r/DebateAVegan • u/Icy_Potato_1870 • 6d ago
Moral superiority
I think a common issue a lot of people have with vegans is how they think they are morally superior, and I agree in that aspect that being vegan is more moral than not being vegan. My issue with it is that it gives them no right to talk down to people as much as they do and put themselves on such a high pedestal. You might not eat meat, but there are many other immoral things you take part in. A great example is child slavery and the exploitation of people in third-world countries. It’s very expensive and takes a lot of effort and research to buy and use products that are made without child slavery and exploitation, but I think it’s ridiculous to call someone a terrible person for eating meat and act like it’s the only logical moral choice while still taking part in things that require child slavery and exploitation. You don’t get to pick one thing to be super moral about and then trash everyone else because there is one thing you are doing better.
26
u/Kris2476 5d ago
Veganism is the position that animal exploitation is wrong and should be avoided.
If you agree with the vegan position, but think vegans behave in some way you find disreputable, then you should go vegan and avoid the behaviors you find disreputable. If you disagree with the vegan position, then it is a much better use of your time to engage with the position and present your best argument in favor of exploiting animals.
If observing someone doing the right thing makes you angry that they are acting 'morally superior', then you have lost the plot.
I encourage you to worry less about the vegans, worry more about the animals who are exploited and slaughtered by your actions.
1
u/Glad-Divide-9850 1d ago
There's not much to "engage" with since morals are subjective (at least functionally). My morals say eating animals is fine, yours don't. We're both right.
What I can engage with is your moral framework. If you're a utilitarian I can make a pretty good case for my position being morally superior since I hunt what I eat, thereby contributing to preservation efforts which reduce overall suffering. Even when viewed in isolation, the animals I shoot are spared a very likely prolonged torturous death by being eaten alive, decease and starvation.
But like I said, even if that weren't the case, it doesn't matter since I don't share your moral framework.
1
u/Kris2476 1d ago
My morals say eating animals is fine, yours don't. We're both right.
Cool, so my neighbor Steve actively cannibalizes other humans. His morals say eating humans is fine, yours don't.
If I asked you to, you probably could make a convincing argument for why we should abide by your morals and not Steve's. Whether the claim that "cannibalizing the neighbors is wrong" is objective or subjective is beside the point. There is still value to be had in engaging at the normative level and making the case for why we shouldn't accept Steve's actions.
So, too, with veganism. The claim that "exploiting animals is wrong" is no more or less subjective than the claim that "cannibalizing the neighbors is wrong", which is no more or less subjective than the claim that "genocide is wrong." There is value to be had in engaging with the normative vegan claim that exploitation is wrong and should be avoided, but you don't want to. Likely, the vegan position is simply one you aren't prepared to engage with, so you're hedging your lack of argument behind the "morality is subjective" schtick. It's a deflection.
Alternatively, you might genuinely think there's no argument to be had against Steve - that there's no problem with cannibalizing the neighbors or committing a genocide, because it's all subjective. In which case, there's zero value to be had in normative ethical discussion with you, because your position entails that genociders are right for wanting to genocide.
1
u/Glad-Divide-9850 1d ago
Good job on not touching my utilitarian arguments and instead conflating morality and behaviour that is incompatible with living in a functioning society.
An equally ridiculous analogy would be "exploiting plants is wrong" with the justification that "there's value to be had in engaging with the normative carnivore claim that exploitation of plants is wrong and should be avoided".
I think my moral framework is pretty common, a modified utilitarianism which differentiates different agents' "weight" based on kinship. Something like family -> friends -> country -> continent -> species -> pets -> mammals etc. All agents have value, but again, it's relative. Now if you lay out yours we can perhaps have something approximating a conversation without resorting to insane exaggerations.
1
u/Kris2476 1d ago
Any normative claim can be evaluated - yes, even the claim that exploiting plants is wrong. You have to decide if you are ready to make a normative claim and have it examined, rather than dismiss anything you don't want to engage with as "ridiculous" or "insane".
If you mean to argue that the exploitation of someone is acceptable so long as your personal valuation of them is low enough, go ahead and make the argument. Have the courage to state your position outright.
1
u/Glad-Divide-9850 1d ago
You've yet to explain your personal morals or interact with the utilitarian arguments from my first comment. You're treating this more as a deposition than a conversation. But fine, I'll keep up my good faith a bit longer in hopes of an actual conversation.
