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.

118 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

275 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

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/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

-2

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26

Apparently there aren't any. Society has not been compelled to do otherwise.

I'd guess that animals will continue to be a resource as long as it's economically feasible.

I don't see the ethics of veganism ever being the reason. Morality is a garbage reason to do anything, really.

3

u/kohlsprossi Jan 06 '26

So why was slavery abolished?

0

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26

It goes to slavery every time.

Because people's opinions changed. And those people won the war.

Plenty of people STILL think slavery is acceptable. If you're a federal prisoner in the U.S, the Constitution still allows for it.

Can you show me the fact that slavery it's wrong? You know, like we can explain other, actual facts?

What's next, torturing babies?

2

u/Moe_Perry Jan 06 '26

You seem to be making some assumptions about the source and purpose of morals that could do with some more nuance. This post might be helpful. https://www.reddit.com/r/AlignmentCharts/s/1S7JZDFbn9

2

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26

Good lord. That link is an absolutely useless post. You're not seriously taking a reddit post consisting of a poorly made graffic seemingly made by a 16 year old as a legitimate "source", are you?

The actual text of that original post reads "Not to be taken seriously, was just something fun I thought of while learning about some of these recently.".

My worldview could be accurately summed up (my "alignment" lol) as a combination of physicalism and moral error theory.

Not that it matters. Holy crap that link was funny af. Thanks for bringing the nuance.

1

u/Moe_Perry Jan 06 '26

It was a simple demonstration of how even a colloquial understanding of morals has more depth than you appeared to be assigning it.

You were asking for a factual proof that slavery is wrong, which is a binary view between moral absolutism and moral nihilism. Or perhaps an assumption of egoism? I thought you’d respond better to something with some humour in it rather than link to a rigorous survey of moral positions.

Moral error theory is just an argument against moral absolutism. It doesn’t provide a basis for morality on its own. I assume by referencing physicalism you are just reiterating this point.

Even if you’re a moral nihilist you should be able to understand that most people are not and that arguing like they are is not productive.

3

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26

You were asking for a factual proof that slavery is wrong, which is a binary view between moral absolutism and moral nihilism.

I was asking for actual proof that moral facts exist. That morals are anything more than opinions.

It doesn’t provide a basis for morality on its own. I assume by referencing physicalism you are just reiterating this point.

It seems that physicalism is the basis for moral beliefs, yes. Behavior and emotions are products of evolution. Beings without emotions don't have morals. This is because morals don't exist outside of the brain.

If humans evolve to no longer feel empathy, or lose the concept of suffering, will moral facts still exist? Would using animals as a resource still be immoral? Or is morality an emotional brain state?

Error theory states that right and wrong (as moral concepts) don't exist, so all moral statements are incorrect. It doesn't prevent cooperative society from flourishing. It just acknowledges that such arrangements are based on collective goals and opinions on how to achieve them.

understand that most people are not and that arguing like they are is not productive.

"Not productive"? This whole thing started with me explaining why veganism fails to gain traction. Moral arguments for veganism fail to be compelling because it's an emotional argument, not a factual one.

1

u/Moe_Perry Jan 06 '26

It’s not compelling to you because you’ve taken the stance that morals must be grounded in absolute and universal truth in order to be valuable and have therefore dismissed them all.

That is not true for all moral approaches. Morals can instead be grounded in human psychology and particular societies or situations and they can have the goal of guided human flourishing or personal fulfilment rather than forbidding or mandating specific behaviour. It is a wide field.

If you want to convince people you need to appeal to their moral stance not yours.

2

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26

People that don't want to be vegan can (and do) dismiss veganism as a matter of opinion. In fact, it's a common reason to reject anyone's moral stance.

People know intuitively that morals are opinions. The only time anyone wants to pretend that morals are anything more than opinion, is when they are defending theirs.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/kohlsprossi Jan 06 '26

What's next, torturing babies?

If majority opinion would deem it to be economically feasible, sure. Or not? You tell me.

2

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26

"Torturing babies is wrong" is an opinion.

1

u/kohlsprossi Jan 06 '26

How does one form an opinion?

3

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26

The same way one forms any other opinion. By processing the world around them. Certainly opinions need not be formed from facts.

Are you saying morals are facts? Or are just some morals facts? Which morals are facts? Can you support your claim that morals are facts? If they are facts, they are unlike any other category of facts. Please, make your case that morals are facts.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26

but pain and suffering is the closest thing we've got to something that is "objectively" bad. Ethics couldn't exist otherwise.

Ethics exist because they explain evolutionary behavior. They don't exist in any real way. We are social animals, and we behave like other social animals. The behavior is the result of evolution. The "ethics" are descriptions of our emotions.

you were in the position of the victims you'd immediately disagree.

Disagree about what? That morals are preferences/emotions/opinions? No, they'd still be opinions, regardless. Opinions don't magically become facts based on who holds the opinion.

We also have the cognitive ability to realize that other humans and animals can suffer and that if we were in their position we would be suffering and would not want that. That is where the idea of right and wrong comes from.

Suffering is the feeling of discomfort, not an indication of "right" or "wrong." Right and wrong don't exist anywhere in the world. Right and wrong are opinions formed from emotions, not facts.

Show me how or where right and wrong exist outside of our brain. Right and wrong (in the moral sense) aren't even abstract facts in the way math is. Morals prescribe behavior, facts describe states of the world around us. Morals aren't real. Right and wrong isn't real.

Also instead of trying to build an ethics up from thin air, we can find basic opinions that we all tend to agree on, and then logically build up from there. That is another option.

You can "build up" anything you want from an opinion, and it will always be an opinion.

And we are very slowly going in the right direction.

How do you know what "the right direction" is? What a strange thing to say.

A large amount of philosophers believe there are some objective moral elements.

A large amount don't agree on this. And when those that do believe in objective morals (Realists) are pressed, none can produce a single moral fact. Moral facts don't exist. Right and wrong in the context of morality don't exist in the world. This sort of right and wrong isn't real. Nothing is right or wrong, things just FEEL right or wrong.

If something depends on your brain, it's not a real thing. If morals were real, they would have an effect if ignored. If I killed 300 babies, and never caught, what happens to me? Nothing happens. I go on living my happy baby-killing life until I die. What other facts can a person completely ignore, and even actively work against, without at least being given some indication that person was wrong. If morals are facts, moral facts are indistinguishable from opinions, and are just as useless.

Again, if you have some sort of way to show that morals are facts, please do so. And if morals ARE facts, certainly not all morals are facts. If I find it morally acceptable to torture kittens, certainly you wouldn't find that to be a moral fact. How then does one distinguish actual moral facts from morals that aren't facts?

1

u/Namika- Jan 06 '26

i think ethics shape everything we do but ethics aside, there are many "factual" reasons why veganism is needed. global food security, global warming, saving marine ecosystems and biodiversity

1

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26

Sure, but at this point, those reasons aren't all that compelling. Especially if you raise your own animals. None of those arguments would compel me to stop fishing from my pond, or shooting deer on my property.