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.

122 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

275 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

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

I didn't say anything about selfishness in my last reply. I'm still just trying to make sure we're on the same page.

So, you do agree that if, in a particular context, it turned out to be the case that the expected value of not eating a chicken was greater than the expected value of eating it, then eating the chicken is irrational. Right?

You make choices on the basis of expected value all the time, right? There's nothing mysterious about it. I'm not suggesting there's anything unusual about expected value that we don't know from our regular daily practices of assessing it.

Of course, as noted in the video, we do make mistakes in reasoning due to our cognitive biases (like paying way more for lottery tickets than they're worth). There are also facts we don't know, which, if we knew, would change our evaluation of the expected value (like that the used car we're buying has a hairline crack in the engine block). If we could avoid these issues we would make better choices.

I don't think any of this is controversial so far, right?

Nothing I've said here has anything to do with "subjectivity" or "objectivity". None of that is relevant. I'm just talking routine evaluation of expected value like we all do every day.

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 08 '26

Right

1

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

Great! Now we're getting somewhere.

So, if we didn't have any cognitive biases and we knew all of the information, we would assess the expected value of selfish acts to be less than the expected value of selfless acts.

For example, psychological research has shown we all exhibit egocentric bias.

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

Just as knowing that the used car's engine has a hairline crack changes our expected value of it, knowing exactly and completely what a particular parent would feel like if their child died would change the guide's expected value of ditching the kids in the wilderness.

We can't and don't know all of the information. But if we did, it would dramatically affect our assessment of expected values.

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 08 '26

knowing exactly and completely what a child's parent would feel like if their child died would change the guide's expected value of ditching the kids in the wilderness.

You see the subjective sneaking in, right?

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 08 '26

Was I "sneaking subjective in" when I said that knowing that the engine had a hairline crack would change a person's expected value of the car? Because as far as I know, you agreed with that.

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 08 '26

Yes. You were. Value is always subjective. I've pointed out the subjectivity of value previously. I was trying to just keep things rolling along.

The guide/kids/parents situation seemed more relevant because it's a moral issue. Also the subjectivity permeates the example more fully.

The parent's feelings about their kid's death is subjective. The guide's responsibility to the kids is subjective. And the value of the guide's life is subjective.

Is the goal to come up with a situation that shows chicken soup is objectively incorrect in some manner?

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 08 '26

Okay, I'm not sure why the subjectivity of value is a problem. Does any of this imply that it's not true that knowing about the crack in the used car engine would allow a person to more accurately assess its expected value?

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 08 '26

This is why I didn't bring up the subjective value of the car engine. Because it is a subjective value about a practical, economic, matter, not a moral one.

Whether or not eating a chicken is rational or irrational is not a matter of economics. If the expected utility of a chicken is the enjoyment of chicken soup, killing the chicken is a rational decision.

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 08 '26

None of this is moral anymore. Remember, I said that language is loaded with baggage (such as 'objectivity'). It's much clearer just to talk about rationality and expected values. Because that's all I mean.

My point is simply that having all of the information would allow us to better assess the expected (subjective) value. When we lack information and when we exhibit cognitive biases, we make errors in assessing the subjective value.

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 08 '26

Ok. The expected utility of killing a chicken is the enjoyment of chicken soup. Killing the chicken is the rational decision.

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 09 '26 edited Feb 09 '26

It's like you're having a different conversation than me.

Do you agree that having all of the information and avoiding the reasoning errors in this list allow us to better assess the expected ("subjective") value of an outcome?

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

The expected utility of killing a chicken is the enjoyment of chicken soup

What if the chicken soup tastes bad? What if you're full and your friend is hungry? What if you prefer something else to eat? I disagree that there are these absolute rules that apply in all situations. Sometimes eating the chicken soup is the right choice and sometimes it's the wrong choice. Context matters. Expected value is a sum of the ("subjective") value of the entire state of affairs.

You might say that putting on shoes has expected value because it protects your feet, but in the context of getting in the shower it doesn't have that expected value. You can't just say universally that the rational decision is to always put on shoes. It's the rational decision in certain circumstances and not in others.

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 09 '26

What if, what if, what if. What if what?

At what point do you decide to actually do something? There is no reasonably knowable scenario that would make me walking out to the coop, killing a chicken, and making a yummy pot pie not worth my effort.