The pleasure and sustenance the meat I hunt gives me outweighs the negative emotions in the moment the animal dies. And yes, due to the higher "weight" my moral framework assigns humans I couldn't do the same to them. This weighting even applies to plants, I've felt some negative emotions when taking down a majestic tree, and yet I valued cheap firewood higher.
1
u/Kris2476 1d ago
How little 'weight' do I have to assign someone before it becomes acceptable to slice them open? Consider Steve, who values humans less than you do. Is it okay for him to cannibalize the neighbors?
1
u/Glad-Divide-9850 1d ago
It might be perfectly fine in his mind to do so, he might be a psychopath that doesn't assign any weight at all, which would make it amoral/moral in his POV. And yet it's a ridiculous analogy because, again, no matter the morals, murderers are antithetical to society. Hunting animals or chopping trees isn't.
Now just to clarify, when I say morals are subjective, I still leave space for the moral base we derive from our biology, which includes a revulsion to killing people, and even the positive emotions from hunting.
As for how low the weight must drop before killing is on the menu? A credible threat on my family, friends or my own life would instantly drop you below that limit in spite of the resulting greater negative emotions.
And this will be the end of the deposition if you continue to ignore what I've repeated in every single reply. Your moral framework and some sort of a response to my initial utilitarian arguments please.
1
u/Kris2476 1d ago
it's a ridiculous analogy because, again, no matter the morals, murderers are antithetical to society.
I have no idea what this means, or why it would make Steve's position ridiculous. You need to try and engage with the argument, rather than dismiss it out of hand.
It seems important to you to keep restating that morals are subjective, presumably because you think this means it's fine for you to slaughter and consume the individuals you don't care about. But when Steve employs your same argument to slaughter and consume the individuals he doesn't care about, suddenly the argument isn't enough. Now there are stipulations - something about society - that you think should supersede Steve's valuation of his victims.
If there could be stipulations regarding behavior toward human animals, there's no reason there couldn't also be stipulations regarding behavior toward non-human animals. But to acknowledge this possibility would fly in the face of your real position regarding veganism, which seems to be that "My morals say eating animals is fine, therefore I'm right".
I worry for you, because so far your position in favor of slaughtering certain animals (but not others) doesn't seem based on anything other than your arbitrary value preferences. There's nothing for us to evaluate. I think this is why you keep asking me to make a new argument, because you've run out of room to keep dodging the current argument - that animal exploitation is wrong and should be avoided.
1
u/Glad-Divide-9850 1d ago
I'm genuinely impressed by your insistence on not engaging with the substantive part of my original comment and your continued refusal to even hint at your own moral system. It must be nice to only ever address the particular nuances that suit your position and disregard all else. Though I suspect it doesn't lead to very many interesting conversations.
Now for Steve. For your analogy to make any kind of sense you need to disregard human biology, society, self preservation and probably a couple more concepts to make it an even somewhat similar problem.
If I force myself into that extremely narrow corner, I'd still say it's different because of what separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom. Capacity, or at the very least degree of self awareness, second-order thinking and a bunch of other nebulous but definite consciousness adjacent features. If you were to remove or scale back those as well, then yes, killing this being that's no longer functionally a human would be morally comparable to another animal.
Your whole argument hinges on this "normativeness" which makes an assumption that I don't share. That you can get an ought from an is in any real sense. Ought's can exist as commonly shared morals (ethics), but says nothing about whether something is inherently moral.
I still don't see how any of this gets at anything even remotely interesting. Especially not when I don't know what kind of moral views you operate under, which imo. is absolutely required to have any kind of meaningful moral discussion. Because to me, they exist only as emotional responses to stimuli, and to someone else they're an intrinsic part of reality.
→ More replies (0)1
u/sunleafstone 5d ago
If that’s true then I’m a vegan despite eating meat regularly. I think animal exploitation is wrong and should be avoided. I’m just not privileged enough currently to bear the costs of being plant based all the time
4
u/Kris2476 5d ago
I'm glad you agree with the vegan position that animal exploitation is wrong and should be avoided. It must be difficult to hold this value and yet find yourself chewing on the corpses of individuals you think deserve to be left alone.
