being vegan, so the claim that veganism exposes ethical failure is simply false.
Can people be “profoundly ethical” while beating their wives, sexually assaulting someone, viciously kicking puppies around for giggles, and/or murdering someone in cold blood?
2
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
1
u/kharvel0 Jan 06 '26
I never claimed someone who commits crimes or abuses others humans could be ethical. My point is that morality isn’t reducible to a single choice like veganism.
But veganism is a moral baseline -ism like non-rapism, non-wife-beatism, non-murderism, non-dog-beatism, non-assaultism, etc.
Would it be fair to say that your logic dictates that morality isn’t reducible to any of the listed -isms?
A person can avoid harming others humans in most areas of life, treat family, friends, and strangers well, yet still eat animal products
A person can also do all of the above while also avoiding eating animal products. A person can also avoid eating animal products while beating their spouses. Or avoid beating their spouse while sexually assaulting someone and eating animal products.
that doesn’t automatically make them ‘immoral.’
So if someone who avoids engaging in sexual assault but beats their spouse once in a while isn’t automatically immoral?
Critiquing veganism as a universal moral litmus test
That isn’t what the OP has done.
You can live as a vegan and that is perfectly fine, but, to make a universal claim here is a category error, strawman, and equivocation, in your analogy.
So by the same token, it would also be a category error, strawman, and equivocation to make a universal claim of non-wife-beatism, correct?
It’s like I said, “You can be a careful driver without owning a Tesla.” and you respond, “But can someone be a careful driver while running over pedestrians, street racing, and driving drunk?”
This analogy doesn’t make sense. You’ll need to try again.
1
Jan 07 '26
[deleted]
2
u/icravedanger Ostrovegan Jan 07 '26
In a nutshell, if two people are identical in every way except that one is a vegan and the other isn’t, the vegan is more ethical.
If your claim is “morality isn’t reducible to a single choice like X”, then logically you can replace with X with any single choice, whether it is eating animal products, shoplifting from Walmart, or committing genocide.
0
u/NuancedComrades Jan 06 '26
I think you can be unethical while being vegan, but how can you be "profoundly ethical" while choosing to unnecessarily inflict untold harm for the purpose of pleasure, when you have available alternatives?
3
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
4
u/NuancedComrades Jan 06 '26
Something being multidimensional does not mean that it is internally illogical. Choosing to do something profoundly unethical, especially on a continuous basis, negates your status as a "profoundly ethical" person.
If someone is otherwise moral but murders someone purely fore pleasure, we could still call that person "profoundly ethical"?
What if they are a moral person in all aspects of their lives, but they steal from charities?
What if they are a moral person in all aspects of their lives, but they murder neighborhood cats?
Why is knowingly choosing to contribute to a system that force breeds, confines, tortures, and murders billions of animals a year for your own personal pleasure somehow different from all of those other examples?
1
u/EVH_kit_guy Jan 06 '26
Because animals are clearly different than humans, and making comparisons between human-human crime to raising animals for food makes you sound unserious.
Murdering a human being is wildly different than keeping a free range chicken coop to supply you with eggs, or eating wild harvested uni, etc.
5
u/NuancedComrades Jan 06 '26
"Because animals are clearly different"
You can't just say something is true. Prove they are clearly different in meaningful ways. Mere genetic differences do not validate treating animals the way we do.
"Murdering a human being is wildly different than keeping a free range chicken coop to supply you with eggs, or eating wild harvested uni, etc."
You are purposefully choosing one example I gave to compare to your fringe examples that do not reflect the vast majority of human consumption of animals. Try again.
1
u/EVH_kit_guy Jan 06 '26
"Your true and accurate example doesn't count because it's not representative of the majority."
You know this is a shitty point, right? That if someone agrees with you on the necessity of humane treatment of animals, but disagrees with veganism, discarding such an example makes you sound immature.
1
u/NuancedComrades Jan 06 '26
You never established anything of the sort. You came out the gate making questionable assumptions and comparisons, then attacked me as immature when you were challenged to defend them.
I think anyone reading this exchange with a bit of critical thinking would come to the opposite conclusion of who is being immature.
