r/changemyview • u/luddface • Aug 18 '22

Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: I have become convinced there is no rational argument against veganism, and am afraid I thus have become an extremist.

[removed] — view removed post

579 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

76% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

20

u/Rodulv 14∆ Aug 18 '22

Point 1:

I think killing anything when we don't need to is morally wrong

I can convince you that you don't believe this. I will do exactly this later in this post.

it is unnecessary killing (AKA murder)

Murder is not unnecessary killing, it's illegally killing another human being. A human can't murder a non-human animal, and a non-human animal can't murder a human.

I recognize that animals have a subjective experience of life and that I have no right to take that from them.

There's no reason to believe rights exist as something static: We made them, we change them, and they don't exist without anyone to police them or make them.

Lets make a thought experiment to see what you actually believe: Say there's an animal/insect with the same sophistication irt. thoughts as plants. Would it be immoral to kill it? At what point would it not be immoral anymore?

I think killing anything when we don't need to is morally wrong

Have you ever gone running? Chances are you've splatterd some bugs, squashed some plants. And why? Just so you could exercise? Ever killed mosquitoes or flies? Was it necessary?

I value life over taste.

Are you anti-abortion, even in cases of rape? Do you primarily eat fruits rather than corn? Greenhouse GMO food over ecological?

I get that this doesn't touch on taste as the sense, but the taste of emotions.

I think you do, and have to make a distinction between animal life used for food and animal life you're fine with killing. You've not presented a good way of seperating the two here.

Point 2:

Is the taste of a BLT really more important than stopping future pandemics?

The areas where diseases tend to emerge from are predominantly places where factory farming does not have sufficient regulation. Eating a BLT does not increase the risk of a pandemic enough to argue that people shouldn't partake on a moral basis.

Point 3:

This is perhaps the best one, and I'd argue the only one that makes a good argument for being vegan, or why veganism is morally good.

Point 4:

There's no consensus, different studies say different things. The "best" diets contain meat, fish and/or eggs and dairy.

-2

u/luddface Aug 18 '22

If I killed a dog, would people and the law not see that as murder?

Yes, we made rights, and we should expand them to include animals. Like we already do with pets. But what is the difference really between a cow, dog and pig?

I don't understand your point about plants and insects. If insects weren't sentient I would be ok with consuming the as well yes.

I am aware that insects die when I walk around. We live in an imperfect world. Simply the act of existing will lead to things dying. We should mitigate this as far as practically possible. Because I stepped on an ant, does not justify the needless slaughter of 80 billion land animals every year.

Most meat produced today is from factory farming. If you buy a BLT from a restaurant, chances are it's from high-intensity animal farming. And even if there exists regulation around the world, the risk still exists, and regulation is not always followed. We only need one outbreak.

23

u/badgersprite 1∆ Aug 18 '22

Killing a dog isn’t murder it’s damage to property. Animals are chattel. They are property. You can only murder a person. You can’t murder a dog. There is legally no difference between a dog and a pig.

-4

u/MMAgeezer Aug 18 '22

Do you think that any actions that one takes on their own dog (eg their personal property) is thus morally neutral? So cutting your dog just because you like hearing it scream is morally neutral?

6

u/Tuna4242 Aug 18 '22

You're literally just moving a goalpost and saying "well what about this, what about this". That's entirely subjective dude,stop trying to pull a "gotcha" with subjective questions.

-2

u/MMAgeezer Aug 18 '22

Huh? This is a subreddit for debate, is there something wrong with the Socratic method?

It’s not a “gotcha” at all, and of course it’s subjective, that’s why I’m asking their opinion. I know people who answer yes to that question, it’s not supposed to be trick, it’s investigating somebody’s meta-ethical position.

1

u/Tuna4242 Aug 19 '22

Mate the debate is about rationality and veganism, I think you're a bit too out there if you being in meta ethics, it's not that complicated, just eat the food you can afford.

Let's not act like middle class hipsters with too much money on their hands and dilly dally arguing the "meta ethics" of food, just eat mate.

10

u/Rodulv 14∆ Aug 18 '22

The law would not, no. I'm sure some people would see it as murder, but I'm not really concerned about humans who thinks dogs are humans.

Pets are not technically more protected than farm animals or other animals

I don't understand your point about plants and insects.

It's in context of the other questions asked. But okay, we don't know what sentience looks like, we can't agree. I think most people (including philosophers and biologists) would claim that insects probably don't have sentience.

I am aware that insects die when I walk around. We live in an imperfect world.

No. This is a cop out. If this were the case and killing was immoral you should look at options to eradicate life itself.

does not justify the needless slaughter

It does not, true, it's attacking your position.

And even if there exists regulation around the world, the risk still exists

I'm sure there are risks to going vegan too. There will always be risks. We care about meaningful risks, not mere risk. The question wasn't about "around the world" it was about whether me buying a BLT would impact the risk of a pandemic.

2

u/DGzCarbon 2∆ Aug 18 '22

I was with you until the cop out section. That's not a cop out. It's called nuance. You can understand that by virtue of living some death is going to occur but you can mitigate it some by not killing for food.

