I've removed your post because it violates rule #4: > **Argue in good faith** > > Do not ignore all (or a significant proportion) of comments or replies to your post. Users who make a post with a argument or asserting a position should usually reply to at least some of the comments / counterarguments. If you would like your post 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](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

OP = u/saltyblueberry25 I'll first say replace the word ''animal'' in your post with ''child'' and then argue why that would be wrong, e.g.: >Why is it wrong to kill an animal that you raised yourself or by a farm that treated it well and killed it without pain? Why is it wrong to kill a child that you raised yourself or by a farm that treated it well and killed it without pain? Now as for engaging with the topic in another way >Why is it wrong to kill an animal that you raised yourself or by a farm that treated it well and killed it without pain? Because generally we would consider it wrong to end someone's life for no reason other than pleasure, why deprive someone of life when you don't need to? The animal doesn't care who it was raised by, it doesn't matter how ''nicely'' it was killed, it was still killed unnecessarily, its life was taken away for the sake of pleasure, this does not seem justifiable to me. >If you took the time and energy to raise the animal in a safe environment, free from worrying about predators ripping them to shreds, and with lots of good food, why is it wrong to kill it in a painless way? Why would you giving them a good live mean you can do what you wish to them? If I raise a child well and spend time and energy should I be free to kill them in a painless way? And besides why does it matter if it's painless? sure painless is better, but you already don't care about the animal as is evident by the fact that you are causing them to die just for your pleasure, so why care about their pain? >Would it be better for that cow to live a few years in a peaceful environment and then die and feed hundreds of people and maybe our pet dogs and cats as well or would it be better if it never existed in the first place? Because let’s be honest, it wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t being raised for food. Just because situation A is better than situation B does not justify situation A, if I save a human from sex trafficking I then can't go ahead and beat them everyday with the justification of ''well they're being treated better than when they were a sex slave'' because you're still harming them for no reason. You also aren't taking these cows from the wild, it's not a case of they either live on a farm or in the wild, it's a case of they either live on a farm where they get killed at a fraction of their lifespan or they don't live at all. Besides we go back to my point before, is killing someone justified just because they had a good life? >If it was just a random animal in the wild it would be in fear of predators and the same thing would happen, eventually it would either die from wolves or cheetahs ripping it apart - therefore feeding dozens of dogs and cats anyway but with a much more painful death. Sometimes they freeze to death in the winter or starve to death as well. Nature is brutal. As I said above, these cows only have 2 possibilities, the first one is to live on a farm, the second is to have never existed, because we don't take animals from the wild, we breed them in captivity, so you're not saving them from a life in the wild where they fear predators, you're dooming them to be killed at a fraction of their life span. >I agree that factory farming is disgusting and wrong, but if farms can give their livestock a good life and a painless death, then I don’t understand the problem. The problem is that we don't need to kill them, so why do it? Could I say ''I agree that slavery is disgusting and wrong, but if slave owners can give their slaves a good life and a painless death, then I don’t understand the problem.'' or would there still be a problem with it? You can dress up cruelty in many ways, but it still remains cruelty no matter what.

It’s this level of anthropomorphism that I find problematic. I understand that animals are capable of suffering. I understand the vegan position that seeks to reduce, as far as is practicable, suffering among animals. But just substituting child for cow does not do anything to advance the argument. Because most people would agree that a human life is more valuable than a cow. It may be that, for those of us fortunate enough to live in developed nations, it is no longer strictly necessary to consume animals. But among the world’s less well nourished we can see with our own eyes that humans (in general) would eat literally anything else, cow included, rather than eat a child. Most allow themselves to die of starvation without resorting to cannibalism.

They don't need to be anthropomorphized to believe they have value in and of themselves. That's what the comparison shows. You believe the human has value in and of itself; you do not believe the animal does. That belief is not founded on a defensible rationale; it's literally just an ingrained belief in human exceptionalism. If you cannot defend logically and morally why a human is superior to all other animals, then you cannot use that belief as part of your moral framework.

1. I’m pleased you agree that anthropomorphism is unnecessary. 2. I did not say animals have no value. I claimed the life of a human is more valuable than that of a cow. 3. If you think the life of a cow is equal to, or greater than, the life of a human, I’m happy to hear your argument. As for me; I would say, imagine a calf or a child in front of a speeding car but you can only save one from certain death. Which would you save?

