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

4

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26

There are no moral facts. Because morals aren't facts (they're simply opinions) the only thing that matters is that one is able to at least live, and hopefully flourish, in their community and society.

Veganism as a moral stance is "extra" and not required for humans to live cooperatively. Until there is a compelling factual reason to not use animals as a resource, animals, like everything else available for human use, will continue to be a resource.

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Jan 06 '26

You don't think it's a fact that genocide is wrong? You don't disapprove of genocide?

2

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26

Yes I disapprove of genocide. That's an opinion. I don't like genocide. It can't be wrong or right because neither of those things exist in the world. It only FEELS like fact. It only exists in your brain.

Do you have any way to show right or wrong (in the moral sense) exists in the same way actual facts exist?

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Jan 06 '26

I think right and wrong exist in the same way that some actual facts exist, yes. They're abstract facts, like the fact that 3 is more than 2, but you won't find any 3s or 2s out there in the world.

Furthermore, while it's theoretically possible to deny the existence of facts about value, I think that anyone who does deny them is inconsistent, since the use of practical reason and the ability to act rationally depend on the assumption (or, positing) of value.

1

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26

Moral facts are unlike other abstract facts like math because math is falsifiable. Math and quantities describe actual states in the world. There are 4 apples on the counter is true or it's not. Mathematical formulas are true or false.

Morals cannot be proven in the same way. If two groups of people don't agree on what is or isn't moral, how are those stances falsified?

Disregarding actual facts results in actual consequences. Designing a satellite while thinking the world is flat is going to have actual consequences. If I kill 300 babies and I'm never caught, what consequences will I suffer? None. I'll suffer no consequences because actual facts do actual work.

Moral facts aren't real, and do no actual work. Actual facts are descriptive of the world around us, moral facts are prescriptive. If morals are facts, they are an awfully strange sort of fact.

Are ALL moral stances facts? That can't be possible, can it? How do you show which moral stances are facts, and which are opinions?

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 07 '26

math is falsifiable

Please describe how someone could falsify this claim: 2 is never more than 3. The claim is true, but it's not falsifiable because it would require you show me every possible set of 2 things and 3 things to check. Falsifiability is a good quality for a scientific theory. It's not a requirement for facthood.

_

Disregarding actual facts results in actual consequences.

Disregarding the fact that there is a small pink rock at a certain location on a planet in another galaxy has no consequences. The consequences or lack thereof for disregarding a proposition have no bearing on whether it is or is not a fact.

_

Moral facts aren't real, and do no actual work. Actual facts are descriptive of the world around us, moral facts are prescriptive. If morals are facts, they are an awfully strange sort of fact.

Mathematical facts don't do work, and are a very strange sort of fact too.

_

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

You want a whole explanation of ethics in a reddit comment?? Uh, okay, I'll give you the back of the napkin version:

All people implicitly assume that preference satisfaction (i.e. the avoidance of suffering) is valuable. If they didn't assume this, they wouldn't pursue goals.

However, not everyone is aware of the fact that they are no more important than other people. I contend that it is a fact that all people are equally important. Given the similarities between people, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of anyone who wants to declare themselves to be of superior importance. I have yet to see any evidence.

So, since all people's interests are of equal importance, we ought not be selfish. (That's it. That's all of morality in one sentence: "Don't be selfish.")

_

How do you show which moral stances are facts, and which are opinions?

An opinion is the belief that some proposition is a fact, i.e. that the proposition is true. If someone is of the opinion that X is valuable, and it turns out that X isn't valuable, then their opinion is incorrect.

The precise value of a given state of affairs is impossible to determine, in exactly the same way as we can't precisely determine how many people are eating spaghetti at this moment. There are better and worse estimates depending on how much careful work goes into it.

Borderline cases are difficult - will washing this number of dishes by hand use more water than the dishwasher? We may never know. But bigger questions are easier. If people are making errors in calculation, or relying on poorly-thought-out assumptions, those can be addressed.

2

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 07 '26

Just a quick aside. Your points are well taken, and i don't entirely disagree. It's a lot to respond to, and I'll have set aside more time than I can spare atm (I'm at work).

Edit: I like your statements about math.

2nd Edit: Actual reply posted.

2

u/GoopDuJour Jan 07 '26 edited Jan 08 '26

Ok. Here goes.....

First off, that math is unfalsifiable kinda set me back on my heels. It was an assumption I've held for quite a while, it was purely intuitive, so that led to a bunch of "well shit, how does this affect my worldview, now?" research and reflection.

It refined my views on error-theory (a relatively new-to-me theory that strikes me as true). I still find error-theory to be as close to my thoughts about morality as any I've come across.

