Vegan vs. Carnivore Debate on Ethics (Gone wild)

[Nemra]

@Scholar

I understand what you're saying. I care about not suffering, and I can empathize with people and animals. But caring about animals' suffering doesn't mean that I shouldn't eat them.

If some higher intelligent being ate someone I love, I wouldn't be teaching it why it shouldn't eat humans. But the thing is, you think that those beings would only eat non-individuated beings. I just don't see why they would limit themselves to those things, and, for example, not us.

Can you also explain why individuated beings (animals) eat each other? Some even eat their kids.

[UnbornTao]

On 22/05/2024 at 6:45 PM, Jannes said:

A croc doesnt have ethics. It's almost like asking if a rock made an unethical decision falling on someones head. 

That's the point. Also, it isn't so much about "having" morality but about inventing, and adopting, it. Generally, it boils down to a social agreement.

Edited May 24 by UnbornTao

[Scholar]

25 minutes ago, Nemra said:

@Scholar

I understand what you're saying. I care about not suffering, and I can empathize with people and animals. But caring about animals' suffering doesn't mean that I shouldn't eat them.

If some higher intelligent being ate someone I love, I wouldn't be teaching it why it shouldn't eat humans. But the thing is, you think that those beings would only eat non-individuated beings. I just don't see why they would limit themselves to those things, and, for example, not us.

Can you also explain why individuated beings (animals) eat each other? Some even eat their kids.

Not all individuated beings have a developed consciousness.

They wouldn't eat us because they would see their own consciousness reflected in ours, and would naturally unify their subjectivity with ours.

There are only individuated beings, non-individuated beings do not exist, they are simply part of the unity of reality.

The higher intelligent beings would limit themselves because they are not depriving existence from subjectivity, or contradicting subjectivity, when they consuming non-individuated matter.

 

I think the fact that you think you would not attempt to teach other beings why they shouldn't kill and eat your loved ones when they have otheralternatives shows how alienated and disconnected you are from your own subjectivity. Either that is the case, or you have a profoundly idiosyncratic subjectivity, which will not be able to sustain itself throughout time.

Edited May 22 by Scholar

[Jannes]

12 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

That's the point. 

Yes a croc cant ask itself moral question. But below that it cant even ask itself if it wants to kill the human or not. A human can. 

Thats the essence of Leos critique video of morality. If you stop the moral lense you still make decisions. Like if you deconstruct the moral sense that killing other humans is bad that doesn't mean that you instantly murder other people.

And in this same way, without moral consideration but simply by asking yourself if you really want to do it I think most people wouldn't want to kill animals. I would make the point that most people dont want to kill animals, they just do it because they arent conscious enough.

[UnbornTao]

On 22/05/2024 at 10:25 PM, Jannes said:

Yes a croc cant ask itself moral question. But below that it cant even ask itself if it wants to kill the human or not. A human can. 

Thats the essence of Leos critique video of morality. If you stop the moral lense you still make decisions. Like if you deconstruct the moral sense that killing other humans is bad that doesn't mean that you instantly murder other people.

And in this same way, without moral consideration but simply by asking yourself if you really want to do it I think most people wouldn't want to kill animals. I would make the point that most people dont want to kill animals, they just do it because they arent conscious enough.

They may not want to kill them but like eating them and will continue to do so regardless. Again, it ultimately seems to be a matter of opinion. Some people habitually eat junk and drink soda. Is it "ethical" for them not to consider their own health?

What about the ethical implications of coffee drinking, when harvesting coffee grounds is detrimental to third-world countries in various ways? And yet, it is widely consumed; most people don't mind it.

"Food comes from the store."

Edited May 24 by UnbornTao

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, UnbornTao said:

They may not want to kill them but they like eating them and will continue to do so. As I said, it seems to be about opinion. People drink cocacola and eat junk. What about the ethics of considering their own health? They may not care as much as long as they get the instant gratification from fatty, sweet or salty food. Besides, it's dirt cheap. 

For example, what about the ethical considerations of drinking coffee, where harvesting it is detrimental to certain third-world countries in many ways? Coffee grounds may also be infected with certain chemicals, etc. 

The evolution goes like this:

Recognizing universality of personhood.

Inability to maintain clear seperation of identity between species boundaries.

Desire to avoid negative self identity (someone who would objectify others and inflict torture on them in perverse ways for something trivial like pleasure and convenience).

Repulsion at the idea of participating in the objectificaiton and commodification of animals.

 

 

So that's basically what is going to happen over time. The reason why this is different from ethical considerations via harm-principle is because, when we drink coffee, we do not actually participate in an industry which systematically breeds, enslaves, rapes, tortures and kills individuals and then subsequently using their corpses and secretions as objects. Once identity has expanded, the basic desire to avoid being an individual who would participate in this for mere pleasure would outweight the desire to continue consuming those products.

[Nemra]

37 minutes ago, Scholar said:

They wouldn't eat us because they would see their own consciousness reflected in ours, and would naturally unify their subjectivity with ours.

Yeah, in all of the things.

37 minutes ago, Scholar said:

There are only individuated beings, non-individuated beings do not exist, they are simply part of the unity of reality.

We were talking from the relative perspective.

37 minutes ago, Scholar said:

think the fact that you think you would not attempt to teach other beings why they shouldn't kill and eat your loved ones when they have other alternatives shows how alienated and disconnected you are from your own subjectivity

That's an assumption, and you read it incorrectly. If they don't give me alternatives, I wouldn't be able to teach them why I don't want us to be eaten.