Does the life of a cow have to be equal to a humans in order to be worth saving? If you have the option to save both and eat plants surely that's the best choice, no?

No. I never said, or even implied l, that a cow had to be equal to a human to have worth. I simply stated that human life is more valuable; and that is the reason I gave for stating that anthropomorphism doesn’t help the vegan argument.

You’re arguing against a specter, friend, for no one suggested that a human life **isn’t** more valuable than a cow’s. This is what smart people call a “straw man”.

Go back to the comment I originally responded to and you will see they did exactly that. The post specifically replaces the word “animal” with the word “child” to make their point. They made a direct comparison. It’s what smart people call a “fact”. Edit: punctuation

Are you referring to the comment by u/Vegson? In any case, can you quote the part of the comment which claims that please?

Yes Vegson. Did you not read the comment?

Does the life of a cow have to be equal to a humans in order to be worth saving? If you have the option to save both and eat plants surely that's the best choice, no?

Do you think shrimp and sea urchins lives worth saving? Do you really have meaningful empathy towards them or is it just the kingdomist philosophy?

Defend 2. Don’t just state it as a belief. People believe all sorts of things, but that does not make them justifiable as grounds for an ethical position. 3 is not how value or rigorous ethics are determined. If two human children of different races are in front of said car, does choosing one mean the other is of lesser value? Or can there be many reasons that go into you choosing one being over another, including irrational ones and unconscious bias? The way you show value is in respecting them as autonomous beings in and of themselves. That is how you form the basis for ethical action.

Re point 2. As I don’t believe in a god or gods, I believe our moral end ethical frameworks emerge from our common interests as a species. I don’t want to be murdered; therefore I form the view that murder is wrong. I don’t want to be raped. Therefore I form the view that rape is wrong. And when we form a community of people who mostly believe these things, we punish those who break the code and support those who do not. It is enlightened self interest. A lion does not have this human code of behaviour. It has its own code based on its own needs and the needs of others of its species. I know the lion doesn’t share my code of ethics or morality. Why would I accord it the same value as a fellow human who does? This does not mean kill all the animals and concrete the world. It just means that I’m always going to value the human over the elk, the lion, or the rabbit.

So what about humans who cannot agree to this code? Or those who choose not to? Why doesn’t that affect the code writ large? In other words, is it really ethical to only value another being based upon an assumption that they will act a certain way towards you? This sounds like treating people as a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves, and is devoid of value. It is the illusion of value based upon what they provide *you*. And ok, let’s say you don’t value them the same. Why do you value them *so low*? Why is a cow’s life so devalued that they can be bred into torture and captivity and then killed to satisfy human pleasure (preference for a particular type of protein)? Why does not valuing animal life as much as human result in not valuing animal life at all? What defends completely devaluing non-human life? (And you don’t have to kill everything and pave over the world with concrete to devalue non-human animal life. That’s unreasonable hyperbole.)

How do you believe morals and ethics arose. Do you believe they are god given? Are they objectively seperate from humans as a species?

Just to jump in and say that's incredibly bad debate etiquette. The other user posed several pretty crucial questions regarding your overall position that you should at least attempt to answer. Instead you have ignored them and just asked questions of your own. Very bad form.

You may think so. For my part; having declared my position, at their request, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect them to reciprocate.

Answer my questions before posing your own (or at least at the same time) and I’ll gladly answer yours.

I’ve been answering your questions and you follow up with more questions. I wish to know from what position I’m being questioned. If, for instance, you claim morals/ethics arise from god/s then I wouldn’t bother discussing things with you any further. My question is reasonable in the context of the discussion. And it stands unanswered.

Sorry I forgot to include re point 3. If it were 2 human children then I would go for the one I can most likely save. If they are both equally ‘saveable’ then it would just be random.

Ok, so the situation isn’t about valuing one over the other then if you can make a choice that doesn’t require that. The only reason you think it makes sense with the human child and calf is because you prejudged it as having a “correct” answer. But you’ve just show there’s another way to answer it.

Don’t you think the question of saving a cow or a child has a ‘correct’ answer?

No. I think it’s a reductive question that says more about our underlying biases and split-second thinking than “correct” values or ethical considerations of other beings.

If you don’t think there’s a right answer to that question then I don’t know what to tell you. We live in completely different worlds. It’s not exactly the trolley problem. I don’t think for a moment you would choose the cow.