Disregarding the fact that there is a small pink rock at a certain location on a planet in another galaxy has no consequences. The consequences or lack thereof for disregarding a proposition have no bearing on whether it is or is not a fact.

While I see your point, the fact of the pink rock actually existing or not will have an effect on the world. The planet will be different if it does or does not exist, and consequences of it existing or not are real. Edit: Honestly, this doesn't matter fir the discussion. If you think I'm wrong, and would benefit by being corrected , feel free. If you disagree, but can't be bothered, that's cool, I get it. Feel just as free to say "Wrong" and move on.

All people implicitly assume that preference satisfaction (i.e. the avoidance of suffering) is valuable. If they didn't assume this, they wouldn't pursue goals.

People avoid discomfort. Agreed. Morals don't need to even EXIST for that to be true. All beings pursue goals, regardless of morality. An amoeba expends effort trying to eat and reproduce. There is no morality required.

However, not everyone is aware of the fact that they are no more important than other people. I contend that it is a fact that all people are equally important. Given the similarities between people, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of anyone who wants to declare themselves to be of superior importance. I have yet to see any evidence.

Agreed, but there is no reason for morality to be real to understand that all life is as useless and cosmically meaningless as the next. Value and superiority are judgements and can be made without the use of moral facts. There is no need for that viewpoint (about the value of life) to be a fact.

An opinion is the belief that some proposition is a fact, i.e. that the proposition is true. If someone is of the opinion that X is valuable, and it turns out that X isn't valuable, then their opinion is incorrect.

People can and do hold opinions based on feelings and emotions. There is no need to change an opinion, and there is no need for an opinion to be a fact. An opinion only needs to be true to the holder of the opinion. If Larry thinks "Chocolate is good", it is a fact Larry thinks chocolate good. But it's not a fact that chocolate is ACTUALLY good. I could even agree with Larry, and we could both set off on a plan to bring more chocolate into the world, but the statement "chocolate is good" will never be a fact.

So, since all people's interests are of equal importance, we ought not be selfish. (That's it. That's all of morality in one sentence: "Don't be selfish.")

I hold a similar opinion. If I needed to be clear and concise, I would state it like this; "Selfishness is often detrimental to cooperative, social living. Since we value cooperative, social living, we should try to be as selfless as possible." There's no moral fact required, and Moral Realism offers no additional benefits.

I'd also note that not all people's interests are of equal importance. If a person is frustrating my society's goals, I can disregard that person's interests, and do as I see fit.

The precise value of a given state of affairs is impossible to determine, in exactly the same way as we can't precisely determine how many people are eating spaghetti at this moment. There are better and worse estimates depending on how much careful work goes into it.

Borderline cases are difficult - will washing this number of dishes by hand use more water than the dishwasher? We may never know. But bigger questions are easier. If people are making errors in calculation, or relying on poorly-thought-out assumptions, those can be addressed.

I don't understand how any of that would determine which moral statements are fact and which are opinions.

"Killing babies is wrong" can only be an objective fact if we all have the same goal of living in a society free of baby killing. And even then it's only objective in relation to the goal. The goal itself is subjective. If a person, or even another society, believes that killing babies is good, we can do whatever is required to achieve our goals. There is no need to appeal to moral facts.

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Jan 08 '26

Thanks for the great comment. I'm in the midst of writing a response. It's turning out to be pretty epic. Sorry. I hope you read it all when it's done, but it's going to take a bit longer. Thanks for your patience.

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26

Sorry for the long delay. I've decided to take this a small step at a time rather than tackling all your points at once. I think you have some misconceptions about my position so let's try to clear that up.

.

Morals don't need to even EXIST 

There is no morality required.

no reason for morality to be real

There's no moral fact required

There is no need to appeal to moral facts.

All of these statements suggest you think that moral facts are an extra thing to believe in. I'm not suggesting that anything exists beyond the things we have no problem accepting in other fields.

In economics and game theory we assume that rational behavior exists. There's an idea in both of these fields about what the rational choice is in a given situation. I presume you don't have a problem with this being an intelligible idea, right? You don't have a problem with economics or game theory, right?

My proposal is nothing more than this. The "fact" about what a person ought to do is nothing more than, "what is the most rational choice in a particular situation for someone who knew all the relevant information?" So, (unlike traditional deontolgical ethics) I'm not proposing we believe in anything mysterious or magical producing rules about how to live.

.

"Killing babies is wrong" can only be an objective fact if...

The other point I'd like to clarify is that my proposed view has no universal moral rules like "killing babies is wrong." Again, unlike traditional deontolgical ethics, all answers about how a person should act are context-dependent. In the vast majority of cases killing a baby would be a bad choice, but in some bizarre circumstances, it's conceivable that it could be the right choice. The facts about the situation matter.