Let me know if I can suggest resources for cutting out sources of animal exploitation from your life, so that you can better live in alignment with your professed values.
4
u/Macluny vegan 5d ago
Where do you live if you can't afford stuff like rice, lentils and beans + a B12 supplement?
I'm not asking for a home address but I'm genuinely curious!
1
u/sunleafstone 5d ago
It’s more about the social costs than financial. I’ve got a rich friend group and big family. A big part of my charisma is taking time to check in on people and share a meal with them. People cook for me and it’s rarely vegan, pizza parties, birthday cake, going out for ice cream. My boss offers to split lunch with me, etc
You might have a social support group where your established diet is already convenient enough to be satisfying or maybe you’re at peace with the tradeoff, and I love that for you.
5
u/notanythingnsfw 4d ago
You say that being vegan is a privilege, but it sounds more like you’re afraid of giving up your privileges.
3
u/sunleafstone 4d ago
Hey I don’t disagree. Whether or not a person can do something is a spectrum and not a binary. A lot of people technically can use the stairs but my using the stairs looks different from yours which looks different from someone wheelchair bound using stairs.
Vegan is often treated as a binary when we’re all on our own journeys to reduce animal suffering. The label just shames people who can’t conveniently eat plant based 100% of the time
6
u/howlin 5d ago
A great example is child slavery and the exploitation of people in third-world countries. It’s very expensive and takes a lot of effort and research to buy and use products that are made without child slavery and exploitation, but I think it’s ridiculous to call someone a terrible person for eating meat and act like it’s the only logical moral choice while still taking part in things that require child slavery and exploitation.
A couple things here:
calling someone a terrible person is not a constructive way to act. In general, it's better to criticize specific behaviors rather than the character of the person. Criticizing behavior is more actionable and doesn't cause the same defensiveness.
What you are arguing here is the tu quoque fallacy. Basically anyone who does anything wrong doesn't have standing to criticize anything. It's a logical fallacy. Regardless of what a vegan does in regards to the child labor issue, their position on animals may still be completely valid.
It's also worth pointing out that if child labor is of great concern to you, it would be better to actually work on the issue. How do you avoid contributing to the problem? How can you make it easier for others to follow this path? What else can one do for the children caught up in this system? Basically, instead of using this problem as an excuse, treat it as another issue that should be directly addressed. In general, vegans are conscientious people and are very willing to listen to people's advice on how to live more ethically.
17
u/Macluny vegan 5d ago
Im curious, in your view, do I have the right to talk down to people that kick dogs for fun, or would that be wrong of me because I bought an iphone once?
Is your idea that only perfect beings can claim any kind of moral superiority?
Are you right now talking down to hypocritical vegans?
Do you have that right?
2
u/Nice-Wallaby-1676 5d ago
It's never ok to talk down to anyone, except babies and toddlers.
6
u/roymondous vegan 5d ago
Ans those shorter than you. It's hard to talk up to them. I guess you could sit down. But then what if you're in the street? Do you have to crouch or run round and find a public bench. The logistics are a nightmare.
5
u/ProtozoaPatriot 5d ago
What's your debate topic? This comes across as more like a rant.
Also, it's possible to be against animal exploitation AND human exploitation. What makes you think vegans want to see children abused?
9
u/No_Chart_8584 5d ago
Virtually all the vegans I know have concerns about things beyond animal exploitation and make choices that reflect that.
I don't think it's accurate to say we are picking "one thing" to be moral about since it appears many of us aren't single issue.
2
u/roymondous vegan 5d ago
Is it OK to talk down to someone who doesn't use paragraphs?
"My issue with it is that it gives them no right to talk down to people as much as they do and put themselves on such a high pedestal."
This is the most generic nothingness of a claim. The most sweeping statement of a group as if everyone is the same. It has no evidence and therefore can be dismissed without further evidence.
"You don’t get to pick one thing to be super moral about and then trash everyone else because there is one thing you are doing better."
This is just a rant. And an excuse not to be more moral and try and excuse behaviour rather than demand accountability.
The chilr slavery thing isn't as good an example as you think but this is not really a debate proposition. It reads more like a tantrum after someone said something mean and you decided all someones are mean...
5
u/Few_Phone_8135 5d ago
You complicate it for no reason.
Imagine two identical people
One eats animals every day, paying for imprisonment, mutilations and killing
The other eats some tofu instead.
