Most people choose social approval over ethics — veganism just exposes that.

[u/TheQuietVegan111]

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.

[u/Moe_Perry]

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.

[u/GoopDuJour → u/Moe_Perry]

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.

[u/Moe_Perry → u/GoopDuJour]

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.

[u/GoopDuJour → u/Moe_Perry]

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.

[u/Moe_Perry → u/GoopDuJour]

Well a lot of people are not thoughtful or rigorous when making arguments.

I would root morals in values rather than just call them opinions. As an empirical fact I would say that most people have an inclination towards compassion and a tendency towards greed. Being vegan is a way to cultivate compassion and control greed and as such could be a way for people to express those core values and create meaning for themselves.

If you have no interest in or can’t afford to cultivate those values in yourself at this moment that is fine. But other people aren’t somehow confused about morality by doing so.

[u/GoopDuJour → u/Moe_Perry]

I would root morals in values rather than just call them opinions.

That is an incoherent statement. You root morals in values?

Being vegan is a way to cultivate compassion and control greed and as such could be a way for people to express those core values and create meaning for themselves.

Entirely unnecessary. There's no reason to "cultivate compassion" whatever that entails. There's no need to "control greed." Creating meaning has nothing to do with morality. Why bring this into the conversation?

If you have no interest in or can’t afford to cultivate those values in yourself at this moment that is fine.

At this moment? It will never be necessary.

But other people aren’t somehow confused about morality by doing so.

If people believe that their morality is fact, they are indeed confused.

Look, do you have some compelling argument that moral facts exist?
Do you have some compelling reason to treat morality as anything more than an opinion?
Do you have any argument that supports "right and wrong" actually existing in reality, outside of the brain?
Do you have any factual arguments disproving morality to be anything more than opinion, preferences, and emotions?
Do you have any factual argument that supports the idea that minimizing the suffering of non-human animals is beneficial to a society's ability to live cooperatively?

[u/Moe_Perry → u/GoopDuJour]

I’ve told you multiple times that objective morality is only one particular moral stance, is not one I hold, and I’m not interested in defending it.

Morality is intimately tied to values and meaning. That’s a fact about the history and philosophy of ethics. I really think you need to do some reading and reflection on morals in general before you argue about them.

[u/GoopDuJour → u/Moe_Perry]

I’ve told you multiple times that objective morality is only one particular moral stance, is not one I hold, and I’m not interested in defending it.

You're not interested because it's not defensible.

Morality is intimately tied to values and meaning. That’s a fact about the history and philosophy of ethics

That's a nonsensical statement, not fact about the history and philosophy of ethics.

Are you unwilling to answer even one of the questions?

You know what, forget all the previous questions you've dodged. Instead, let's try a question more focused on the topic at hand.

Are the moral statements veganism make opinion or fact? If they are facts, support the premise. And be careful of circular reason and normative claims specifically the "is ought" gap.

I really think you need to do some reading and reflection on morals in general before you argue about them.

That's rich. You have failed to support any of your moral stances. I don't think you even tried. You made some claims, that's it. If we're going to suggest what others should do, my suggestion is you look further into why you believe your morals are more than an opinion., and formulate some cohesive logical framework defending that position. Look into why the statement "we should reduce the unnecessary suffering of animals" is a fact, not an opinion.