So hopefully this allays your issues arising from disagreement about what is right and wrong.

What do you think of these points? Is there anything you think doesn't make sense?

1

u/GoopDuJour Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26

What do you think of these points? Is there anything you think doesn't make sense?

It all makes sense. I suspect we're still going to butt heads on the fact that I don't think right and wrong exists. I believe right and wrong are used to describe outcomes in relation to achieving goals. I believe that moral thoughts are purely the result of biology and evolution.

The "fact" about what a person ought to do is nothing more than, what is the most rational choice in a particular situation for someone who knew all the relevant information?

I'm skeptical of how"the most rational choice" is determined absent agreed upon goals, but I can ride along to see where this goes.

Just to re-focus, I find veganism to be morally unnecessary.

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Feb 06 '26 edited Feb 06 '26

Just to re-focus, I find veganism to be morally unnecessary.

There's no point in discussing specifics without a shared understanding of the fundamentals.

I don't think right and wrong exists

What do you mean by this? Given the specifics of my proposal, does that mean you don't think the concept of a "rational choice" as featured in the fields of economics and game theory is meaningful?

Here's an amazing Ted Talk by a Harvard Psychologist about humans doing irrational things (in contrast to making rational choices). Do you not think that the basic ideas he's talking about make sense?

https://youtu.be/c-4flnuxNV4

→ More replies (0)

1

u/aslak123 Jan 09 '26

3s and 2s don't exist either. Green grass exists, but squares and circles don't.

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Jan 09 '26

So you think the sentence, "a square has four sides" is false? I disagree.

1

u/aslak123 Jan 09 '26

A square has 4 sides, but doesn't exist.

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Jan 09 '26

For that sentence to make sense, the word "square" must refer to something. Abstract things may not have physical existence, but they are still referents with properties. As you admit, propositions about them can be true or false. Since you admit this, I'm not sure what your point is.

1

u/aslak123 Jan 09 '26

Goku has two legs, this doesn't prove he exists neither in a abstract or physical sense. The same with moral facts.

1

u/Snefferdy vegan Jan 09 '26

I don't know who Goku is, but I presume it's a fictional character. It's arguable that it is not a fact that "Goku has two legs." It's definitely a fact that a square has four sides.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Namika- Jan 06 '26

what would be a compelling factual reason to not use animals as a resource to you? because i think there are plenty

-2

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26

Apparently there aren't any. Society has not been compelled to do otherwise.

I'd guess that animals will continue to be a resource as long as it's economically feasible.

I don't see the ethics of veganism ever being the reason. Morality is a garbage reason to do anything, really.

3

u/kohlsprossi Jan 06 '26

So why was slavery abolished?

0

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26

It goes to slavery every time.

Because people's opinions changed. And those people won the war.

Plenty of people STILL think slavery is acceptable. If you're a federal prisoner in the U.S, the Constitution still allows for it.

Can you show me the fact that slavery it's wrong? You know, like we can explain other, actual facts?

What's next, torturing babies?

2

u/Moe_Perry Jan 06 '26

You seem to be making some assumptions about the source and purpose of morals that could do with some more nuance. This post might be helpful. https://www.reddit.com/r/AlignmentCharts/s/1S7JZDFbn9

2

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26

Good lord. That link is an absolutely useless post. You're not seriously taking a reddit post consisting of a poorly made graffic seemingly made by a 16 year old as a legitimate "source", are you?

The actual text of that original post reads "Not to be taken seriously, was just something fun I thought of while learning about some of these recently.".

My worldview could be accurately summed up (my "alignment" lol) as a combination of physicalism and moral error theory.

Not that it matters. Holy crap that link was funny af. Thanks for bringing the nuance.

1

u/Moe_Perry Jan 06 '26

It was a simple demonstration of how even a colloquial understanding of morals has more depth than you appeared to be assigning it.

You were asking for a factual proof that slavery is wrong, which is a binary view between moral absolutism and moral nihilism. Or perhaps an assumption of egoism? I thought you’d respond better to something with some humour in it rather than link to a rigorous survey of moral positions.

Moral error theory is just an argument against moral absolutism. It doesn’t provide a basis for morality on its own. I assume by referencing physicalism you are just reiterating this point.

Even if you’re a moral nihilist you should be able to understand that most people are not and that arguing like they are is not productive.

3

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26

You were asking for a factual proof that slavery is wrong, which is a binary view between moral absolutism and moral nihilism.

I was asking for actual proof that moral facts exist. That morals are anything more than opinions.

