Vegan vs. Carnivore Debate on Ethics (Gone wild)

[undeather]

The ethics of veganism have always been of great interest to me. In fact, my personal take is that veganism is the truly  superior position and to this day, I have not seen many good arguments that would allow someone to win a debate as a meat-eater. I had been vegan for years in the past and felt great on it - but at one point, one has to just be honest that by cutting out eggs, meat and dairy - you will abstain from the most delicious parts of the food ecosystem. Substitute products are just not it. For me, delicious foods are such an integral part of life and so I decided to go back to animal products - despite the "unnecessary" suffering it creates.

That said I still have a fetish following vegan content creators and watching debates. One thing that I observe again and again is that the biggest obstacle of spreading a vegan message are vegans themselves. Many of them come across as batshit crazy lunatics - just individuzals I would stay away from in real life. A recent debate between the austrian activist "The militant vegan" and the Carnivore "Doctor" Shawn Baker is a perfect example of this dynamic. While I mostly agree with her philosophical stance, her behaviour and overall vibe is just repugnant. This debate is going viral in vegan circles because from their perspective, she doestroyed him (which is kinda true from a debate bro perspective). The broader picture however is that most people who will watch this will think differently. Likeability and temperateness can go a long way and are inherently important in such encounters. Most people will view Baker as the sane one on this debate.

Anyway, what is your take?
 

 

[Leo Gura]

The key thing they seem to be missing is the realization that morality is a human construct.

That doesn't mean moral issues shouldn't be considered, but the foundation must be to see that morality is an invention, and moralizing to others is a kind of trap.

And then, just at the level of PR and optics, being militant about veganism just turns people off and has a counter-productive effect. Since most people are eating as part of a deep culture which cannot be changed overnight. People need to undergo years of moral development first, and most people are barely surviving.

Edited May 22 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

14 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

and moralizing to others is a kind of trap.

We are moralizing all the time when we talk about things what we should or shouldn't do and you do this as well, especially when you talk about politics.

The goal of these debates is not to establish objective morality (most vegans are subjectivists anyway), but to 1) make an internal critique (where you show that their view is incoherent , because even if you take their moral view for granted, there will be most likely a contradiction regarding veganism ) and 2) This can be a good exercise to make them review their own beliefs and morals about this subject matter and check whether their belief(s) about veganism really align with their own preferences and values or not.

Edited May 22 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

34 minutes ago, zurew said:

and you do this as well, especially when you talk about politics.

The goal of these debates is not to establish objective morality

Except there is a key difference.

I know that morality is an invention, but vegans do not. They operate from an objective, normative ethics, regardless of what they might say.

Edited May 22 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I know that morality is an invention, but vegans do not. They operate from an objective, normative ethics, regardless of what they might say.

Thats like saying whoever says murder is wrong - that person must operate from objective morality , which is false.

You are implying that they are definitely lying either to you or to themselves, but the fact of the matter is that their view is compatible with subjective morality.

[Leo Gura]

They are not lying, they just don't think about the nature of reality.

[zurew]

15 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

They are not lying, they just don't think about the nature of reality.

I don't see the relevance of that in the context of this discussion, because veganism can be compatible with the subjectivist view of morality.

But if the reason why you brought that up is because you try to explain some vegans crazy attitude towards the defence and the spread of veganism, that can be true and that can explain some portion of vegan activists, but thats a separate topic.

People can be subjectivists about morality and have their awakenings and still advocate for or against some things - for example against murder.

Edited May 22 by zurew

[Jannes]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

I know that morality is an invention, but vegans do not. They operate from an objective, normative ethics, regardless of what they might say.

What about just having empathy and respect for animals because your ego is developed enough that you identify/love with all living beings.

Morality is a construct but it points to something true.

[Nemra]

@Jannes why shouldn't I eat meat?

If I eat non meat stuff then I'm also not loving those things if loving means to not eat them.

[Michael569]

@Leo Gura i feel like in this case taking the morally neutral ground is a form of avoidance. I mean sure, morals are a human construct but we are all physically and existentially tied to this 3 dimensional world which is governed by human laws.

If we can eleviate suffering of some other living species since it is mostly unnecessary, why shouldn't we strive for less suffering? 

I'm not saying that it is what will happen, actually i think the opposite is happening these days with veganism losing rather than dominating.