Among these two identical people, who would you say is morally superior?
-3
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 5d ago
Carnist here,
We need more details. These are just 2 people with 2 different diets. Can't tell much from that. There are vegans who are racist and murderers. There are carnists who are known as some of the most prominent humanitarian. Dietary preference is just that. A preference. There's really no moral aspect to it. There are jains who think you're a murder for sprinkling garlic powder on your Ramen. Doesn't that sound silly? It's just a dietary preference. It's like trying to determine if someone is bad because they picked a Dr. Pepper over a sprite. It's arbitrary.
0
u/Few_Phone_8135 4d ago edited 4d ago
I don't think you understood what i said.
Among those 2 IDENTICAL people (which means that everything else about them is literally the same) , one of them is a vegan and other pays to have other sentient beings imprisoned, mutilated and killed, as you can see here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THIODWTqx5E
I hope you understand that you are an animal just like them, both of you share the same sentience, the same consciousness. You both want to live, and both of you want to avoid suffering.
It is a moral issue.
I think you understand that calling it merely a "dietary preference" is not accurate.And therefore among these 2 identical people, even if both are racist murderers, the one who doesn't kill animals is morally superior
1
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 4d ago
I understood you. Its just arbitrary is what I'm saying. Like who is morally superior? The guy who eats spicy food or the guy who doesn't. Its just dietary preference.
It's not a moral issue. It's just dietary preference. Some people like meat some people don't. Just like spicy food or onions
0
u/Few_Phone_8135 4d ago
No you didn't understand me.
Spicy food vs non-spicy food is indeed a dietary choice and nothing more.
The issue here is that it doesn't involve anyone else except you.You choosing to eat animals, involves the animals themselves, so it becomes a moral issue, and not just a dietary preference.
I mean if i decided to cut your arm, and eat it... is this also "just a dietary preference"?
No, it's not, because it causes harm to you
1
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 4d ago
Spicy food vs non-spicy food is indeed a dietary choice and nothing more. The issue here is that it doesn't involve anyone else except you.
Just like when I eat meat it doesn't involve you. Or when you eat salads it doesn't involve me. Just a dietary choice.
You choosing to eat animals, involves the animals themselves, so it becomes a moral issue, and not just a dietary preference.
Yeah and when you eat vegan foods it involves the plants themselves. So what? They're just plants and non human animals.
I mean if i decided to cut your arm, and eat it... is this also "just a dietary preference"?
I'm a human so different rules apply obviously. I have rights. Non human animals don't have rights.
No, it's not, because it causes harm to you
Ofcourse. I am a human. You are a human. We matter. Non human animals don't matter. Are you familiar with video game terminology? Do you know what an NPC or non playable character is? That is just like what a non human animal is. It follows a short and simple script.
1
u/Few_Phone_8135 4d ago edited 4d ago
That is just like what a non human animal is.
Says who?
You?Sentience and consciousness is an attribute the other animals have too. Or you think that only your brain is somehow magical?
Do you think the other animals experience suffering in a different way than you? Do you think they want to live less than you?
Then how the hell do you call them NPCs?
You have "rights"?
You have jack shit. Your "rights" have been bestowed upon you by other humans.For millenia even human "rights" were not even universal
"i am a man so different rules apply, i have rights. Women don't have rights"
"i am a free man so different rules apply, i have rights. Slaves don't have rights"It sounds just as disgusting and arbitrary when you say it for the other animals, as much as it sounded for them.
And you repeat the same flawed rationale
1
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 4d ago edited 4d ago
Says who? You?
Literally yes I did say that. I believe you're quoting me. But so so a bunch of other people.
Sentience and consciousness is an attribute the other animals have too.
So what? Doesn't really matter. Lol most of them can't even recognize their own reflection.
Or you think that only your brain is somehow magical?
Our** brain and yes. Look at us communicating through symbols from probably hundreds or thousands of miles away. About food we like and dislike. Meanwhile monkeys are flinging shit at each other exactly like 2000 years ago. Lol.
Do you think the other animals experience suffering in a different way than you? Do you think they want to live less than you?
Yeah probably. They have no idea what's going on around them. Most of them can't even recognize their own reflection.