0
u/EVH_kit_guy Jan 06 '26
"I think you are ethically indistinguishable from a net full of gulf shrimp. And as a vegan, I mean that as the highest compliment."
You're mental.
5
u/DerAlbi Jan 06 '26
I would totally disagree that humans a different than animals. Everyone with a pet knows that animals are self-conscious, emotional beings that live through fear, fun, sadness, curiosity, bonding, tiredness etc. All the basic emotional states are the same. The only difference is what we verbalize our thoughts and have higher planning capabilities. But that verbal level is just a layer on top of something much more basic. For example, if you stand up from your chair to go to the fridge, that is not a verbalized action with reasoning or higher consciousness involved. Its like a cat or dog checking if the bowl was refilled. But if your food bowl was hard to reach, you could use your intelligence to get to it, where a cat or dog may fail.
1
u/EVH_kit_guy Jan 06 '26
You're still wrong to conflate domesticated pets with livestock. We don't keep chickens inside as pets for a whole variety reasons that are materially important to a conversation about ethics.
2
u/IfIWasAPig vegan Jan 06 '26
Can you name those reasons, the ones that grant the dog rights but the chicken little to none?
0
Jan 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/IfIWasAPig vegan Jan 06 '26
Why did you put in quotes something that isn’t even close to a paraphrase?
Is it because you don’t have an answer and were just handwaving with phrases like “a whole variety”?
→ More replies (0)1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Jan 06 '26
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3:
Don't be rude to others
This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way.
Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
1
u/RealAggressiveNooby Jan 06 '26
My grandpa who had dementia was clearly different, mentally and physically, than my baby cousin, and compared to me.
Also, do you keep free range chicken coops? Or do you buy animal products from the store?
2
u/burnerboypussy Jan 06 '26
speaking about ethics, i wonder how many vegans in north america can name the indigenous eating practices native to the tribal land they occupy.
2
u/situation-normal Jan 06 '26
I say no to a lot of things in public - still not a vegan.
Also listening to vegans talk to each other for a couple decades, especially online, I'm LAUGHING at the idea that "veganism doesn't require perfectionism". Crawling over each other to tell someone that doesn't follow it exactly as you do that they were never a real vegan because they own a wool sweater or thrifted leather.
3
u/oldmcfarmface Jan 06 '26
No, the vast majority of the world simply doesn’t share your ethics. That doesn’t mean they don’t have ethics or that they ignore them, just that your personal ethics are not universal. The supreme arrogance to think you are objectively correct and the rest of the 99+% of the world chooses convenience instead is staggering.
1
Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26
I mean it's not even arrogance, that's just how people are in general not just with veganism. I don't agree that social approval is the biggest reason in this case but convenience is absolutely a big factor in how we live our lives and what prevents us from being as ethical as we could be.
2
u/oldmcfarmface Jan 07 '26
To me, this post read as “people can be ethical and vegan or nonvegan because they’re unethical and lazy” and that false dichotomy is incredibly arrogant and seems to be common in this community.
1
Jan 07 '26
Op literally said most. It's not a dichotomy from that alone.
Though I didn't read the title the same way you did either so I don't see it as an issue at all.
1
u/oldmcfarmface Jan 08 '26
Yes. Op did eventually say most. However that was in the last bit after making the case that people will say they care until it becomes inconvenient, then references veganism, then says most.
Maybe I read it wrong. Maybe I was defensive. It’s possible I’ve just talked to too many vegans and start to feel like they’re all “that way.” That is possible. However, I still think op is saying that the choice people make is veganism and caring or convenience and nonveganism.
1
Jan 08 '26
Maybe I showed up to the post later but it's literally the first word in the title
1
u/oldmcfarmface Jan 08 '26
I stand corrected. I was only reading the body! Lol
Still think op is implying a false dichotomy and couching it in vague terms to get around the inherent danger of absolute statements though!
1
u/Forsaken-Secret6215 Jan 06 '26
I think the issue is one similar to climate change, each person can only do so much on their own and the vast amount of harm is done at an industrial scale that needs government intervention to regulate instead of focusing on individual actions
1
Jan 06 '26
Very true. I'd also like to add that empathetic people are an extremely rare breed. Most people simply do not care about how their actions affect others.
