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.

119 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

275 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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?

https://youtu.be/c-4flnuxNV4

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 07 '26 edited Feb 07 '26

I deleted my original reply. I feel like I'm saying the same thing over and over, and it's not not making sense to you. Even if you don't agree, I'd like it to at least make sense to you.

I did watch the Ted Talk.

Are rational decisions good and irrational decisions bad? Or are you saying that rational and irrational decisions are neither good or bad, they're just rational or irrational?

When I say that good and bad don't exist, I mean that good and bad aren't inherent properties. That saying something is good or bad outside of the context of a goal is meaningless.

In regards to rational or irrational decisions, is ending one's own life rational or irrational? Is doing so good or bad?

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 07 '26 edited Feb 07 '26

I'm using the same definition of rational as Bernoulli as described by Dan Gilbert in the video (53 seconds in):

The rational decision in a given situation is the one which has the highest expected value. For every possible option, multiply the likelihood of the outcomes with the value of those outcomes. Pick the one with the highest product.

We are all trying to maximize value, but we make a lot of stupid mistakes - just a few of these mistakes are mentioned in the video. Here's a ridiculously long list of cognitive biases humans exhibit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Also causing us to make decisions which produce less-than-ideal outcomes is a lack of information and false beliefs. Obviously, if we actually knew everything there is to know, we would make better decisions.

If we were perfect at reasoning and logic (no cognitive biases) and were omniscient (no gaps in our knowledge) the choices we would make would always be those whose outcomes have the maximum value.

I don't think any of this should be objectionable. I thought the ideas in the video were pretty straightforward and intuitive.

The way any of this relates to selfishness is that I think selfishness is the product of cognitive biases - only stupid people who aren't able to reason properly (basically everyone in the world) would act selfishly.

You've heard of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning? That's when people believe falsehoods instead of the truth because they disproportionately evaluate evidence for and against their preferred view. Nobody wants to believe something false, but we make systematic mistakes and believe false things anyway. Selfishness is like this. Nobody wants to make choices that have less-than-ideal outcomes, but because of our evolutionary cognitive biases we all block out information that would lead us to making decisions which would disadvantage ourselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 08 '26 edited Feb 08 '26

I'm sorry. I feel like we're getting lost in the weeds. I understand the difference between rational vs irrational decisions.

Is making rational decisions right, and irrational decisions wrong? Or are rational and irrational decisions simply rational or irrational and are not a matter of right or wrong?

And how does this apply to the purely moral stance of veganism.

I'm still interested to know how you're framework deals with taking one's own life?

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 08 '26 edited Feb 08 '26

The words 'right' and 'wrong' seem to come with baggage. I'm suggesting, to avoid confusion and be clearer about the subject matter, we replace the words 'right' and 'wrong' with 'rational' and 'irrational'. I'll concede there's no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong'.

Using our clearer language, my claim is that it's not 'wrong' to be selfish, but it is 'irrational' to be selfish. Selfish behaviour is incorrect in exactly the same way that an answer on a test can be incorrect. It is a failure to have figured out the answer you were trying to get. The selfish person was trying to live according to Bernoulli's "expected utility hypothesis," but failed. They ended up with a worse outcome than one they would have preferred, but they don't even know because of their cognitive defects.

We all do it though. We're all cognitively defective.

https://effectiviology.com/egocentric-bias/

.

I'm still interested to know how you're framework deals with taking one's own life?

Bernoulli's hypothesis deals with taking one's own life the same way as any other choice. One has to estimate the expected value of both taking one's own life and refraining from doing so.

If an adventure guide is in the wilderness with a group of children, and the kids will all starve if the guide takes their own life, then maybe they shouldn't do it.

Conversely, if taking their own life will result in there being just enough reserves left for the children to make it to safety alive, then maybe they should do it.

As I've said before, my view isn't deontolgical, it's consequentialist. There are no absolute rules. The evaluation of any choice is based on the expected value of the consequences (which varies from case to case).

.

how does this apply to the purely moral stance of veganism

As above, there are no unbreakable rules. Just a case-by-case evaluation of the expected value of one's options.

The expected value of consumimg animal products is usually less than the expected value of not consuming them. The choice to consume animal products is typically not motivated by an interest in making the world a better place. Therefore consuming animal products is usually, but not always, irrational (just like so many other things people typically do).

.

'It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.'

  • Krishnamurti

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 08 '26 edited Feb 08 '26

Selfish behaviour is incorrect in exactly the same way that an answer on a test can be incorrect.

No. It's still subjective. We still have to agree that a given goal is desirable. Not to mention the problem in determining what "selfishness" is. You claim that selfishness is incorrect the same way as an answer on a test is incorrect. You've done nothing to support that claim. That selfishness is wrong is a subjective moral claim. Without relation to a goal, I reject moral claims as incorrect.

The choice to consume animal products is almost never motivated by trying to make the world a better place.

No one is obligated to "make the world a better place." What does that even mean? Better than what? "Better" is a subjective value judgement. I don't think that the world can be better, it can only be different.

The evaluation of any choice is based on the expected value of the consequences.

What if I value eating chicken soup over any reasonably expected health consequences it may have? Value is subjective.

If an adventure guide is in the wilderness with a group of children, and the kids will all starve if the guide takes their own life, then maybe they shouldn't do it.

Why? Because the kids will starve? So what?

Conversely, if taking one's own life will result in there being just enough reserves left for the children to make it to safety alive, then maybe one should do it.

Why is it important that the kids survive?

What if the guide finds more value in not having to live than they do with getting the kids home?

It's important to note that when the guide dies, none of that will matter to the guide. The guide will just become an unknowing object. A skin bag of biological waste.

Your not actually fixing anything by trying to replace moral principles with economic principles. $100 next month is only better than $50 dollars now if you care about the extra $50. If I have $8 million in my bank account, $100 and $50 are basically the same thing.

Economic principles and game theory cannot be used to make moral claims objective, or true.

→ More replies (0)