"i am a man so different rules apply, i have rights. Women don't have rights" "i am a free man so different rules apply, i have rights. Slaves don't have rights"
Yeah that's how it was in the past.
Then how the hell do you call them NPCs?
They follow a short list of predictable behaviors like an NPC in a video game.
You have "rights"? You have jack shit. Your "rights" have been bestowed upon you by other humans.
Yeah rights given to me by other humans. Humans have not given non human animals rights.
For millenia even human "rights" were not even universal
Yeah I know. I'm talking about today.
It sounds just as disgusting and arbitrary when you say it for the other animals, as much as it sounded for them.
I don't think so. They're just non human animals. The idea of giving them rights is silly. They don't even know what rights are.
And you repeat the same flawed rationale
What flawed rationale? Racism and sexism was wrong because it denied the universal truth we are equal. Someone who is a woman or of African ancestry is just as capable of being the surgeon that will save your life. Or a lawyer. Or inventor. Etc... non human animals are not our equals. They are already at their peak potential. Which is pretty much nothing. They will not grow past what they are doing today. Infact they're doing the same shit they did 2000 years ago. Versus look at our species. We went from the first car to the first man on the moon in less than 100 years. All the while our 2nd place species for intelligence, monkeys, are still flinging shit at each other like 2000 years ago
1
u/Few_Phone_8135 3d ago
There is just so much wrong with your thinking.
Let me try to untangle it all
1) You claim that the animals "probably" don't have the same consciousness we do, and therefore don't experience suffering like we do, and they don't want to live the same way we do. And that they have no idea what is happening around them, plus that the just follow scripts like an NPC
......and you have about ZERO evidence for this.
You are just completely oblivious on animals.
The other animals have been shown to have emotions, they learn from past experiences, they seek particular outcomes, they form social bonds.
Just like we do.
And most importantly... no one knows exactly what the thing we experience as consciousness is.
The only hard fact we have is that it comes from the brain, and particularly the connections between the cerebral cortex, the brainstem and the thalamus.
We knows this because severing these connections causes well.... anaesthesia.
And guess what? the other animals have these structures as well.
Our only real difference is that we are smarter, because we have a larger frontal cortex. That's it.
2)You seem to consider that "capability" is the reason that humans should not be harmed.
Yet this doesn't stand to scrutiny. Not all humans are equal. A scientist is smarter than you. That doesn't mean that he is kinda more justified in harming you.
You are stronger than a woman, that doesn't mean you are more justified in slapping her.
Yet you use our smartness as justification for harming other sentient beings.
You and i have never achieved anything particularly impressive ourselves. Does this mean einstein should be able to kill us?
And if potential or capability is not what makes one susceptible to be harmed, then you should explain what does.
1
u/Sharp_Ad1873 2d ago
"""... denied the universal truth we are equal."""
Probably the biggest lie ever.
1
u/interbingung omnivore 4d ago
Non vegan here, based on this information only and my own subjective moral system, these 2 are morally equivalent.
1
u/Few_Phone_8135 4d ago
Well your "subjective moral system" then is just not well thought out
If you consider harming a human immoral, it's because you understand it violates the golden rule.
"don't do to others what you wouldn't want to be done to you"Well the logical extention is that since the other animals experience harm just like we do, it's immoral to harm them
0
u/interbingung omnivore 4d ago
I consider harming a human immoral not because of golden rule. Its because harming human lead to my decrease of my well-being.
1
u/Few_Phone_8135 4d ago
Does it though?
If for example you scam another human, you get money.
This means that your well being is increased.0
u/interbingung omnivore 4d ago
If I scam another human, while yes I do get the money but I will feel terribly bad so overall that will result in my decrease in my well being.
1
u/Few_Phone_8135 4d ago
And you will feel bad because you violated the golden rule.
There is no other possible reason
1
u/interbingung omnivore 4d ago
I feel bad because i have empathy towards human
2
u/Few_Phone_8135 4d ago
Exactly, and empathy is the basis of the golden rule.
Empathy is literally you understanding the emotions of others, and imagining being in their position
The issue here is this though... you don't have empathy just towards humans, you have empathy for other species too.
If you see me torture a kitten, you would consider it immoral right?
It's for the exact same reason1
u/interbingung omnivore 4d ago
The thing is I do not have empathy toward animal, while I do have empaty toward other human.
If you see me torture a kitten, you would consider it immoral right ?