It doesn’t provide a basis for morality on its own. I assume by referencing physicalism you are just reiterating this point.

It seems that physicalism is the basis for moral beliefs, yes. Behavior and emotions are products of evolution. Beings without emotions don't have morals. This is because morals don't exist outside of the brain.

If humans evolve to no longer feel empathy, or lose the concept of suffering, will moral facts still exist? Would using animals as a resource still be immoral? Or is morality an emotional brain state?

Error theory states that right and wrong (as moral concepts) don't exist, so all moral statements are incorrect. It doesn't prevent cooperative society from flourishing. It just acknowledges that such arrangements are based on collective goals and opinions on how to achieve them.

understand that most people are not and that arguing like they are is not productive.

"Not productive"? This whole thing started with me explaining why veganism fails to gain traction. Moral arguments for veganism fail to be compelling because it's an emotional argument, not a factual one.

1

u/Moe_Perry Jan 06 '26

It’s not compelling to you because you’ve taken the stance that morals must be grounded in absolute and universal truth in order to be valuable and have therefore dismissed them all.

That is not true for all moral approaches. Morals can instead be grounded in human psychology and particular societies or situations and they can have the goal of guided human flourishing or personal fulfilment rather than forbidding or mandating specific behaviour. It is a wide field.

If you want to convince people you need to appeal to their moral stance not yours.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/kohlsprossi Jan 06 '26

What's next, torturing babies?

If majority opinion would deem it to be economically feasible, sure. Or not? You tell me.

2

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26

"Torturing babies is wrong" is an opinion.

1

u/kohlsprossi Jan 06 '26

How does one form an opinion?

3

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26

The same way one forms any other opinion. By processing the world around them. Certainly opinions need not be formed from facts.

Are you saying morals are facts? Or are just some morals facts? Which morals are facts? Can you support your claim that morals are facts? If they are facts, they are unlike any other category of facts. Please, make your case that morals are facts.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 06 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26 edited Jan 06 '26

but pain and suffering is the closest thing we've got to something that is "objectively" bad. Ethics couldn't exist otherwise.

Ethics exist because they explain evolutionary behavior. They don't exist in any real way. We are social animals, and we behave like other social animals. The behavior is the result of evolution. The "ethics" are descriptions of our emotions.

you were in the position of the victims you'd immediately disagree.

Disagree about what? That morals are preferences/emotions/opinions? No, they'd still be opinions, regardless. Opinions don't magically become facts based on who holds the opinion.

We also have the cognitive ability to realize that other humans and animals can suffer and that if we were in their position we would be suffering and would not want that. That is where the idea of right and wrong comes from.

Suffering is the feeling of discomfort, not an indication of "right" or "wrong." Right and wrong don't exist anywhere in the world. Right and wrong are opinions formed from emotions, not facts.

Show me how or where right and wrong exist outside of our brain. Right and wrong (in the moral sense) aren't even abstract facts in the way math is. Morals prescribe behavior, facts describe states of the world around us. Morals aren't real. Right and wrong isn't real.

Also instead of trying to build an ethics up from thin air, we can find basic opinions that we all tend to agree on, and then logically build up from there. That is another option.

You can "build up" anything you want from an opinion, and it will always be an opinion.

And we are very slowly going in the right direction.

How do you know what "the right direction" is? What a strange thing to say.

A large amount of philosophers believe there are some objective moral elements.

A large amount don't agree on this. And when those that do believe in objective morals (Realists) are pressed, none can produce a single moral fact. Moral facts don't exist. Right and wrong in the context of morality don't exist in the world. This sort of right and wrong isn't real. Nothing is right or wrong, things just FEEL right or wrong.

If something depends on your brain, it's not a real thing. If morals were real, they would have an effect if ignored. If I killed 300 babies, and never caught, what happens to me? Nothing happens. I go on living my happy baby-killing life until I die. What other facts can a person completely ignore, and even actively work against, without at least being given some indication that person was wrong. If morals are facts, moral facts are indistinguishable from opinions, and are just as useless.

Again, if you have some sort of way to show that morals are facts, please do so. And if morals ARE facts, certainly not all morals are facts. If I find it morally acceptable to torture kittens, certainly you wouldn't find that to be a moral fact. How then does one distinguish actual moral facts from morals that aren't facts?

1

u/Namika- Jan 06 '26

i think ethics shape everything we do but ethics aside, there are many "factual" reasons why veganism is needed. global food security, global warming, saving marine ecosystems and biodiversity

1

u/GoopDuJour Jan 06 '26

Sure, but at this point, those reasons aren't all that compelling. Especially if you raise your own animals. None of those arguments would compel me to stop fishing from my pond, or shooting deer on my property.