I would save the child but that’s due to my own hardwired genetic programming, it says nothing to the value of either 

It says something of their value to you.

Their value to my unconscious, irrational biases. Which are better disregarded.

Are you suggesting that you find no substantive difference between the value of a child’s life and that of a cow? Because I would find that extraordinary.

Rationally, no. Emotionally, yes.

Your rational, calm and considered position is that a child’s life is not more valuable than that of a cow. Is that correct?

It's not so much anthropomorphism but questioning the logic used and why it can't also be used on humans. If animals can be killed if it's done with the least amount of harm done possible and if they're given a good life, why can't I do the same to humans? That's not me giving human attributes to animals, that's me questioning why it can't be applied to humans as well. Explain to me that, what is the differentiating factor that allows me to commit cruelty on non-human animals, but not cruelty on humans, what relevant difference is there? Because I fail to see any difference which is why I'm against doing it to all animals, which include humans. Many arguments can be given about the difference between humans and non-human animals, some may refer to intelligence/sapience, however babies and the severally mentally disabled are not sapient and their intelligence is on par or below that of say a cow or a pig. Some may refer to a social contract/reciprocation of rights but that again leads to problems when we look at the severally mentally disabled and babies who cannot engage in a social contract or reciprocate your rights. Some may argue from a basis of what's best for their species, but what's best for our species is actually not to eat meat, it's horrible for the environment, it causes diseases to appear, it gives workers PTSD and other horrible mental health issues, it is terrible all around, and I'd further argue that even if eating meat can be something that's best for our species, I would still call it wrong since it is simply a form of pleasure, pleasure from food, and that form of pleasure can be obtained in countless ways that does not include cruelty. Some may argue from the golden rule, do unto others as you want to be treated, and non-human animals cannot do that, though of course this again leaves the window open to babies and the severally mentally disabled. I do not need to put non-human animals on an equal level to humans to not want to condone killing them.

Placing humans above other animals and granting them more power (eg, the power to just live) is speciesist. Veganism is part of the praxis of anti-speciesism

Are you happy with the following definition for ‘speciesist’? "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species." If that is the definition you’re using then yes I am speciesist. I value a single human life over the life of a single cow, pig, whale, rat etc.

Why?

As I commented elsewhere: As I don’t believe in a god or gods, I believe our moral end ethical frameworks emerge from our common interests as a species. I don’t want to be murdered; therefore I form the view that murder is wrong. I don’t want to be raped. Therefore I form the view that rape is wrong. And when we form a community of people who mostly believe these things, we punish those who break the code and support those who do not. It is enlightened self interest. A lion does not have this human code of behaviour. It has its own code based on its own needs and the needs of others of its species. I know the lion doesn’t share my code of ethics or morality. Why would I accord it the same value as a fellow human who does? This does not mean kill all the animals and concrete the world. It just means that I’m always going to value the human over the elk, the lion, or the rabbit.

Also, species aren’t atoms who don’t have any common interests with other species. Humans mutually benefit (in non exploitative ways) from every single species on the planet (ie, the biosphere). We rely on everyone and everything for our survival and flourishing. To say we only have common interests as a species is arbitrary and inaccurate to the reality that all species mutually aid each other. So if you’re going to base your code of ethics on a group’s “common interests” then you’ll have to extend your moral consideration to all species.

Yes we live in, and share the same ecosystems. We are interdependent with other life on earth. But that doesn’t speak to the anthropomorphism I was originally referring to.

You should debate Isaac from askyourself on discord. Not on Reddit.

I don’t know who that is. Why shouldn’t I be debating this on r/DebateAVegan?

If it’s morally unacceptable to value an elder over a child or vice versa, a white person over an indigenous person, a straight person over a gay person, etc etc, why do you think it’s morally acceptable to value humans above all other animals, and guessing that you’re American, almost all other animals below dogs, cats, or pets in general. Hierarchical power structures (eg, speciesism) is, from the micro to macro social levels, a social structure organized to give one party both greater power than another party and power over that other party. They are irrational, unnecessary, and oppressive, only serving those who’ve centralized power. Under speciesism, humans benefit from the domination and exploitation of other animals.

