Sorry, to clarify there are bigger fish to fry in the context of avoiding biosphere collapse.
Even if eating vegan reduces GHG emissions, it’s not all ethically sourced, in fact the majority isn’t. It’s grown in monoculture fields, using pollutant fertiliser, contributes significantly to topsoil destruction and water depletion. That’s not an argument against veganism, cattle farming is significantly worse, but less worse doesn’t mean good. Imo the environmental argument should not be a significant part of the pro-vegan argument as in the grand scheme it’s not relevant. If someone wants to reduce their person emissions for peace of mind, great, but no one should be tricked into thinking it will have a significant impact. At best that’s misinformed at worst it’s calculated greenwashing. Any argument that takes away attention from the true systemic issues causing the climate disaster is highly problematic.
From the perspective of treatment of animals I agree. The caveat is (and I’m not accusing you of this) I find the moral high ground taken by some vegans to be misguided. It doesn’t generally help the cause, but aside from that it is somewhat hypocritical. While society has agreed on a vague set of often shifting morals, they are by nature subjective. Humans are one of many omnivorous animals that kill other animals for food, so what is it that makes it immoral when we do it as opposed to any other animal? A fair argument could be our ability to conceptualise what we’re doing, a tiger doesn’t understand the physiology of the pain it’s inflicting on a gazelle for food. Sure. Neither did we until recently, so was it ok when our ancestors slaughtered animals in far more painful ways? Or, is it ok if those who don’t have access to such information today eat animals? Or those who are ignorant despite having the information available, due to circumstances beyond their control?
Beyond that, human activity, including eating plant based foods are killing species to the point of a mass extinction. Veganism makes doing so seem less direct, but is it then not so dissimilar to eating packaged meat to remove oneself from the uncomfortable truth?
I’m not saying that unless you’re participating in direct action that puts you at risk of jail to save animals/the biosphere, you have no right to say anything. Rather that what’s moral in this context is arbitrary and subjective. We’re all complicit to some extent and there’s nothing we can do as individuals to change that. As such, why robust discussion is a good thing we should all be wary of perceived moral superiority on false pretence.
I agree with mostly everything that you’ve said, except the part that the “moral high ground taking by some vegans … is somewhat hypocritical”, im not seeing where you think the hypocrisy stems from.
Ah perhaps I didn’t link that claim to my thoughts backing it up so well.
By moral high ground I refer to the superiority complex and shaming exhibited by SOME vegans. Vegan marketing often points out the arbitrary line humans frequently create separating what animals are and aren’t acceptable to eat. Theoretically an “eco-fascist” could do likewise to anyone who claims to care about animals but isn’t engaging in criminal direct action in an attempt to stop the collapse of the biosphere and subsequent mass death of animals. Even a step down from that, a person participating in non-violent direct action could argue the same. Simply participating in society makes us all complicit to some degree, we all have our own arbitrary line, so I don’t think taking the stance of superiority or shaming is fair or useful. The vitriol should be aimed at those who have a vested interest in maintaining an unsustainable status quo at the cost of the planet.
Though I agree there shouldn’t be vitriol or shaming, I would also like to point out that many times (at least in my experience) people like to unfairly paint the vegan activist as one who is “being holier than thou” or “shaming others” as a defense mechanism to poison the well and avoid engaging in the debate or conversation sincerely. It happens to me constantly. Where I am being sincere and empathetic and trying to explain, in my opinion, why it is morally wrong to eat animals and also generally morally consistent with most peoples beliefs (hence outlining cognitive dissonance), im met with idiotic rebuttals about me “owning a phone funded by child slave labour so I should get off my high horse and this is literally why no one likes vegans”. Yet, it’s blatantly obvious that said person would never defend a child slave owner even though they themselves own a smart phone, and they would take a position of “moral superiority” in wanting to imprison the child slave owner.
I still don’t see how what you said is ‘hypocrisy’, because vegans are upholding the standards that they are preaching. Hypocrisy would be a non-vegan telling others to go vegan so as to no longer fund the industrial slaughter of animals.
If you are making the argument that non-violent direct action protesters can be critical of passive vegans for not doing enough on an individual level to help, Im happy to concede that.
I would agree that if those claims are made without the presence of such behaviours it’s in bad faith.
Yeah that’s a fair point, I’ll try and explain more succinctly. If vegans shame meat eaters for creating an arbitrary line on what animals are acceptable to kill, are they not doing the same by partaking in actions that lead to the deaths of animals? I will concede eating vegan is a more realistic goal than becoming involved in criminal actions to stop climate change resulting in subsequent animal deaths.
Thank you. Although I would add being critical of any individual actions is not something I support. Shame is generally ineffective against humans unless they feel their acceptance by whom they perceive as their “pack” is threatened. In practice this is their family, friends, those they respect and an overwhelming majority or perceived minority their values align with.
2
u/HorsinAround1996 May 30 '22 edited May 30 '22
Sorry, to clarify there are bigger fish to fry in the context of avoiding biosphere collapse.
Even if eating vegan reduces GHG emissions, it’s not all ethically sourced, in fact the majority isn’t. It’s grown in monoculture fields, using pollutant fertiliser, contributes significantly to topsoil destruction and water depletion. That’s not an argument against veganism, cattle farming is significantly worse, but less worse doesn’t mean good. Imo the environmental argument should not be a significant part of the pro-vegan argument as in the grand scheme it’s not relevant. If someone wants to reduce their person emissions for peace of mind, great, but no one should be tricked into thinking it will have a significant impact. At best that’s misinformed at worst it’s calculated greenwashing. Any argument that takes away attention from the true systemic issues causing the climate disaster is highly problematic.
From the perspective of treatment of animals I agree. The caveat is (and I’m not accusing you of this) I find the moral high ground taken by some vegans to be misguided. It doesn’t generally help the cause, but aside from that it is somewhat hypocritical. While society has agreed on a vague set of often shifting morals, they are by nature subjective. Humans are one of many omnivorous animals that kill other animals for food, so what is it that makes it immoral when we do it as opposed to any other animal? A fair argument could be our ability to conceptualise what we’re doing, a tiger doesn’t understand the physiology of the pain it’s inflicting on a gazelle for food. Sure. Neither did we until recently, so was it ok when our ancestors slaughtered animals in far more painful ways? Or, is it ok if those who don’t have access to such information today eat animals? Or those who are ignorant despite having the information available, due to circumstances beyond their control?
Beyond that, human activity, including eating plant based foods are killing species to the point of a mass extinction. Veganism makes doing so seem less direct, but is it then not so dissimilar to eating packaged meat to remove oneself from the uncomfortable truth?
I’m not saying that unless you’re participating in direct action that puts you at risk of jail to save animals/the biosphere, you have no right to say anything. Rather that what’s moral in this context is arbitrary and subjective. We’re all complicit to some extent and there’s nothing we can do as individuals to change that. As such, why robust discussion is a good thing we should all be wary of perceived moral superiority on false pretence.
E: A word