I don't agree with the way she presents her agenda, she is clearly a trained debator but i am tempted to slide with her rather than Shawn who I've always found a bit delusional

[undeather]

Quote

I don't agree with the way she presents her agenda, she is clearly a trained debator but i am tempted to slide with her rather than Shawn who I've always found a bit delusional

Who is passing the beer check for you? Meaning who would you rather have a beer and some food with - the clearly delusional carnivore MD or the militant vegan girl? Curious to here your opinion

Edited May 22 by undeather

[Jannes]

 

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

@Jannes why shouldn't I eat meat?

If I eat non meat stuff then I'm also not loving those things if loving means to not eat them.

Are you taking the absolute perspective that there is even no difference between killing a million people or cutting a piece of plastic, just human bias. Or am I misunderstanding what you saying?

I think it's a spectrum. At the beginning of development you might only really only care about you and your tribe, then other tribes, then different races and then I would say different species. Caring for plants or rocks is probably a lot further down the line.

[Michael569]

17 minutes ago, undeather said:

Meaning who would you rather have a beer and some food with - the clearly delusional carnivore MD or the militant vegan girl?

alone

[undeather]

6 minutes ago, Michael569 said:

alone

Fair enough 

[UnbornTao]

It seems to boil down to opinion. What you decide to eat is ultimately a result of opinion, whether informed, healthy, or not. 

Is a crocodile eating a grandma ethical?  

Edited May 24 by UnbornTao

[Nemra]

@Jannes 

Are vegans more developed than those who love and eat meat?

29 minutes ago, Jannes said:

Are you taking the absolute perspective that there is even no difference between killing a million people or cutting a piece of plastic, just human bias. Or am I misunderstanding what you saying?

You said that we have to empathize with and respect animals. That could also be said of everything that could be digested.

[Scholar]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

And then, just at the level of PR and optics, being militant about veganism just turns people off and has a counter-productive effect. Since most people are eating as part of a deep culture which cannot be changed overnight. People need to undergo years of moral development first, and most people are barely surviving.

Well, it's a tricky thing, because The Militant Vegan basically made veganism a national issue in germany, precisely because of her provocative nature.

It's hard to say whether or not the impact in the long run is negative or not, because in this case at least people are thinking about the issue, whereas otherwise they might have not thought about it.

On the other hand, the resistance created through these forms of activism could hamper progress in the long run.

 

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

They are not lying, they just don't think about the nature of reality.

Correct, I am observing this with a lot of people who claim they are subjectivists.

The interesting thing is, as a subjectivist, morality is simply about discovering the reality of the self and ones own nature. If morality equate to preferences, then there is a truth of what the true or deepest preferences of a mind are.

 

With vegans, and increasingly other ethical movements, or in fact ideological positions in general, we are observing advocates asserting that logical consistency and adherence to logically consistent ethical frameworks is essential, as if it was the greatest preferences of their minds.

However, the need for ethically logical consistency and adherence to moral frameworks is in and of itself a secondary preference which emerges from deeper, primary preferences. This means that when confronted with a contradiction of those preferences (a mind always holds contradictory and multi-dimensional preferences), it is actually revealed that adherence to logical consistency is not a foundational preference.

 

A lot of subjectivists would say that, even if they didn't want to kill their own child to save a million people, it would still be the moral thing to do. Yet, this is delusional, it cannot be true of they are a subjectivist, because by definition, your preferences are what morality is. There is no distinction, it means one and the same.

The failure to recognize this is part of the remnant of objective or transcendental morality. The truth is, for most human minds it is the moral thing to eradicate millions of people to save their own child, which just means it is their preference. The preference for a consistent and logical ethical system and the adherence to it actually does not outweigh the preference to protect ones own child.

The reason why subjectivists get away with this delusion of ethical/logical consistency being the grounds of morality (the ground of their preferences), is because they are never confronted with a choice between their preference for logical consistency and the life of, for example, their child.

 

 

Ethical evolution however does exist, and it works in the same way as natural evolution itself works. Preferences are real, minds do have preferences, and those preferences are shaped by the dynamics of reality. Shapes of morality (the shape of a system of preferences) are shaped by evolutionary forces, both on a biological level as well as a memetic level.

In the end, our genetic legacy, which is really just the legacy of the universe, will determine the ethical systems of the future.