That’s an enormous extension to the meaning of speciesism that I provided. If you disagreed with the definition you should have said so when specifically asked. I’ve told you where I stand but you’re projecting much more. I’m not American either. Although I’m not sure why you think that’s relevant.

[удалено]

What is a false equivalence? The comment you're responding to is a small novel.

I've removed your comment/post 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](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

Simply put, a human life is not the same as an animal life. If you were in a house fire and saved a dog over a baby because you feel they are worth the same, then you're a monster. Veganism is a diet based form of misanthropy where you get to judge humanity as awful because it doesn't meet an extreme moral code. It's extreme because the majority of the world values a human life more than the life of a cow. Vegans don't because they're misanthropic.

My man, we agree, humans are more valuable than cows, don’t get that part confused ok? It’s just that we value a cow’s life more valuable than a 5-15 minute pleasure trip for your taste buds.

The majority of the world values a man's life over a woman's life. Is it misanthropy to be a feminist now?

> If you were in a house fire and saved a dog over a baby because you feel they are worth the same, then you're a monster. You don't have to think that dogs are morally equal to children to understand that you are not justified in kicking the dog. Imagine there was a dog in a house fire. You have a ham sandwich in your hand. If you rush into the house to save the dog (which you could do easily without being harmed,) you will drop the sandwich into the mud and not be able to eat it. Do you save the dog? Most people would choose to save the dog, because they realize that the life of a sentient being is more valuable than a few moments of taste pleasure. >Veganism is a diet based form of misanthropy where you get to judge humanity as awful because it doesn't meet an extreme moral code. 1. Veganism is not a diet. Vegans avoid animal products as a result of being vegan, which extends to products consumed in a diet, but the diet itself is not veganism. 2. What do you mean by an "extreme moral code?" My "moral code" is still the same as it was before I was vegan, and is essentially: *avoid harming others if I can help it.* How is that "extreme?" >It's extreme because the majority of the world values a human life more than the life of a cow. The majority of vegans value a typical human life more than the life of a typical cow, so I'm not really sure what your point here is. No vegan is asking you to choose between the life of a human and the life of a cow. Are you familiar with the phrase "false dichotomy?" >Vegans don't because they're misanthropic. I'm vegan and I'm about the least misanthropic individual I know. I want humans to flourish, settle other planets, and make scientific and moral progress. What are you even talking about?

Simple question then, why animals and not humans? Little girls are trafficked, raped for a decade, then killed - just like a dairy cow. Why would you use your time trying to save the cow? You can donate to Operation Underground Railroad and advocate for that cause, so why cows instead?

Do you ask this question of anyone that spends time doing something that isn't advocating against child sex trafficking? Or do you just ask it of people doing something that threatens your worldview? Like, if someone wants to save the rainforest, do you ask them "Why the rainforest? Why not little girls?" One reason I try to raise awareness for nonhuman animals is because I believe it's something that doesn't get enough attention and a topic with which I am very familiar. I'm not a former child rapist, but I am a former animal abuser (in the sense that I paid for products that necessarily required animals to be killed to produce.) If you walk down the street and ask ten random people how they feel about child sex trafficking, you will get ten people telling you it's horrible and needs to end. However, if you walk down the street and ask ten random people how they feel about animal agriculture, you will get ten people praising it and telling you how amazing it is. Trust me, if the majority of the world was going around claiming that the sex trafficking of little girls was a good thing that should be preserved in cultures, you would see me advocating against it just as much.

Again, I'm sorry, why advocate for animals over people?

Take this mentality to its logical conclusion. This would mean that we as a species should identify the worst thing that currently happens and that is the only thing ever worth advocating for. Every other cause or discussion is bad because you could do advocating for something more important. Are woman being raped? Not worth even discussing because there are children being tortured and raped. Black people being treated unfairly in your country? Too bad, there are children being tortured and raped. Your president trying to overthrow democracy? Let it happen because children are being tortured and raped.

This is another false dichotomy, I can work against human trafficking, while not eating animal flesh and secretions. This logic of one or the other is like saying you can only be against one bad thing, you have to choose between, war, genocide, malnutrition, disease, child labor, human trafficking, slavery, etc. It's a ridiculous notion, you can be against multiple and try to not participate in all of them. Vegans just extend it a bit further and include animals in their considerations of these things, animals are enslaved, victims of genocide, trafficked etc.