Edited May 22 by Nemra

[aurum]

I'm not vegan myself but I am generally sympathetic to the cause. I think we can improve our relationship with the other animals on the planet. So I'm just going to lay out what I feel are a necessary criteria for anyone interested in making veganism more mainstream:

 

1) Show how veganism significantly reduces the externalities that come from human survival compared to eating meat. The accounting needs to be holistic, including whatever externalities are caused by a vegan diet, including things like Big Agriculture. This is much more challenging than I see many vegans admitting. It is not easy to significantly reduce externalities.

2) Show how veganism will be nutritionally superior, or at least on par, with eating meat. Right now vegans are losing on this point. But this may change in the future as we improve on things like lab grown meat, supplementation, etc.

3) Make veganism pragmatic and accessible to the average person. If people have to spend an extra 10 hours a day to be vegan, pragmatically no one will do so. It needs to be convenient.

4) You need to win a large culture war around the tradition of eating meat. Many people eat meat simply because it's a part of their culture and identity. 

 

Just being mad at people for eating meat accomplishes nothing. And it's foolish to think you can just demand society change. You have to actually solve these problems.

Edited May 23 by aurum

[Jannes]

19 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

They may not want to kill them but they like eating them and will continue to do so.

I meant I think that most people wouldn't want to eat meat if they were conscious enough of how eating meat causes animals to be slaughtered. 

19 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

As I said, it seems to be about opinion. People drink cocacola and eat junk. What about the ethics of considering their own health? They may not care as much as long as they get the instant gratification from fatty, sweet or salty food. Besides, it's dirt cheap. 

Thats another great example. I think most people also wouldn't do that if they were conscious enough about it. 

19 minutes ago, UnbornTao said:

For example, what about the ethical considerations of drinking coffee, where harvesting it is detrimental to certain third-world countries in many ways? Coffee grounds may also be infected with certain chemicals, etc. 

Yes also true. At some point it becomes to complicated though.

[Leo Gura]

I was speaking to the militant, moralizing, crusading sort of vegans.

If you are just a quiet vegan then there is no issue.

The crusading/moralizing bit is the trap.

[Scholar]

29 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I was speaking to the militant, moralizing, crusading sort of vegans.

If you are just a quiet vegan then there is no issue.

The crusading/moralizing bit is the trap.

Okay but now you are saying "As long as you don't point out the injustice, you're okay.".

I think the moralizing is fine as long as it happens calmly and rationally. Spineless pick-me vegans are not really the way you want to be, that's probably as unhealthy as the other extreme. You want to be able to actually speak up for what you belief in, without it devolving into screaming matches.

Edited May 22 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

49 minutes ago, Bandman said:

@Leo Gura If there is absolutely no morality, does God have any kind of morality towards us? or will he damn us?

Contemplate where is the morality in a crocodile snatching a dog?

Edited May 22 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

10 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Okay but now you are saying "As long as you don't point out the injustice, you're okay.".

No. I was trying to point out a limited way of seeing the world which leads to crusading. The mind has to function a certain way for crusading to occur. This way of the mind then becomes an obstacle to deeper understanding and acceptance of reality.

There is a difference between recognizing injustice and corruption vs going on a moral crusade.

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

No. I was trying to point out a limited way of seeing the world which leads to crusading. The mind has to function a certain way for crusading to occur. This way of the mind then becomes an obstacle to deeper understanding and acceptance of reality.

There is a difference between recognizing injustice and corruption vs going on a moral crusade.

I agree, but it's probably a phase a lot of people have to go through, I don't know exactly how they would avoid this. And sometimes moral crusades have functions, even if it does not benefit the individual who is possessed by it.

[Leo Gura]

13 minutes ago, Scholar said:

but it's probably a phase a lot of people have to go through,

Fine. So is racism, genocide, factory farming, and animal abuse.

Edited May 22 by Leo Gura

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Bandman said:

Death is the best thing possible that can happen to any creature according to you.

According to me morality is an illusion, so....

[blankisomeone]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Contemplate where is the morality in a crocodile snatching a dog?

but aren't animals in a lower state of consciousness from which a sense of morality can't be accessed? a very dense state? and humans are able to "construct" morality because morality is a feature of higher consciousness that humans can tap into and animals can't? thats kinda what religions have taught me

Edited May 23 by blankisomeone

[Basman]

Vegans have a huge problem with being unlikable. They lose a lot of people to their moral righteousness and shallow guilt tripping. I think there's a degree of misanthropy in many vegans because of their morals, so there might be an element of them "not caring" that they are annoying to others. It only hurts their cause ultimately.

[Leo Gura]

29 minutes ago, blankisomeone said:

but aren't animals in a lower state of consciousness from which a sense of morality can't be accessed? a very dense state? and humans are able to "construct" morality because morality is a feature of higher consciousness that humans can tap into and animals can't? thats kinda what religions have taught me

The problem is that whatever moral system you construct, you will not be able to live by it. Your very survival will contradict it. You will be harming things just by virtue of being alive. This then leads so all sorts of ridiculous moral mental gymnatics, excuses, and rationalizations which warp your mind.

Being moral and being alive is not really compatible.

Edited May 23 by Leo Gura

[blankisomeone]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

You will be harming things just by virtue of being alive

that's ridiculous isn't it.

Is there a deep, SATISFYING, metaphysical REASON for why it MUST be like this? Will I understand why it is so someday or is this just another truth to just swallow?