 

Ethics and morality is a function of the maximization of subjectivity, and the maximization of subjectivity will lead to specific ethical and moral landscapes, or rather, landscapes of preferences encoded in ethical principles and laws. This is inevitable because of the very nature of subjectivity.

 

There is a big danger in actually deluding yourself that adherence to logically consistent ethical systems is the most important thing to be done. At any given time, a subjectivity is not fully self-aware, and therefore any ethical system it constructs from it's current position will not be an expression of it's deepest nature and subjectivity. Ultimate adherence to systems of ethics that are spawned in any given point of time of the evolution of mankind will lead to a profound disharmony within reality. Naziism is a good example.

The problem with naziism was, simply put, that it wasn't a truthful expression of Hitlers subjectivity. Like vegans currently can justify the mass-eradication of predator animals or human beings who consume meat, Hitler was able to justify the killing of groups of human beings for the sake of the health of mankind. There are deeper reasons why these systems are not an expression of the given subjectivity of the individual, but the individual cannot recognize this at the time. If truth and self-discovery is not a primary factor in establishing moral frameworks, it leads to systems which are fundamentally disconnected from the inter-subjectivity shared by actors in the system. This leads to profound disharmony and resistance, which leads to an eventual collapse of the ethical framework.

This means, an ethical framework must be conducive to harmony to maintain itself throughout time and space. To be conducive to harmony, it must capture and maximize collective subjectivity. The ground of this subjectivity is determined largely, in a sense even exclusively, by our genetic legacy.

 

And all of this is self-emergent from the function of reality itself, there is nothing that you can change about this, there is nothing that needs to be done to make this happen.

Edited May 22 by Scholar

[Scholar]

31 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Jannes 

Are vegans more developed than those who love and eat meat?

Vegans are more evolved in that they have discovered that what they truly care about in an individual is consciousness. They have recognized that their empathy fundamentally extends to the individuation of others, not a specific form of individuation.

Meat eaters are delusional in that they have convinced themselves they care about something other than individuation, which is not the case. In the same sense in which a racist has created a barrier between his families humanity and the humanity of one of another race, by having created a conceptual construct which distorts his perception. Meaning, one creates a distinction in reality which simply does not exist.

If this illusion falls away, compassion naturally is extended.

 

More developed in the end just means more capable of recognizing ones own subjectivity and expressing it fully. A vegan is more developed in that sense, as they have a deeper sense of their own subjectivity and are therefore capable of higher expression, as well as construction of ideological frameworks which are more conducive to the maximization of subjectivity.

Edited May 22 by Scholar

[Princess Arabia]

This is one of those never-ending topics that could be debated forever. One side trying to sway the other side to their pov or trying to make convincing arguments as to why their pov makes more sense or is the right one. Once one has decided to go either way, it's just a matter of laying down the grounds as to why they've made that choice. Both sides will have endless ways to show why their choice is a better one. Meat or no meat. Whose right. 

The no meat will advocate for animal rights and brutality but have no problems swatting a fly, stepping on ants or spraying a roach. Only some animals, not all. Some cultures eat roaches as a delicacy, so roaches are edible.

The meat eaters will say the body was designed to eat meat and meat provides certain vitamins and nutrients that plants can't give as in vit b12. Only a small amount can be found in seaweed. Some will be vegan and chow down on ff, soda and cookies saying it's not meat, so that's not because of health. Some will eat meat and potatoes and no veggies at all. 

Personally, I don't eat red meat (pork or beef), but I do eat poultry and seafood - this is just a personal choice and nothing to do with ethics or health. I think most people, if faced with a life or death situation or are trapped somewhere where the only choice is to eat whatever is available, they would do so regardless of their preference. IOW, when push comes to shove, all morals and ethics flies out the window when backed into a corner for survival reasons.

[Jannes]

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

@Jannes 

Are vegans more developed than those who love and eat meat?

What do you mean by that?

1 hour ago, Nemra said:

You said that we have to empathize with and respect animals. That could also be said of everything that could be digested.

Okay. Do you take that absolute stance though? Would you say that killing and eating a human for example is indifferent from eating an apple? This sounds like impractical spiritual masturbation. 

I have a better way of phrasing it now: I would argue that when you open yourself to the relative domain at all, like saying that a human life has more value then a rock you are also implying a spectrum of grey where animals likely have a higher worth then plants.