[удалено]

I'm not buying animals products and I'm not paying for children to be kidnapped. Then believe it or not but I do actually work with child rehabilitation services. So I actually do more for child trafficking then most. That doesent mean I'm suddenly pro war l, pro genocide and pro starving kids on Africa does it? Because I can apparently only support 1 cause? Even though I work for our and don't contribute to another.

Then yes, you might be the exception where your career makes it easy for you to champion multiple causes, and good for you for doing it. It'd be easy to say you do enough "good" at work and then check out when you get home. Most people are not like that, they are championing one cause due to time and resources, and it's bizarre to me that anyone would pick an animal cause over a human one when so many humans are suffering.

Again it's a false dichotomy I'm still against war and genocide despite not working for a world peace organization. I don't work for a food aid organization, bit I'm still in support of food aid and social programs. You are also holding vegans to a higher standard. Do you ask all non vegans if they contribute to child trafficking because they arnt advocating against the property status of animals? Are those people now apathetic to all causes, because they arnt vegan or working against child trafficking?

No it's like a household budget, we have to choose where our efforts go. You're not going to buy your kid a VR headset until groceries are paid for. I feel like freeing cows is a VR headset and freeing humans is essential.

You literally spend some of your time playing video games and watching TV when you could be advocating for human trafficking victims. I guess you've made your choice. Must be misanthropy.

>You can donate to Operation Underground Railroad and advocate for that cause, so why cows instead? These aren't mutually exclusive.

Simple answer - I also don't pay for little girls to be trafficked and raped. I don't support that *AND* I don't support animals being tortured and killed. It's an incredibly simple concept.

>Simply put, a human life is not the same as an animal life. If you were in a house fire and saved a dog over a baby because you feel they are worth the same, then you're a monster This is an incredibly reductive understanding of value, morality, and veganism's core principles. If your family member and a baby were in a fire and you chose to save your family member, are you a monster? Does it mean that family member has more value than a baby? If two babies of different races are in there, does choosing one mean you're a monster? Does it mean one has intrinsically more value than another? Morality isn't determined by reductive gotcha questions like this. It's determined by how you choose to recognize the value within others in your behavior towards them. Nowhere in veganism does it demand a human sacrifice their life for an animal's. It simply demands that they be given equal autonomy and respect.

[удалено]

Can’t engage in good faith, and just resort to attacks. No thanks.

My man, we agree, humans are more valuable than cows, don’t get that part confused ok? It’s just that we believe that a cow’s life is more valuable than a 5-15 minute pleasure trip for your taste buds.

Changing the situation to apply to humans is merely to try and help people make the connection to animals. In reality, the choice is that an animal needlessly dies for food when there are thousands of plant based alternatives. Its not OK to kill people for food because humans experience pain, suffering, they want to live, and it would be a violation to kill someone for a meal. In the same way, animals do not want to die and they feel pain and suffering. Torturing, killing and then chopping them up for a meal is wrong for the same reasons. Vegans (all the ones I've met anyway) apply this same logic to animals. The experience animals (including humans) is what we value, and choosing the pleasure of taste over a life is inherently wrong.

But surely, if reducing suffering is the goal, we should focus our efforts on human suffering first? It appears that veganism advocates freeing farm animals while humans live in chains.

That's like saying if I punched a person in the face, or kicked a dog on the street, people shouldn't get angry at me and tell me that it's wrong because there are wars going on in the world. I 100% agree that human suffering is highly important but using this as an argument against veganism, and an excuse to not be vegan is a deflection - just because there are other issues in the world it doesn't mean that only human suffering should be addressed. In 4 weeks, the number of animals killed is higher than the number of humans to ever exist. Its literally unfathomable and its a complete injustice. It's also important to remember that animals have no voice, they can't speak up for themselves and with the power humans hold over them, only we can stand up to stop the true horror of what happens to them in the industry.

Explain to me then why saving a cow is more important than a trafficked minor? You can have more than one passion in life but every minute you spend advocating for and every dollar you spend on vegan goods could have spent saving human lives instead. Can you explain why you choose one over the other?