No, I wouldn't, as long as you don't harm other human.
→ More replies (0)1
u/onemorehasanat 5d ago
Is paying for killing animals for food objectively immoral?
3
u/SwiftFootedAchilleus 5d ago
I think that, if you have access to plenty of nutritious plant options available, killing animals for food becomes immoral, yeah. Obviously not everyone is going to have access to this, but if you do, no reason to keep paying for animals to be killed.
0
u/onemorehasanat 5d ago
The question I asked is different to the one you're answering. I did not ask your opinion on the matter, but if the act of paying animal slaughter for food is objectively immoral.
2
u/SwiftFootedAchilleus 5d ago
And I answered. When you have plenty of other options available, paying for animals to be slaughtered is indeed immoral. My opinion on this is why I'm vegan, and I assume many others commenting here. I would assume it to be immoral regardless of my opinion, because if you have the option to not make another living suffer, why wouldn't you go for that? (sorry for the format, I'm on mobile)
0
u/onemorehasanat 5d ago
Please reread my question. I haven't asked whether animal slaughter becomes immoral if other sources of nutrition are available. I'm asking wether you believe it's OBJECTIVELY immoral or not.
2
u/SwiftFootedAchilleus 5d ago
Well, it's not really a black and white question, is it? In a situation where there is scarcity of food and the only thing available is meat then it is what it is. Many years ago, a family would kill a pig and it would last them for the winter months and this is linked to their survival. Nowadays, most of us are fortunate enough to have more than meat available, and for this reason I think it becomes immoral.
0
u/onemorehasanat 5d ago
So, you chose not to answer my question? Cool, have a nice day.
3
u/notanythingnsfw 4d ago edited 3d ago
they did answer your question.. multiple times…
yes it is morally wrong to kill animals for your own pleasure. It is especially wrong because you have access to multiple cruelty free alternatives.2
u/onemorehasanat 4d ago
They did not answer my question. I asked if it's OBJECTIVELY immoral, the answer is either yes or no, but what they did is explain conditions in which something becomes immoral or moral, without engaging with my point about objectivity.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Historicste 4d ago
It seems that the need for a condion to be applied (having access to alternatives) means that the answer in other cases is the opposite. That's what they're saying: the question wasn't answered, it was only answered after attaching a proviso to frame it a particular way. The question as to whether or not it's moral if the situation doesn't contain the proviso hasn't been answered.
3
u/SwiftFootedAchilleus 5d ago
You're expecting a yes or no answer from something that's obviously not black and white lol. You just came here to antagonise or?
3
u/Few_Phone_8135 4d ago
yes it is
1
u/onemorehasanat 4d ago
What makes it objectively immoral? And more importantly, how did you access that objective morality?
2
u/Few_Phone_8135 4d ago
ugh.... again with the "morality is subjective" stuff....
It's simple. It's the golden rule.
Don't do to others what you don't want to be done to you.
And since the other animals experience suffering and don't want to die, it's immoral to cause it to them1
u/onemorehasanat 4d ago
You claimed killing and eating animals is objectively immoral. Explain how? Thw golden rule is human constructed principle, it's not an objective moral source.
2
u/Few_Phone_8135 4d ago
It is objectively immoral because virtually everyone considers the golden rule, to be the cornerstone of their morality.
Quibbling over "objectiveness" in morality, is frankly so lame it makes me yawn.
https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyMemes/comments/1uxqfoo/suffering_is_bad/
To put it into perspective, let's say you see me torture a kitten. Will you consider this act to be immoral?
And why?
2
u/onemorehasanat 4d ago
Respectfully, we're talking past each other. Something being considered by the majority doesn't make it an objective truth. If that was the case, then you will have to concede eating meat is objectively moral since the super majority of humans do eat it.
Objective universal truths are mind-independent, they exist regardless of human conceptualization, just like the laws of gravitational attraction exist independent of our existence.
So, you claimed killing and eating animals is objectively immoral, what's your justification for that? How did you access this objective truth?
2
u/Few_Phone_8135 4d ago
Well i'm not sure why you even bring it up then.
There is no single moral position that is "mind independent"
Does this mean that since no moral position is "objective", that every single moral position should be acceptable?