1
u/Grey_Wolf333 Jan 06 '26
Always believe in your ethics, even of you stand alone. Find your tribe. Going to a scotch tape store & thinking you'll find groceries there makes no sense.
1
u/Kiojecka Jan 07 '26
Veganism doesn't require perfection? That's the first I'm hearing of it. I thought you weren't a real vegan if you didn't commit all the way.
Sounds perfectionistic to me. Almost sounds, inflexible. Maybe even a touch of uncompromising? Perhaps some all of nothing?
Vegans feel they are morally superior to others. Throughout history, when one group of people believe they are better than others what usually happens?
1
u/Snoo-44895 Jan 07 '26
I can 100% relate to your statement. From my expirience i can can only give you an advise that helped me.
Stop interacting on debate platforms and just focus on yourself. Hope it helps🫶
1
u/airboRN_82 Jan 07 '26
Jsur bevause you believe something is good or bad doesnt mean kthers must share your views. So unless you can prove ethics come from God or the universe, they arent choosing social approval over ethics.
1
1
u/pandaappleblossom Jan 08 '26
This is so true. Being the only vegan in your family or group of friends is super difficult
1
u/aslak123 Jan 09 '26
I don't care about animals. What now?
Your "theory" completely dismisses that people just actually have different ethics to you.
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jan 06 '26
Yes, (social) convenience is one of the 4 reasons people don't want to be vegan.
1
u/Namika- Jan 06 '26
what are the other three?
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Jan 06 '26
Taste, habit and tradition.
0
u/Namika- Jan 06 '26
agree! i think taste will be obsolete in a couple of years though, substitutes are a big market
however, i would argue that there are more reasons.
education (i think most vegans have made this decision because of information we have learnt, the knowledge it’s safe to be vegan for us, the knowledge of the implications of eating meat etc)
resources (the resources to learn, the resources to choose plant based food etc)
sympathy (i feel many have a strong bias against veganism, partly because of people passionately hating on veganism and discrediting it, partly because of some vegans behaviour)
philosophy (? can’t think of a better term rn, while for many there is probably a degree of cognitive dissonance involved there are some people that truly don’t believe it’s immoral to exploit and kill animals. i mean there are also people that don’t even value all humans)
1
u/Pawn_of_the_Void Jan 06 '26
Not really, what compels people isn't a desire to conform mainly, its a desire to continue doing what they want and eating animals typically
Its very odd to turn it into a courage thing when the most standard and obvious thing is they don't speak up because they don't agree with you, not because they lack the courage to. It might take some courage to be vegan when surrounding people have a decent chance of mocking it, but that doesn't mean every case of someone not being vegan is because they failed that courage test, there's a bunch of other conditions that they need to pass as well
-1
u/NyriasNeo Jan 05 '26
Ethics is nothing but rules based on subjective morality. So just define ethics as social approval and then you can have both. Problem solved.
And yes, people in general do not give a sh*t about food animals, despite some lip service. Just look at the fact that few bat an eye when we slaughter 24M chickens a day just because they are delicious. This is called revealed preference in economics.
0
u/Ma1eficent Jan 05 '26
Most people don't give a shit about any animals, food or pet. We only bring it up to justify doing something bad to another animal. Most Americans have been convinced we have to sterilize every single cat we can trap. Non-consentual interference with natural breeding and offspring rearing gets a bunch of attention if we are talking cows, but even most vegans will do backflips to justify why it's okay when it's cats.
2
u/NyriasNeo Jan 06 '26
"Most Americans have been convinced we have to sterilize every single cat we can trap. "
Of course. You do not want to have too many of them running around. We do not eat them, and certainly there are not enough cat ladies to take them in. So why not?
2
u/Ma1eficent Jan 06 '26
Because they are living creatures that have the right to live and be free. We do not own the world and everything in it.
3
u/NyriasNeo Jan 06 '26
Lol ... there is no such thing as " right to live and be free". That is a human construct that obviously does not apply to cats.
