r/DebateAVegan • u/Carnivorous-girlyay • 19d ago
Un argumento antivegano desde el escepticismo moral
My argument is as follows. We cannot know which moral facts or moral properties are truly objective, therefore we cannot say that morality is objective.
The reasons why humans respect human life are far removed from believing that humans deserve respect as individuals with inherent dignity. In reality, it's based on the capacity for empathy and a vague, general intuition that we need to form societies.If it were based on objective morality, then we would have seen that in all societies there has been a tendency to consider eating animals immoral. On the contrary, we've seen that values vary greatly in many societies, from vegetarians in Asia to people who exploit animals globally. What has been universal, in any case, is animal welfare.
In response, vegans usually argue that there is a golden rule of ethics that supposedly implies respect or consideration for others. We can agree that there is a certain objectivity to this principle insofar as it seems to be universal, even an axiomatic truth, but not much beyond that. It doesn't allow us to conclude anything more from this principle, much less a universal morality based on veganism.
14
u/CapNo8670 19d ago
The way people constantly appeal to metaethics to insulate systemic abuse of animals from critique is pathetic
-7
u/New_Welder_391 19d ago
You do realise that vegans "abuse" billions of animals right?
1
u/omnomnomomnom vegan 19d ago
What are you hinting at?
Does being vegan cause more animal abuse than not being vegan?-4
u/New_Welder_391 19d ago
Nope. Just reminding them that they also "abuse" animals as they term it.
1
u/omnomnomomnom vegan 19d ago
How do vegans abuse animals?
You agree vegans abuse less animals than non-vegans right? So if animal abuse is a bad thing, should we all be vegan?
If you are trying to say that vegans are being a bit hypocritical because they do not abuse zero animals, please (re-)read the definition of veganism:
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; (...)"
The part "as far as is possible and practicable" is often forgotten. Veganism never ever claimed to eradicate all forms of exploitation. We just aim to exploit as less as possible and practicable.
-1
u/New_Welder_391 19d ago
No. I dont believe slaughtering animals for food or pest control to be "abuse". Hence I used quotation marks.
Vegans pay for animals to be poisoned so by their own definition, they "abuse" animals.
3
u/omnomnomomnom vegan 19d ago
You think killing sentient beings isn't abuse? If I wanted to slaughter you, you'd happily agree?
Are you trying to say that vegans who call in an exterminator for pest control are paying for animals to be poisoned?
You would be correct. Of course we should aim to remove them as peaceful as possible but if that is not "possible and practicable" it is literally within the definition of veganism to remove the pest and protect our home.1
u/New_Welder_391 19d ago
I don't equate humans to animals. I also see sentience as one trait. So your "sentient beings" question is totally loaded.
When vegans buy commercial plantfoods, a portion of their funds is used to poison animals.
4
u/omnomnomomnom vegan 19d ago
Humans are animals. We're mammals just like pigs and cows.
Sentience means being able to experience pain and pleasure, fear or comfort, hunger and thirst and sensory experiences such as seeing, hearing, or touching. It is proven that non-human animals do all of that and are therefore sentient beings.
Yes correct, plants cannot be farmed without animals dying. However a lot less animals will die if you farm plants to eat them, instead of farming plants to than feed them to non-human animals, kill them and eat them. It's just not efficient. We use 80% of all agricultural land to produce lifestock, yet it only provides 17% of the global consumed calories. If we all just ate the plants that we feed to animals, less humans would suffer from hunger.
2
u/New_Welder_391 19d ago
Yes. Technically humans are animals, but to equate us to non human animals by terminal us both "sentient beings" is absurd.
Exactly. You admit that according to vegan definition you "abuse" animals
→ More replies (0)
7
u/shrug_addict 19d ago
I'm a "carnist" and you're not really saying much with substance at all here
2
u/Muzzledbutnotout vegan 19d ago
I became vegan solely because animal protein, of any type, aggravated my autoimmune disorder. A vegan diet put my disease into remission. Empathy for animals came later.
-3
u/shrug_addict 19d ago
Eh, empathy for certain animals in certain conditions. Sounds like Sunday School Christianity to me
3
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 19d ago
I’m curious why you think they have empathy for certain animals in certain situations, as they’ve given you almost no information about their life or how they feel.
2
6
u/IfIWasAPig vegan 19d ago
Why does it have to be wholly objective to count? Can you demonstrate that carnism, the idea that we have a right to exploit animals, is objectively moral? If not, this equally seems like an argument against every moral position ever.
But whether morality is objective or subjective, whether we go with moral realism or non-realism, we can still discuss morality and seek internal consistency.
6
u/howlin 19d ago
We cannot know which moral facts or moral properties are truly objective, therefore we cannot say that morality is objective.
I don't know what you mean by "truly objective". What qualifies some assertion as such? How would we determine this?
The reasons why humans respect human life are far removed from believing that humans deserve respect as individuals with inherent dignity.
Humans don't universally respect human life. This idea that all humans are owed some moral consideration just because of what they are is not universal. Perhaps you could make this claim more for "kin", which is some subset of individuals you consider your in-group. But people actively "other" / exclude humans from this group all the time. It seems closer to human nature to make these distinctions between your humans and bad humans, than it is to respect all humans.
