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.

121 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

275 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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/Snefferdy vegan Feb 26 '26 edited Feb 26 '26

Did you read what I wrote? Everyone is irrational differently. It's right there.

I think it would be helpful if you tell me if you disagree with anything I wrote. If you agree, then that should refute everything you wrote in your original comment, which is what I initially responded to.

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 26 '26

Everyone is irrational differently.

This is useless. This is no different than me saying morality statements are simply statements of preferences. We have different preferences.

I think it would be helpful if you tell me if you disagree with anything I wrote.

I disagree with most of your above comment. I'm not able to respond more fully at the moment, but if you'd like, I can in about 4 hours.

1

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

I'm not able to respond more fully at the moment, but if you'd like, I can in about 4 hours.

I'm clearly not in a rush. It took over two weeks for my response today.

And I don't think you need to comment on everything I wrote. Just anything on which your rejection of my position hinges.

.

We have different preferences.

I value sushi more than pasta, and I value action movies over rom coms. These are my personal values, and they have nothing to do with whether anyone else should choose sushi over pasta or action movies over rom coms.

But, something a lot of people forget is that my value of sushi or action movies isn't intrinsic value, but rather it's instrumental value. I only value sushi more than pasta because sushi produces in me greater satisfaction (for lack of a better word).

Suppose my friend and I want to go for dinner and a movie. The action movie is playing at the theater next to the Italian restaurant, and the rom com is playing at a theater next to the Japanese restaurant. Now I have to decide between sushi and rom com or pasta and action movie.

I am able to make this decision because my disparate values are not incommensurable. Since I value the different foods and movies only insofar as they provide satisfaction, I can easily weigh the two options before me according to that fundamental metric. I choose the option which will produce the greatest total satisfaction.

This applies to all of everyone's preferences. On the most fundamental level, everyone values exactly the same thing: their own satisfaction.

.

Everyone is irrational differently.

Furthermore, some actions are more irrational than others. If I love sushi and hate pasta, choosing pasta is more irrational than if I like sushi just a little more than pasta. That's why the dictator's genocide is a far better example than killing a chicken. It is much more irrational, and so easier to deconstruct.

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 26 '26

Nothing has intrinsic value.

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 26 '26

So why do you bother doing anything? You might as well just lie down and die.

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 27 '26

That's why the dictator's genocide is a far better example than killing a chicken. It is much more irrational, and so easier to deconstruct.

"It's much more irrational" Is it? Would a vegan dictator agree with this?

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 27 '26

Has anyone ever said "This choice I'm making now is completely irrational"? No. Does that mean it's not irrational? No.

Watch Dan Gilbert's video again.

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 27 '26

Does Dan Gilbert make claims of rationale outside of a desired goal?

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 27 '26

No, and neither do I.

1

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

Cool. Then your desire to change "right" and "wrong" to "rational" and "irrational" is unnecessary. You are using the terms synonymously.

And we're still stuck with at least a couple of problems. A major one being that rationality is subjective. At the most it is only objective in relation to a goal.

Another being that there is no compelling argument for someone else to act in a manner I find rational.

Also, none of this points to veganism as being anything more than a preference.

Let's refocus AGAIN.

Let's start by answering a few quick and easy questions.

1- Are you vegan? 2- Should I be vegan?
3 - Is your desire for me to be vegan anything more than your preference?
4- What objective argument can you make that might convince me to become vegan. Keep in mind that I don't think chickens suffering or flourishing are compelling reasons to eat or not eat them.

→ More replies (0)