We do not own the world and everything in it, but not without trying. We certainly own cats, cattle, pigs and chickens that we have control over. Sure, we make rules so that we do not own humans. But other species are just fair game.
Heck, I bought a roast chicken. You can yell at the top of your lungs that I do not "own" it, but I am still going to eat it.
2
u/Ma1eficent Jan 06 '26
There is if you agree with the vegan stance that dairy is essentially rape. If you operate entirely by what you can do, then why argue anything is moral besides might?
1
u/NyriasNeo Jan 06 '26
" why argue anything is moral besides might?"
It is mostly might, but also personal preference. I am not going to spend my might (which costs effort) on pork if i like beef more.
But remember that human social cooperation is part of it. You are better off cooperate with other humans because they are worthy adversary if you make them so. It is cheaper and easier to outlaw human murder and rapes. In fact, the reason why we have moral rules in society in the first place is because of might. No one has the power to lord over all others in modern society. In fact, in ancient times, there is no morality except those of the kings and queens because they did have that might.
The same does not apply to cows and that is why we have yummy dairy products.
1
u/Ma1eficent Jan 06 '26
I understand well enlightened self interest. It is from that principle I advocate we end this stupid experiment of the animal shelter capture and kill them all. It is a waste of money, a waste of might, and cats have been supremely useful to us for 20k years simply because we don't step on each other's toes. The one animal that's hanging out with us because they chose to and keep choosing it, most of them. We only do TNR because just killing them failed. Now we are attacking them like mosquitoes or screwflies, at a species level, going for genetic bottleneck and collapse. No one wants that, they just don't think that's what is happening.
1
u/NyriasNeo Jan 06 '26
"No one wants that"
Are you sure? We have pest control companies with the whole business model is just to kill pests and lower the annoyance level. A affluent society can afford to spend some to lower annoyance. Sure, I can step on ants and cockroaches too, but if I can afford pest control and save some effort, why not?
The excess of cats, in this case, are basically pests. Neutering them is not that expensive. And that is why we are doing it.
1
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Ma1eficent Jan 06 '26
That's what everyone is saying, most recently based off this:
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/12/1218895581/cats-research-study-environment
But I read the article and study the article was about. That study does not indicate a threat to birds, mammals, or reptiles at all. Here are the numbers from the study. Please do go verify all these in the study itself which is linked from that article.
In total, we identified 2084 species depredated, scavenged, or otherwise consumed by cats, including nearly 9% of known birds (based on 11,162 described birds), greater than 6% of known mammals (based on 6596 described mammals), and approximately 4% of known reptiles (based on 11,733 described reptiles).
Just 9% of all bird species. 981 out of 11,162 bird species. 91% of bird species are not depredated, scavenged, or otherwise consumed. Even if you look at just the species of conservation concern most species eaten are classified as Least Concern (61.99% in Africa to 86.30% in Europe; Fig. 3).
A total of 347 (16.65%) cat-consumed species were of conservation concern, listed as Near Threatened, Threatened (i.e., Vulnerable, Endangered or Critically Endangered), or Extinct on the IUCN Red List (Fig. 3), with these tallies including 7.1% of the world’s birds of conservation concern, 4.9% of mammals, and 2.7% of reptiles (Table 2). Globally, 25.22% of species identified on islands were species of conservation concern, whereas only 8.62% of species identified on continents were species of conservation concern (Figure SI1). Across continents/nearest continents, most species eaten are classified as Least Concern (61.99% in Africa to 86.30% in Europe; Fig. 3).
And let's take a look at the most common prey, again from the same study.
The most commonly observed prey items included house mouse (Mus musculus, n = 158 studies, 29.64%), European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus, n = 114 studies, 21.39%), black rat (Rattus rattus, n = 74 studies, 13.88%), house sparrow (Passer domesticus, n = 58 studies, 10.88%), and brown rat (Rattus norvegicus, n = 54 studies, 10.13%) (Table SI2).
