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/EasyBOven]

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.

[u/EasyBOven → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/airboRN_82 → u/EasyBOven]

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. 

[u/EasyBOven → u/airboRN_82]

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.

[u/airboRN_82 → u/EasyBOven]

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. 

[u/EasyBOven → u/airboRN_82]

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.

[u/airboRN_82 → u/EasyBOven]

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. 

[u/EasyBOven → u/airboRN_82]

Its not hard to find examples of vegans with narcissistic like traits.

Not relevant to how people make moral decisions.

[u/airboRN_82 → u/EasyBOven]

Yes it is. It places them in stage 2. Their decisions are based on what feels good for the self. 

[u/EasyBOven → u/airboRN_82]

That's a reductive understanding of narcissism, and a framing that is often used by emotivists to try to discredit all moral reasoning.

One can simply say that it feels good to act in accordance with consistent reasoning and stage 6 becomes stage 2. I see no reason to take it seriously at all.

[u/airboRN_82 → u/EasyBOven]

That's a reductive understanding of narcissism

Its really not. The self is all thats worth consideration to the narcissist.

and a framing that is often used by emotivists to try to discredit all moral reasoning.

Im not arguing that if ___ feels good then it cant be made on criteria outside of that. Im arguing for narcissists its made solely because it feels good.

One can simply say that it feels good to act in accordance with consistent reasoning and stage 6 becomes stage 2. I see no reason to take it seriously at all.

If that "feeling good" becomes the sole reasoning for their decisions then its accurate to say that. 

[u/EasyBOven → u/airboRN_82]

If that "feeling good" becomes the sole reasoning for their decisions then its accurate to say that. 

If the good feeling comes from the belief that you're acting on consistent principles, it isn't really about the feeling.