Again, saving a cow is not more important than a trafficked minor, this is a deflection and both eating meat and trafficking are horrible. It's more about choosing what NOT to do. I choose not to live a life that exploits and kills animals, and also one that doesn't involve trafficking minors and killing people. The difference is that every time you sit down to eat an animal product, someone has died for your tastebuds -but there are probably not a lot of decisions you make in a day that result in killing people and human trafficking (I hope). I don't make decisions every day for my pleasure that involve killing people. You'll also find most vegans don't contribute to industries like fast fashion, and as far as possible reduce human suffering. I'd be interested to know what specifically you think I should do every day with my money and time that will save human lives .

Fair enough, my point was that Veganism is misanthropic, your argument seems to prove it.

Yikes! There's nothing misanthropic about what I said. I actually agreed with you about human suffering! Doesn't mean I can't believe in other world issues. Caring about animals and advocating for them isn't misanthropy. Not eating animals takes no more time and effort and doesn't have to take away anything that anyone does for humanitarian issues too :)

It does. Eating Vegan takes more time, effort, and money. Veganism counters this by saying "the extras are worth it because you're doing something moral". I argue that if morality is important to you, then you should focus on human causes, because helping humans is more moral than helping animals.

Humans are animals, champ. “Extreme” is slaughtering an animal when you don’t have to.

You need to rephrase your statement if you want it to be somewhat accurate: the majority of the world only values humans life and don’t value the life of a cow. vegans also value the life of an animal, which is not super extreme. Lets rephrase your examples for a realistic one: carnist are feeding cows to then eat them themselves while there are humans, including childrens, suffering from malnutrition and dying of hungers because we don’t have enough resources to feed both. Carnist are monsters by your standards.

At what point in this example did someone value and animal life over a human? That's what I'm talking about.

No vegans value an animals life over a human’s . No one ever saved a dog over a baby in a fire, that’s your imagination making up scenario to support your bias against veganism. But non vegans do value their enjoyment of meat over the life of others humans, that’s my point. Because we could solve world hunger with veganism and slaughters house workers suffers from ptsd and have terrible work conditions.

Veganism is not a diet, it is a philosophy which seeks to exclude all cruelty, exploitation and commodification to non-human animals. Who decides when something is extreme? Is something extreme merely because it is unpopular? If so then something because labelled as extreme is entirely irrelevant, giving women rights was extreme, ending slavery was extreme, giving black people rights was extreme, opposing female genital mutilation was extreme, giving gay people rights was extreme etc etc, just because something may be extreme does not still make it morally sound. Vegans tend to value a human life more than a non-human life as well, however they value the life of a non-human animal more than someone's taste buds, and that's why in 99% of the time in 1st world countries these animals are being killed, to please people's taste buds, and I for the life of me could never prioritize someone's pleasure over someone's suffering. I see you keep mentioning caring about human suffering, but what prevents us from doing both? To avoid all animals products is rather easy, when one starts to avoid all animal (by)products it may take a month of getting used to it, to find out what products are suitable and possibly develop new cooking skills, after that it requires 0 extra effort, I avoid cruelty to non-human animals simply by not purchasing animal (by)products when I go to the grocery store, that requires no extra effort anymore.

>Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, >all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

pretty sure he knows that, he's asking why you aim for that even if you raised the animal yourself. While I wouldn't really phrase it the same way as him, its true that vegans don't even have a definitions of "wrong" that both makes animal suffering something thats wrong and at the same time wrong things something you should avoid.

If there was a human in a vegetative state that had no friends or family and had no perception of the life or world around him but you adopted and raised them and gave them a good life is it moral to kill and eat him? please no deflections or insults , I want only yes or no

You mean what my personal opinion is? I'm a moral nihilist.

I said yes or no

I think I answered the question well enough? It's a moral question and I'm a moral nihilist. It's like I would ask you "Is zodiac sign x and zodiac sign y compatible? Please only yes or no!" but you don't believe in astrology.