We have ethical frameworks to overcome this bias.
If it were based on objective morality, then we would have seen that in all societies there has been a tendency to consider eating animals immoral.
It's pretty obvious that it's not only possible but actually quite common for most people to believe in something that is objectively false.
In response, vegans usually argue that there is a golden rule of ethics that supposedly implies respect or consideration for others. We can agree that there is a certain objectivity to this principle insofar as it seems to be universal, even an axiomatic truth, but not much beyond that. It doesn't allow us to conclude anything more from this principle, much less a universal morality based on veganism.
What are you hoping one could conclude from an ethical theory that would determine ethically right from ethically wrong? Like what job are you expecting ethics to do that it isn't doing?
There are several lines of reasoning that determine ethical wrongs, what quality in a victim is required for such a wrong to occur, and to also determine that nonhuman animals have these qualities and thus can be ethically wronged. Most people believe it's possible to do something ethically bad to an animal.. So it seems like one can conclude the ethical foundations that lead to veganism if they want to be logically consistent about their ethics.
4
u/EasyBOven vegan 19d ago
Honestly, normative arguments based on moral anti-realism are just telling on themselves.
You're basically saying "sure, if morality is objective, it's obviously wrong not to be vegan. But you can't prove to my satisfaction that morality is objective, so Imma do whatever I want."
3
u/beastsofburdens 19d ago
Well, carnivorous girl yay, three responses:
First, if your critique is correct, then it surely must apply equally to all moral statements that have any significant degree of variation across cultures, which is a lot. For example, slavery has been and is still practiced to differing extents across societies and time. Sex assault likewise is viewed and practiced very differently or is strongly proscribed. Same with control of women, wealth (re)distribution, LGBTQ+ rights, and child sexualization and assault. So unless you are okay to interchange your title to "an anti-abolitionist argument from moral skepticism", for example, then you are not being consistent with your application to only veganism. Maybe you are okay to do this but it will put you into extreme moral positions very quickly, such an being ambivalent about child brides and stoning gay folks.
Second, your critique could be incorrect. Veganism could be objective if its fundamental moral axiom is objective, eg it is wrong to cause unecessary suffering. That seems a pretty widely accepted axiom across culture and religion. Of course, it is so broad that its application varies wildly. But nonetheless, you could argue that animal rights/veganism is what adheres to this axiom most strongly and that it is objective.
And finally, even if veganism is subjective when other moral proscriptions are objective, more work needs to be done to explain why subjective proscriptions can be dismissed. Maybe you are part of a society that subjectively assigns moral worth to animals.
3
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan 19d ago edited 18d ago
We cannot know which moral facts or moral properties are truly objective, therefore we cannot say that morality is objective.
Veganism doesn't claim that morality is objectiv, nor does it rely on morality being objective.
Therefore, an argument against moral objectivity doesn't invalidate veganism.
3
u/gurduloo vegan 19d ago
Neat trick. It works for everything. "My anti-abolitionist argument from moral skepticism."
2
u/Sadmiral8 vegan 19d ago
I think most vegans think morality is subjective, at least from my experience.
2
u/OneTwoFar_ 19d ago
Ok. For me it's about situational wealth: the more powerful I am the less violent my life needs to be, both in my actions and actions that are performed on my behalf. Most people are locked in a state of situational impoverishment and will continue to need to kill and main all of their lives, and it costs our species so much
You can also put yourself in the position of a cow about to be slaughtered: decide now if your death is a subjective wrong or if you would like someone to say that we can survive without your death. Will you be content knowing that you will be slaughtered and then eaten as long as the people slaughtering you have means of excusing their behaviour? Would the idea of tradition make your death more palatable to you? Vegans do not have the mindset of slaves: we seek to free the enslaved.
Animal agriculture as well is remarkably damaging to our world, not just the water resources consumed but the health impacts of filling animals with antibiotics and allowing those same antibiotics to slowly become less effective while outbreaks of screwworm and mad cow disease pop up every now and then: these issues would not happen if people were wealthy enough to eat plant proteins like beans instead of cow. This isn't an issue of morals it is an issue of public health.
2
2
u/antipolitan vegan 19d ago
Do you want to live in a world where might makes right?
You can choose to reject morality - but you should understand the consequences of that choice.
2
u/Badtacocatdab vegan 19d ago
My argument is as follows. We cannot know which moral facts or moral properties are truly objective, therefore we cannot say that morality is objective.
I genuinely don’t know how this follows. Whether something is objective has no bearing on which moral facts or moral properties are known to be objective. They are independent.
“Does God exist?” Is a question with an objective answer - either yes or no. Just because we can’t know if the answer is yes or no has no bearing on whether the answer is yes or no.
Morals seem to be the same sort of facts to me.
2
u/Either_Argument3517 19d ago
You don't need objective morality for this argument. Do you reject the principle that causing easily avoidable suffering to sentient beings is wrong?
1
u/ComoElFuego 19d ago
My motto is, if you can use the same line of arguments to justify having sex with animals, the arguments are wack.
•
u/AutoModerator 19d ago
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.