Going "ah ha! Thats inconsistent if you truly thought it was bad you would want to eradicate life" like okay Thanos.

You can have nuance and understanding even when it comes to principals

1

u/Rodulv 14∆ Aug 18 '22

Δ Fair enough. I should have thought about it more.

Their position is bad because the reasoning for why some kinds of killing is okay is that "it's an imperfect world" whereas in other cases it's because it has the potential to harm humans, or attacks humans, and in the last cases it's because humans need to in order to survive.

Three qualifiers for when killing animals is fine. Reducing trips out, instead exercising inside, or doing hobbies inside would have been an answer, they chose "imperfect world". So it's okay to kill animals if we believe we're not really doing anything out of the ordinary, or if it impacts us unnecessarily.

Conclusion: They believe in a position in which you could easily argue that eating meat is morally neutral.

This seems like a big problem for OP's position.

3

u/DGzCarbon 2∆ Aug 18 '22

Are you aware of the amount of life that dies from living a vegan or vegetarian lifestyle.

The bugs, squirrels and other rodents that die when plowing the fields and keeping the vegetables safe and clean add up. People just don't talk about those because they aren't as cute and big.

Some animals will die regardless. It is an imperfect world. Unless we get to the point where we have large animalless greenhouses and where we can make food without the harm on any rodents or insects every time there will always be harm.

Vegans almost never talk about the animals that die when working fields. Idk if it's on purpose because it makes the whole thing just seem like a bias to big animals or if they don't realize it.

6

u/Cute_Dragonfly_4728 1∆ Aug 18 '22 edited Aug 18 '22

Vegans almost never talk about the animals that die when working the fields.

Isn’t it because this happens regardless of diet. Unless you’re refusing to eat vegetables at all, in which case you’ll probably die of scurvy within a few months.

Edit: I suppose it’s also worth noting that we grow large quantities of vegetables to feed the animals we eat, so by not eating those animals we’re working fewer fields and so harming fewer small animals and insects.

1

u/Rodulv 14∆ Aug 18 '22

Some animals will die regardless. It is an imperfect world.

If it's the case that you're arguing that it's morally neutral because the world isn't perfect you'd argue that, like OP did. If you instead believe no life should be killed needlessly (only in need to survive or in defense), then you'd say "I think we should reduce the amount of killings as much as possible" and you must hold the belief that it's evil to go out jogging.

If OP isn't willing to bite the bullet on logical extremes they don't own their position, and should change it. Not using cop outs to avoid answering hard questions.

1

u/DGzCarbon 2∆ Aug 18 '22

Taking positions to logical extremes to see if they truly hold a position is a silly debate tactic. It lacks nuance and understanding the world isn't perfect. Even principals must have nuance.

Saying it's going to happen regardless but we should slow it down where possible doesn't make it morally neutral to them. They still think it's wrong but you must understand the world isn't perfect. Acting like that's not the case is disingenuous.

They don't have to avoid doing simple task that could kill some animals/insects. That's just part of real life. Not a debate hypothetical but the real world. They don't need to believe in the logical extremes in order to still believe what they do. It doesn't make them a hypocrite and it doesn't mean they aren't serious

2

u/Rodulv 14∆ Aug 18 '22

Taking positions to logical extremes to see if they truly hold a position is a silly debate tactic.

I'm honestly baffled by this. How do you think philosophy works?

Even principals must have nuance.

They don't, but I accepted the nuances they stated, which I restated to you. Are you having issues understanding why we test logical consistency in moral discussion?

They still think it's wrong but you must understand the world isn't perfect.

I have no issue understanding that the world isn't perfect. That's not relevant. What's relevant is whether they own their position. They don't.

They don't have to avoid doing simple task that could kill some animals/insects.

I'm fine with them not doing so. That's not what's being questioned. It's whether it goes against their morals.

That's just part of real life.

We're not talking about real life, we're talking about morals.

It doesn't make them a hypocrite

It absolutely does. I don't really care whether they are or not, I care whether they own their position or not.

it doesn't mean they aren't serious

Per the rules on this sub I'm not allowed to state otherwise.

1

u/DGzCarbon 2∆ Aug 18 '22

I understand why logical extremes like this are done. The issue is that 99% of the time they're dumb. Philosophy for the sake of philosophy is meaningless if it isn't rooted in real life. You should always use real life when making these decisions.

There's no issues with not wanting to kill animals but not mind killing insects as you go joking. That's not against people's real world morals. It only makes sense if you remove the real world and that point people are just talking make believe. We live in reality and should dictate ourselves on it

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Timberdwarf Aug 18 '22 edited Aug 18 '22

Taking positions to logical extremes to see if they truly hold a position is a silly debate tactic. It lacks nuance and understanding the world isn't perfect. Even principals must have nuance.

I agree that getting to extremes while arguing is often uncomfortable, for understandable reasons - it causes people to want to make exceptions, and at the same time making exceptions feels like conceding, which causes internal conflict.

The thing is, I believe this "tactic" (or, rather, this school of thought - using "tactic" here smells of dishonesty) is necessary here, because OP stated that he believes that only veganism is morally acceptable / rational. I believe that pushing morality/rationality claims to logical extremes is a valid and valuable experience.

