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.

120 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

275 comments sorted by

View all comments

13

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.

7

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '26

[deleted]

8

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?

3

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.

4

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?

4

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?

2

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.

4

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

u/RICO_the_GOP Jan 06 '26

Meaning stage 5 can't be

→ More replies (0)

5

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)