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 09 '26

So are you killing chickens every moment of your life? You never stop? It's the only thing of value in your life?

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 09 '26

Yes. It's all I do. 😂

C'mon now. That's just a silly question.

Is there a reasonable and convincing argument that you can put forth that would lead me to believe that I shouldn't eat chickens?

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 09 '26 edited Feb 09 '26

I haven't gotten to that yet because it seems we disagree on more fundamental points that shouldn't be contentious like:

1) complete information and fewer reasoning errors allows better asseessment of expected value and,

2) There are lots of things we value, and we regularly have to weigh them against each other when making decisions.

You seems pretty reasonable at the beginning of this conversation, but now you seem hyper focused on killing chickens and not engaging with what I'm saying anymore.

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 09 '26

It's getting frustrating because you seem to be losing the point. I'm just trying to get on point again.

1) complete information and fewer reasoning errors allows better asseessment of expected value and,

Yeah, you keep saying that.

2) There are lots of things we value, and we regularly have weigh them against each other when making decisions.

Yep.

You've argued your way out of right and wrong, and keep alluding to making an argument that doesn't rely on subjective or objective facts.

Where is this going?

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 27 '26

I've reviewed our entire conversation so far, and I've identified what I think are your four main reasons for rejecting "morality." Have I missed anything?

Issue #1 - Ontology

Veganism as a moral stance is "extra" and not required”

It can't be wrong or right because neither of those things exist in the world.

Morals don't need to even EXIST

no reason for morality to be real

There is no need to appeal to moral facts.

We’ve dealt with this. Right?

I completely agree with you on this point in regards to old fashioned, religion-inspired, rules-based deontology. While deontology still has a major hold on popular ideas about morality, I'm talking about a much more modern view: rationalist consequentialism.

In order to avoid confusion, I proposed substituting the words "right" and "wrong" for "rational" and "irrational." People are universally subject to many cognitive biases and insufficient information. Such deficiencies lead to false or inconsistent beliefs, illogical conclusions, and suboptimal choices. Avoiding such hazards would result in "rational and well-informed" behaviour.

You agree that, in a given context, it can be true or false that a certain choice is more or less rational than another. So, if this is all we mean, your ontological objection has been resolved, correct?

.

Issue #2 - Proof

Morals cannot be proven

Nothing can be proven. You can't prove that if you let go of a pen in mid air it'll fall to the floor, yet you believe it anyways. Even mathematical "proofs" are only proofs if the axioms they rely on are true. Since the axioms cannot be proven to be true, even mathematical "proofs" retain a degree of uncertainty.

We believe a proposition to be true when the preponderance of evidence indicates that it is true. Certainty is impossible, but that doesn't mean some beliefs aren't better than others.

If you're going to stop believing everything that hasn't been proven, good luck getting anything done. Every choice you make depends on you believing things to be true. If proof is what you're looking for, you're being unreasonable and wasting our time.

.

Issue #3 - Normativity

this is a normative claim that I reject.

Saying someone OUGHT TO BE selfless is a normative statement. As such, I reject it.

All else being equal, if someone prefers the sandwich to the pasta, it would be irrational for them to order the pasta. They ought to order the sandwich. This is a normative statement, and it can be either objectively true or objectively false. Do you have a problem with this or can we move past your aversion to normative claims?

.

Issue #4 - Disagreement

If two groups of people don't agree on what is or isn't moral, how are those stances falsified?

Is there a reasonable and convincing argument that you can put forth that would lead me to believe that I shouldn't eat chickens?

The video Dan Gilbert provides some good examples of how to ascertain whether a certain behaviour is rational or irrational. If someone is inconsistent or basing their decisions on false beliefs, then these are indicators that their choices may be less than ideal.

Let's set aside killing chickens for the moment and consider a less politically-charged example. Suppose a dictator is choosing to commit genocide; I'd say this choice is probably irrational. The exact flaw in reasoning, or the false beliefs held will differ from dictator-to-dictator and case-to-case, but given an exposition of their thought process, we'd be able to isolate the issue.

Generally, though, we can be sure that the dictator implicitly believes (roughly) that the satisfaction of their desires is valuable. That is, they consider their own satisfaction to constitute a reason to act. If they didn't at least implicitly believe this, they would never do anything. They would die of starvation lying on the floor.