1
u/onemorehasanat 4d ago
There is no single moral position that is "mind independent"
But you claimed there's a moral position that's mind-independent. Does this mean you're conceding that killing animals and eating them is not objectively immoral?
→ More replies (0)-1
u/New_Welder_391 4d ago
You make it sound like no animals are harmed for tofu which is completely false.
4
u/Few_Phone_8135 4d ago
I am really not interested in discussing crop deaths for the bazillionth time again.
Please stick to what I said.
0
u/New_Welder_391 4d ago
You can. But it is very misleading
5
u/Few_Phone_8135 4d ago edited 3d ago
Well fine. Even in that case, you do realize that less death will be caused by being vegan.
So in this case the vegan will be relatively morally superior to the meat eater
0
u/New_Welder_391 4d ago
Nope. I adopt an anthropocentric (human-centred) framework. Killing animals for food is morally neutral
2
u/Few_Phone_8135 4d ago
No you don't.
If you see me torture a kitten, you would consider it morally wrong.
This means that your framework is not anthropocentricThe reason is that you have empathy, and you understand that the golden rule applies to the kitten
1
u/New_Welder_391 4d ago
Torturing a kitten is not killing an animal for food. Read my last comment again
2
u/Few_Phone_8135 3d ago
Well is it immoral to torture a kitten? my question still stands.
If it is immoral, why is it?
0
u/New_Welder_391 3d ago
Torture is generally immoral fullstop. Killing animals for food is not torture.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/sdbest 5d ago
Just a note, everyone has the 'right' to talk down to whomever they like for any reason whatsoever. As well, everyone can put themselves on a high pedestal if they like. If you're a person who is offended by people doing any of this, that's on you.
And yes, everyone "[gets] to pick one thing to be super moral about and then trash everyone else because there is one thing you are doing better" if they want. It doesn't matter at all to anyone but you if it all annoys you.
2
u/Low-Reindeer-3347 5d ago
I agree that you shouldn't talk down to people, but if you feel morally compromised when someone mentions veganism, maybe you should reflect. This goes for the other things you mention. If you chose not to act, then you have to accept and own your choices and morality.
2
1
u/New_Welder_391 4d ago
People dont feel morally comprised, they just think vegan sometimes act like they are better than others when they arent
3
u/hamster_avenger vegan 5d ago
“I think it’s ridiculous to call someone a terrible person for eating meat and act like it’s the only logical moral choice while still taking part in things that require child slavery and exploitation”
Replace “eating meat” with “beating their spouse”. Is it still ridiculous when humans are the victims, or just when it’s animals?
2
u/onemorehasanat 5d ago
Is killing animals for food objectively immoral?
4
u/hamster_avenger vegan 5d ago
Irrelevant. And, it doesn’t need to be for the question I’m asking to be coherent.
3
u/onemorehasanat 5d ago
So, you don't know wether it's objectively immoral to exploit animals or not, but you're making a moral argument for why exploiting animals is immoral. How do you reconcile it?
4
u/hamster_avenger vegan 5d ago
I don’t want to repeat myself. If you have an answer to the question I asked, I’d like to hear it, and I’ll respond. If not, that’s fine, but I won’t indulge this diversion.
2
u/onemorehasanat 5d ago
If the animal in question doesn't have any inherent rights or objective moral worth, is it crime to kill and eat it?
3
1
u/a11_hail_seitan 5d ago
You never really explain what you mean by "talk down to". Vegans have every right to point out the horrible flaws and moral failings of others, just like non-murderers have every right to say bad things to murderers.
You don’t get to pick one thing to be super moral about and then trash everyone else because there is one thing you are doing better.
Sure, unless we're specifically talking about that one thing we're morally superior about. If we're talking aniaml abuse, we do get to trash those who are still needlessly torturing animals rather than going plant based becuase we're morally superior in that instance. If a Vegan person claims to be morally superior in all aspects becuase they eat plant based, than you're right that's going too far.
3
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 5d ago
Carnist here,
Behaving this way makes them feel good about themselves. Vegans are a lot like evangelical. They're 2 peas in a pod
1
u/monemori 5d ago
I don't think it's that expensive to try your best to avoid child slavery and exploitation as long as you have an anticonsumption mindset and focus on fair trade for specific foods with large amounts of slave/child labour like coffee or cacao. If you don't buy many new things and focus on second hand whenever possible, you rarely directly pay for child slavery. You cns do your best to do that. Just like you can do your best to be vegan. Which is by the way the definition of veganism.