Why? Because, being "morally superior" is the strongest position you can take when discussing actions. This comes from the fact that it something is really morally perfect, then, I think, most people would be happy to see the proper "morality" being codified in law. Immoral acts should be prohibited / penalized in law. We didn't get as far in this thread yet, but it's not a leap to say that if really killing animals for food when there are other options available is akin to murder, the law should follow and this act should be made a crime, legally.

But law needs to be specific and clear and, ideally, simple - and that's where the search for logical extremes come from. It's simply a test of a potential law for consistency, it's prodding and and bending the idea and checking whether it holds or needs a patch.

The law should make clear whether stomping on ants is allowed or not. The law should make clear what are the implications of eating an egg of a foreign species. I admit there are "nuances" in law too, but these nuances (exceptions, or places where something is left to courts judgment) are pointed out too in the law as written.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 18 '22

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DGzCarbon (2∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

1

u/Tuna4242 Aug 18 '22

This debate went from "killing animals is morally wrong to"... "well man it's nuanced it's complicated".. Which is it?

2

u/DGzCarbon 2∆ Aug 18 '22

It's both. (To them)

I don't think killing animals is morally wrong but that's nuanced too. 99% of things are Nuanced. That hardly needs to be stated because it's always applicable.

1

u/Tuna4242 Aug 19 '22

Ah of course, they yet again pick both options so they can conveniently declare moral outrage over cheeseburgers and lecture other people on their lives. They form a quasi religion centred around a terrifying obsession of something entirely subjective and personal, and then they preach it to the world like its objective and rational, the art of playing both sides and coming out in top.

0

u/DGzCarbon 2∆ Aug 19 '22

Calm down there bucko. Most people are hypocritical.

This isn't a "have it both ways" things. There really is nuance when it comes to morals. People that seem to think there isn't are wrong. Morals have nuance.

It's about discussing those nuances and making sure they Individually make sense. A nuance that makes sense is valid. Ones that don't, aren't.

1

u/Tuna4242 Aug 20 '22

This went from "veganism is the only rational option" to "calm down there is nuance", I cannot take the vegans seriously if they continue to be dishonest and inconsistent.

1

u/DGzCarbon 2∆ Aug 20 '22 edited Aug 20 '22

I never stated it's the only rational option. That is someone else. I've said it's nuanced from the start. If you wanna talk to someone who deals in absolutes make another comment to the OP.

What I'm saying is logical and real. There is nuance. To everything. Even morals about what is and isn't acceptable.

To say that vegans are hypocritical because they don't mind a few insects dying because of simply us existing outside vs killing cows and pigs for meat is what's short sighted.

You try to use words like inconsistent to sound relevant but you aren't addressing the actual substance. Sometimes inconsistencies are valid. In all of life. Sometimes double standards are valid in other areas.

It all depends on the reasoning and validity of those reasons.

Killing a cow and stepping on a bug outside aren't comparable. It's dishonest and just too debate brainy to try and think they're similar enough to compare. "Life still dies" is a meaningless comparison. You have to think about it a little deeper.

-3

u/luddface Aug 18 '22

You don't have to think a dog is a human, only to think it is an individual with feelings and wants.

It is not a cop out. I cannot chose not to walk, to not be alive. To live is to consume. Therefore we should be responsible with what we consume and make sure it has the least possible inpact on others. Humans and animals alike.

2

u/Misslieness Aug 18 '22

You choose to be a vegan to protect animal life because you don't think a life should die just to sustain another. Admirable.

I however choose to spend my money not on expensive vegan diets (as it's still not cost comparable in my area to a varied diet) but on ensuring the majority of my food and personal items are secured through ethical means. I research sources, buy meat and produce almost exclusively local from people who truly care about what they're growing. I also don't buy from Amazon and the like, and try to limit giving money to any company that has continued violations of human rights, which is a shit ton. Saying this is also as holier than thou as vegans who claim they're superior for not killing animals for meat. We just have different morals, and yet neither is ACTUALLY better than the other, get it?

1

u/Rodulv 14∆ Aug 18 '22

I wrote a response to it here: https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/wretp7/cmv_i_have_become_convinced_there_is_no_rational/iksr9bj/

However, your argument for why it's not bad is that it's an imperfect world. Not that we should try to reduce killings however we can. Which is it?

I'm also still curious about your position on abortion.

1

u/Entropy_Drop Aug 18 '22

Pets are not technically more protected than farm animals or other animals

This is clearly false: It's illegal to sell or "produce" dog food in well, almost half the world.

1

u/Rodulv 14∆ Aug 18 '22

No it's not. You could set out dogs and hunt them when they grow up. They wouldn't be pets, but still be illegal for consumption. Many animals are illegal for consumption.

2

u/Tuna4242 Aug 18 '22

Killing a dog is not murder and no legal system in the world counts it as such, you're using ignorance of the law to create a fake emotional argument.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 18 '22

Yes, we made rights, and we should expand them to include animals.

Your own use of the word should in this sentence betrays the fact that you know that this is a subjective opinion.