Vegan vs. Carnivore Debate on Ethics (Gone wild)

[Buck Edwards]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

We can play this game of having the need to dive deeper into the semantics, but a more straightforward example would be the preference that murder is wrong.

Why is murder wrong? 

[zurew]

31 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

That's NOT a preference for most people.

You are misusing that term.

We can use the term "moral intuition" then if you have a preference for that 

We can add more to the subjetivist moral language set if you want - to be able to express things with more nuance, but it doesn't really change the underlying point that is made.

 

Edited May 23 by zurew

[zurew]

24 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

Why is murder wrong? 

Its axiomatic, there is no justification for it.

26 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

And you're completely okay wearing clothes that involved slave labor in a sweat shop. How do you explain that? 

You don't know whether that is or is not the case. But even if you can show that is the case, after that you would need to show how that is a necessary contradiction according to my moral axioms. Would me not buying those clothes necessarily reduce slave labour if so show me that  and show me what the direct consequences of reducing slave labour.

Btw, none of this gets you to justify your position - even if you could point out an inconsistency , that still wont get you where you want to get.

Edited May 23 by zurew

[Buck Edwards]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

Its axiomatic, there is no justification for it.

If there is no real justification for something, then we abide by it for some selfish reason only. 

[zurew]

11 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

If there is no real justification for something, then we abide by it for some selfish reason only. 

You can label that selfish if you want, but that seems weird, cause again some of these preferences or moral inuitions are not choosen and you can't really overwrite them.

The term selfish implies some conscious, deliberate action in this context, it would imply the choosing of all your moral axioms.

But regardless, the argument im making is compatible with you labeling the moral axioms or moral intuitions as selfish. The argument only states that we do have those underlying axioms and some of those are shared between us and they can be discorvered upon self reflection and some actions have a direct consequence that would contradict some of those axioms (and you can become aware of them) and we are talking about actions that you have the choice not to do.

Edited May 23 by zurew

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

The term selfish implies some conscious, deliberate action.

No.

[Leo Gura]

All of morality boils down to reducing the harm your selfishness causes to others. And its entirely subjective how far you wish to take that. Everyone will draw that line in a different place, which is why the moral debates are endless.

Edited May 23 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

No.

Okay, so that case you have a definition where literally every being is selfish which makes it kind of meaningless and makes it lose its power.

[Leo Gura]

2 minutes ago, zurew said:

literally every being is selfish

Bingo!

Edited May 23 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

All of morality boils down to reducing the harm your selfishness causes to others.

Morality boils down to the choices you have the power to make. If you can only do one action and cannot not do that action, in that context morality is completely meaningless, cause there is no agency there.

Edited May 23 by zurew

[zurew]

Just now, zurew said:

Morality boils down to the choices you have the power to make. If you can only do one action and cannot not do that action, in that context morality is completely meaningless, cause there is no agency there.

Kind of goes back to what the good old Jordan Peterson said. Paraphrasing - You not being able to cause direct harm does not make you moral

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

Morality boils down to the choices you have the power to make. If you can only do one action and cannot not do that action, in that context morality is completely meaningless, cause there is no agency there.

My definition accounts for that. If you don't have the power to reduce the suffering your selfishness causes others then it's a moot point.

And anyway, my defintion is not normative. It says nothing about blame or that you have to act in any way. You could just be an asshole if you want. But if you want to be considered "moral", then take whatever measures are reasonable to reduce the suffering you cause others.

Edited May 23 by Leo Gura

[Danioover9000]

@undeather

On 2024-05-22 at 9:43 AM, undeather said:

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?
 

 

   I think Vegans are just more annoying to talk to or debate on this issue, and must meat eaters have a more rhetoric advantage in that they don't become as emotional and triggered. I don't like the militant types of vegans arguing from a place of hubris, that optics turns most people of and tends to make the audience side with meat eaters. Another big issue, is that meat tastes way better than vegetables themselves, that's a huge specific issue for those eating.

   And finally it's this confusion with moral subjectivity and moral objectivity, and the Vegans/meat eaters not seeing it's deeply cultural and that actually slow changes have to happen slowly.

[Danioover9000]

@zurew

56 minutes ago, zurew said:

Morality boils down to the choices you have the power to make. If you can only do one action and cannot not do that action, in that context morality is completely meaningless, cause there is no agency there.

   True in the context of arguing and debating, consistency logically is key. For example in a science versus religion debate, we have 2 arguers, one a Christian, the other a scientist and maybe atheist. Ok, so for argument consistency, the Christian's is morally consistent with the teachings of the Holy Bible and the church they represent, and the scientist should be morally consistent with their worldview.

   Great example of this is when Andrew Wilson was debating Destiny and NotSoErudite, and he argued onto her her moral contradictions of being a good Christian yet having an open marriage with her husband, therefore she has 2 moral frameworks, one Christian and one not Christian, and she spent so much time deflecting and dodging his questioning and debating. Basically it's a performative contradiction when you're say identified as a conservative but your belief system is mostly liberal see?

[Davino]

Mmm interesting. I've been vegeterian for two years. Why? My body asked me so and I followed it. This changed a lot my psyche and some parts of my worldview regarding animals and my connection with nature and inner peace. About a month ago, my body started asking me meat again. I was hesitant but tried a a bit there and a little bit here again; despite mind resistance. One sunday I had the most epic 5meo breakthrough infinity of my life, in the come down I saw how all limitations of conduct are but self limitations imposed moment to moment by me. So I ate a delicious meat lasagna for lunch that day and I've been eating meat for a month now and I'm feeling absolutely fantastic.

My body is intelligent and this type of diet now aligns with my inner calling. Funny enough, I never thought about morality when going vegetarian but a sense of deep animal compassion came with it after the 1 year mark. Now that my food involves animal slaughtering it caused a bit of inner disonance. But idk in the end it's more important to feel healthy in my body and following this inner calling than it is to care for others and this is an uncomfortable truth. Because I don't know about others but I am myself all day long therefore my priorities are straight.

The same way in the future my body may tell me to go vegan, go cannibal , or whatever crazy diet; I'll probably align my life towards this inner life impulse that guides me everymoment.

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Davino said:

But idk in the end it's more important to feel healthy in my body and following this inner calling than it is to care for others

Spoken like a true crocodile

[Davino]

@Leo Gura I feel more like an eagle

Haven't gone into the mud of life to become a crocodile yet

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Davino said:

@Leo Gura I feel more like an eagle

Eagle is a high attainment.

Perhaps you're more like a winged rat

[Scholar]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

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

Yes, obviously. But right now it's time for the annoying vegans.

[Basman]

11 hours ago, blankisomeone said:

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?

Every day, millions of microbes are destroyed by your immune system by virtue of you simply existing. You kill bugs when you drive your car, and you don't even notice. Being vegan is the consumption and therefor destruction of plant life.

There are hundreds of examples of finite things consuming another finite things simply by existing.

I once contracted a viral flesh eating virus. What happened there was that a otherwise common bacteria who are normally destroyed by the immune system, got past and started spreading. It would have killed me, its host, if I didn't halt the infection with surgery and antibiotics. The bacteria had no sense of morals or idea that it would kill its host. It just spreads by virtue of it executing its function as a bacteria. That is an example of a finite thing consuming another finite thing. My immune system killing bacteria like that under normal circumstances is me continuing my existence at the cost of another life.

I think there is a degree of hypocrisy among vegans in that they only really care about animals that are cute. They have no problem killing plants and I never hear them complaining about bugs or jellyfish. They mostly only care about cute mammals.

Edited May 23 by Basman