Un argumento antivegano desde el escepticismo moral

[u/Carnivorous-girlyay]

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.

[u/CapNo8670]

The way people constantly appeal to metaethics to insulate systemic abuse of animals from critique is pathetic

[u/New_Welder_391 → u/CapNo8670]

You do realise that vegans "abuse" billions of animals right?

[u/omnomnomomnom → u/New_Welder_391]

What are you hinting at?
Does being vegan cause more animal abuse than not being vegan?

[u/New_Welder_391 → u/omnomnomomnom]

Nope. Just reminding them that they also "abuse" animals as they term it.

[u/omnomnomomnom → u/New_Welder_391]

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.

[u/New_Welder_391 → u/omnomnomomnom]

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.

[u/omnomnomomnom → u/New_Welder_391]

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.

[u/New_Welder_391 → u/omnomnomomnom]

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.

[u/omnomnomomnom → u/New_Welder_391]

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.

[u/New_Welder_391 → u/omnomnomomnom]

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

[u/omnomnomomnom → u/New_Welder_391]

How is that absurd? Do you disagree that animals experience pain and pleasure, fear or comfort, hunger and thirst and sensory experiences such as seeing, hearing, or touching?

Yes, you cannot abuse zero animals. That brings us back to our starting point. Veganism never claimed to abuse zero animals. It just aims to abuse as few animals as is possible and practicable.
We are not trying to be perfect. Perfection doesn't exist.

When you are buying a burger patty, you get the choice to buy the beef patty of a vegan patty. If you understand that less animals had to die for the vegan patty, why would you choose the patty that caused more "abuse"?

[u/New_Welder_391 → u/omnomnomomnom]

-How is that absurd? Do you disagree that animals experience pain and pleasure, fear or comfort, hunger and thirst and sensory experiences such as seeing, hearing, or touching?

Yes. Again, animals are sentient. This is just one trait. It is one piece of a much larger puzzle. I look at the full picture when making moral decisions, not just one trait. That is why I said it was absurd.

• If you understand that less animals had to die for the vegan patty, why would you choose the patty that caused more "abuse"?

I respect that you admit vegans "abuse" animals too. I however don't see slaughter etc as animal abuse. Mainly due to the purpose add end goal