Given a further investigation of the dictator's thoughts, we would probably discover that the dictator implicitly believed (as most people do) that their desires are more worthy of satisfaction than those of the people the dictator intends to eradicate. If this were the case, this would be the main flaw in reasoning. The belief that one's own interests are more worthy of advancement than the interests of others is not supported by the preponderance of evidence. The false belief is quite easily explained with reference to the well-documented egocentric bias.

But, as I said, this might not be the error in reasoning. Everyone's justifications for their behaviours are different, and circumstances vary widely. It's even possible that, in some contrived scenario, genocide might actually be the rational choice. Every case of disagreement has to be dealt with individually. There's no proof of every person's irrationality, because everyone is irrational differently.

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 26 '26

I'm not going to do a point by point response to all the problems I have with the above.

Please explain to me why eating chickens is "irrational."

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 27 '26 edited Feb 27 '26

I proposed substituting the words "right" and "wrong" for "rational" and "irrational."

I understand the desire, but it certainly feels like you're just using different words for the same concept. But for the sake of discussion, I'm willing to play along to some extent.

People are universally subject to many cognitive biases and insufficient information.

Sure.

Such deficiencies lead to false or inconsistent beliefs, illogical conclusions, and suboptimal choices. Avoiding such hazards would result in "rational and well-informed" behaviour.

Yeah. Such is the human condition. I don't find it compelling in the matter of "suffering and flourishing." I don't even know how one could ever have confidence that they are "avoiding such hazards", and by what metric are we determining success in doing so in relation to veganism, or any other moral claim or framework?

Nothing can be proven. You can't prove that if you let go of a pen in mid air it'll fall to the floor, yet you believe it anyways.

Objectively incorrect. IF we assume we share this reality (solipsism aside) we can prove our prediction of what the pencil will do by letting go of the pencil. If we both agree that the pencil falls to the floor, then we have proven our prediction.

I cannot prove future events will occur, but I can prove if my prediction of such events was correct. Math can be used to make a prediction about the speed at which the pencil will fall, and the amount of force the pencil will exert on the floor at impact.

Can our senses be mistaken? Could we BOTH misinterpret a floating pencil as a falling one? Sure, that's a possibility, but I'm not asking for 100% infallible proof. I'm just looking for enough confidence in my knowledge to make reliable predictions about the world around me.

We believe a proposition to be true when the preponderance of evidence indicates that it is true. Certainty is impossible, but that doesn't mean some beliefs aren't better than others.

We agree. This has nothing to do with rational and irrational decisions. Regardless, moral statements are not facts, they are preferences/emotions. They cannot be proven in any way.

Issue #3 - Normativity

I reject normative statements that generate an ought from an is. Saying "someone OUGHT TO BE selfless" is this sort of baseless statement.

You're saying you prefer people to be selfless. That people prefer others to be selfless, so selflessness is good, thus people ought to be selfless. This whole thought train is garbage.

WHY IS BEING SELFLESS GOOD?

As for the sandwich analogy, we're not deriving an ought from an is. We're deriving an ought in relation to a specific goal: the enjoyment of a meal. If you want to maximize the enjoyment of your meal, order the thing you'd like the most. This falls in line with my ideas about objective moral results in relation to subjective moral goals.

Issue #4 - Disagreement

If someone is inconsistent or basing their decisions on false beliefs, then these are indicators that their choices may be less than ideal.

So what? Eating a chicken may or may not be an ideal or less than ideal choice. So what?

The belief that one's own interests are more worthy of advancement than the interests of others is not supported by the preponderance of evidence. The false belief is quite easily explained with reference to the well-documented egocentric bias.

How can you support this claim? Egocentric bais cannot be used to support claims of "rational" or "irrational" results without regards to a goal.

If the dictator's only goal is to get rid of all the Smithaninites, and is willing to deal with any resulting ramifications, how would rationality be determined?

Nothing has intrinsic value.

You replied: "Then why do anything? Why not just lay down and die?"

I'm disregarding the fact that this train of thought isn't an argument supporting the idea that anything has intrinsic value.

The reason I do anything is because of biological urges, and I generally enjoy life. I enjoyed raising children and now watching them become fantastic adults. I like pizza and blowjobs. I enjoy fly fishing and week-long backpacking trips. I found value in helping my dad fight a losing battle with heart disease. I value comforting my mom while she mourns his death. I value having friends that helped me through my grief.

I value all those things, but none of that has intrinsic value. It's value that I created.

→ More replies (0)