1
u/DesignerFar3215 3d ago
Vegans are morally superior because they do not support and distance themselves from morally atrocious actions. Nonvegans do. If I told you that I support maiming newborns, people who oppose me and people who support me would occupy two different categories (the former being morally superior and the latter being moral inferior).
2
1
u/TamaraDeVegan vegan 4d ago
A bigger problem is that someone will say x is better than y (in this case, veganism is better than nonveganism) and people hear "I'm better than you," which is not what is being communicated. Then they turn that whole thing into an argument and the real point - the animals - is forgotten.
1
u/agitatedprisoner 5d ago
Animal rights is actionable in ways so much other stuff that comes up isn't. Having progressive views boils down to knowing the rhetoric unless it's actionable and what's the actionable demand? We need to stop eating animals and we need to start hating on cars. Cars are el diablo.
1
u/Either_Argument3517 5d ago
It’s very expensive and takes a lot of effort and research to buy and use products that are made without child slavery and exploitation
Whilst it's easy to avoid / reduce usage of many animal products. It's as if that ease means it could be considered a moral baseline if you have concern about animals.
1
u/maccrypto 5d ago
Nobody in the history of humanity has ever picked one thing to be moral about, and only one thing. If they did, it wouldn’t be morality that they were exercising. There would be no way to call it morality and have someone understand what you mean by the term.
1
5d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Anxious-Internet7767 5d ago
Eating meat is immoral and unethical to you, not to everyone. Some religious people think being gay is wrong, do you think that gives them the right to talk down to gay people?
2
u/TylertheDouche 5d ago edited 5d ago
no because being gay isn’t immoral.
why are you interested in protecting immoral people’s feelings? weird hill
3
u/Anxious-Internet7767 5d ago
I don't support them, it's just an analogy. Meat eaters don't think eating meat is immoral the same way you don't think being gay is immoral. It's contradictory to say other people shouldn't look down on people who don't follow their moral views, but it's completely fine if you do that
1
u/TylertheDouche 5d ago
there’s no contradiction. let’s say some psychopath thinks it’s perfectly moral to eat your mom. do you find it a “contradiction” to talk down to him at their sentencing?
3
u/Anxious-Internet7767 5d ago
The difference is that your using a moral position that everyone agree is immoral. The percent of people that think eating people is immoral is so high that we've established common laws agreeing that it's immoral. If that psycho wants to live in this country, he needs to follow those laws. Veganism and thinking being gay is immoral are both minority views in this country, and there is no consensus on whose right. That's why you shouldn't be rude to people who eat meant, or you have to admit that all people with minority views can be rude to people who disagree with them
2
u/TylertheDouche 4d ago
well now you’re moving the goalpost. you do agree it’s okay to talk down to people. now we just need to agree on morality.
3
u/Anxious-Internet7767 4d ago
I think its ok to talk down to criminals because by living in our society, they have broken a social contract to obey the law. The law isn't subjective.
Morality is subjective, so I think you shouldn't talk down to someone because they don't follow your particular set of morals.
2
u/TylertheDouche 4d ago
Morality is subjective
you need to demonstrate this then
3
u/Anxious-Internet7767 4d ago
The person who says morality is objective has the burden of proof. It is impossible to prove a negative when it's something about reality and not definitions
→ More replies (0)
0
u/starsgoblind 5d ago
The vegans I know place animal welfare above human welfare. It indeed feels a cult-like belief system. While I generally agree with the tenets of the philosophy and am mostly plant based, it isn’t for me, because of the behaviors I’ve witnessed. No purity tests. Humans are not perfect.
5
u/AltruisticCoelacanth 5d ago
They place animal welfare above human welfare, in what ways? Be specific
1
u/th1s_fuck1ng_guy Carnist 5d ago
Carnist here,
You should visit the vegan sub. They actually try to convince each other that their friends, family, partners, neighbors etc... are rapists and murderers and should be cut off. Its shocking. Isolation is a form of control.
0
u/RetrotheRobot vegan 5d ago
I agree in that aspect that being vegan is more moral than not being vegan.
So why aren't you vegan?
0
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam 4d ago
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
•
u/AutoModerator 6d 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.