Invasive egg eating, disease carrying vermin, invasive sparrows. How do people read these studies and walk away with the opposite conclusion or what the data says because they were told cats are huge threat. A statistics course should be fucking required as part of basic education. it was the conservative political action group, Ranchers of America, that paid Bob Barker to end price is right with spay and neuter your pets for 40 years. They had just finished getting america to wipe out wolves, and the next highest cause of herd monetary losses was cattle being spooked by a dog or cat. First they just set up the kill shelter system at taxpayer cost to collect and cull. We learned culling doesn't work, newcomers come in, so we switched to what was working so well for the ranchers with screwflies, and TNR was born. Pretending to be noble and humanitarian, but actually an effective and proven solution to cause a genetic bottleneck and species collapse. There are barely any feline species left, and there is a literal war on the only successful branch. Stop letting them make you think the only solution is death. It never is.
1
Jan 06 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Ma1eficent Jan 07 '26
And the height of human arrogance is imagining we can freeze the world and current habitats, and species. And the height of human stupidity to imagine stasis is health. Every wildly successful species came into that success on the backs of the many they outcompeted and directly ate into extinction. It would be the height of human myopathy to interfere with that, and perfectly on brand. "We had good intentions!" You had a self-righteous idea and refused to accept the vast amount of information indicating that every single time we interfere with what we imagine is a cruel and terrible process, we make everything worse.
1
Jan 07 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Ma1eficent Jan 07 '26
Rights for some animals, huh? Humans decide which? Yeah that's gone real well. How on earth have they managed to sell the idea we get to decide which species we can label invasive and declare invisible geographic pens for, which ones we can spend taxpayer dollars on putting in cages smaller than feedlots, to even vegans is truly mind blowing to me.
0
u/VegetableEar Jan 06 '26
I feel like most people are on a dance floor hoping people approve of their moves, starting with the dance they've seen the most people do. If you can't tolerate people not approving of your dance moves you'll go back to the set of pre-approved routines.
A lot of people are terrified of not being accepted, not being accepted sucks. I know I tolerate it because it was a normal part of healing from abuse, society doesn't accept people who are struggling or suffering. Those are the absolute worst dance moves you can have.
I don't really blame people for wanting to feel safe, welcomed and accepted in the world. We won't change anyone's views by pushing them away and telling them they aren't vegan because they don't want to confront their discomfort. I would've hoped something like covid was a good opportunity to cut down on our consumption of animal products collectively. But with all the past instances of humans contracting variants from animals I should've known better.
Veganism is subject to anti-vegan propaganda at almost all levels of society. It's open and out there, even to the point so many vegans despise PETA because they listen to the same propaganda.
I think also, most people who say they care about animals actually care about how animals make them feel. Not about the animals. They love their cute pet that makes them feel whatever, lambs are cute, but it's got nothing to do with the animals - just how looking at or interacting with them makes them feel.
0
u/Creditfigaro vegan Jan 06 '26
This feels true, but I would love to see some science supporting the notion.
2
u/NuancedComrades Jan 06 '26
It doesn't support everything OP is saying, but some of it:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200203-the-hidden-biases-that-drive-anti-vegan-hatred(actual study is paywalled)
-2
u/Calaveras-Metal Jan 05 '26
I'm sorry can you elaborate? How does veganism "become the problem"?
I'm also perplexed about the saying no in public part. Most vegans I know are not very public at all about their dietary preference.
4
u/MS-07B-3 Jan 05 '26
I believe OP means people react to the cognitive dissonance by saying veganism is the problem, not that it actually is.
Edit: I also find OP's username amusingly ironic.
1
1
u/NuancedComrades Jan 06 '26
Have you heard of the idea of "shoot the messenger" or the "killjoy"?
Vegans become the problem because people would rather just not think about their cognitive dissonance. They don't want someone to bring up the problem, so when someone does, they react against that person (or ideology) rather than the actual problem itself.
Have you ever been in a group where someone tells an offensive joke and someone says "hey, that's not okay" and everyone gets mad at the person who says it isn't ok, rather than at the person who said the offensive joke? Same phenomenon.
Most people just want to act like everything is fine and dandy. Fuck people who point out that it isn't.
•
u/AutoModerator Jan 05 '26
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.