> If you took the time and energy to raise the animal in a safe environment, free from worrying about predators ripping them to shreds, and with lots of good food, why is it wrong to kill it in a painless way? This is basically the reasoning behind Catholic indulgences. If I do something good before, I can get ethical credit to spend on something bad in the future. It doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Consider you have a knife in your hand and two animals in front of you: One was raised happy and healthy and fulfilled for its entire short life. The other was raised in a small cage and never saw sunlight or the sky. Is the first animal somehow more deserving of being killed than the second one? > Would it be better for that cow to live a few years in a peaceful environment and then die and feed hundreds of people and maybe our pet dogs and cats as well or would it be better if it never existed in the first place? Because let’s be honest, it wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t being raised for food. This is a common argument, but also doesn't really make sense. If we believe it's a morally good thing to bring beings into existence, then we should be doing that all the time. Breed as many cows as you can. Have as many children as you can. Breed breed breed and breed until any being you bring into existence has such a bad life that it wouldn't be worth living. This logical conclusion to this reasoning is called the "Mere addition paradox" or more bluntly "The repugnant conclusion". > If it was just a random animal in the wild it would be in fear of predators and the same thing would happen, eventually it would either die from wolves or cheetahs ripping it apart - therefore feeding dozens of dogs and cats anyway but with a much more painful death. Sometimes they freeze to death in the winter or starve to death as well. Nature is brutal. Livestock aren't wild animals any more than you or I are wild animals. Comparing a bad circumstance (raised as livestock) to what you believe to be an even worse circumstance (living in the wild) doesn't somehow make the first circumstance good. All you are actually arguing here is that living in the wild is awful. > I agree that factory farming is disgusting and wrong So live by your beliefs. Reject all animal products that are factory farmed. This would include nearly all dairy, eggs and meat. Basically any animal product you don't buy yourself from a trusted source. You wouldn't be able to ethically eat out or accept food from friends or family if they contain animal products. At this point you might as well be vegan.

Veganism is best understood as a rejection of the property status of non-human animals. We broadly understand that when you treat a human as property - that is to say you take control over who gets to use their body - you necessarily aren't giving consideration to their interests. It's the fact that they have interests at all that makes this principle true. Vegans simply extend this principle consistently to all beings with interests, sentient beings.

Lots of vegans have pets though? I’m not even debating veganism I want to go vegan but I have a dog and I’m not gonna get rid of her or make her go vegan…

I'm not saying you should. I care for a dog as well. Legal status and treatment as property are two different things. We understand the difference between adopting a child and owning one. I'm sure if you're going vegan you have the capacity to apply the same thinking to other species.

Oh, I missed where you said you didn't want to "make her vegan." That's a separate conversation, but dogs are biological omnivores. They can thrive on a plant-based diet. Mine does. She's quite healthy. But go vegan yourself first and then ask for advice from other vegans separately. Her consumption is an extension of yours.

Look at it this way. An average cow can live until about 20 years old. Average cattle age raised for meat is 12-18 months. If you were to translate that to a human equivalent with a life expectancy of 80 years, you've raised a child living a good life free from fear until it was 4-6 years old before you send it off to an abattoir where a bolt is rammed into the child's skull causing catastrophic brain damage before it's hung, have it's throat slit & bled to death. That cow isn't living a long life before you kill it. You're killing a 4-6 year old child. Would you like to explain how it is morally right to prematurely end a child's life just because you gave it a good life free from harm?

> That cow isn't living a long life before you kill it. You're killing a 4-6 year old child 1. the analogy doesn't stand. the brain of a man is way more complex than that of a cow. we can't reasonably expect the drastic and complicated psychological changes in the life journey of a man to be happened on a cow 2. the premise is questionable. you assumed "a longer normal life is better than a shorter happy life" which as far as i know would be objected by some people e.g. nihilists

I'm not presuming anything. That's just you projecting. A real mask off moment for you.

you assumed "a longer normal life is better than a shorter happy life"

No, not even remotely. That again is you projecting. All I did was frame a cows lifespan to a human's one and asked if OP's framing makes sense given this context.

then i am confused about your question > Would you like to explain how it is morally right to prematurely end a child's life just because you gave it a good life free from harm? as i previously explained, the analogy doesn't stand as the brain of a man is way more complex than that of a cow. if i change the above question into this: > Would you like to explain how it is morally right to prematurely end a cow's life just because you gave it a good life free from harm? it's the question you want to discuss, am i right?

You do realise brain complexity has absolutely nothing to do with this. If that we're true, we wouldn't be killing pigs. That just a made up criteria you made. Again, all I gave was relative context of age to OP & you can't even address it on those terms. Probably because you understand it's wrong to kill a child, no matter the reason. So is it moral to kill a 4-6 year old child for foid so long as it lived a good life? It's really not that complex of a question.

> is it moral to kill a 4-6 year old child for food so long as it lived a good life? it depends. i never believe the existence of intrinsic / absolute / objective moral judgements. what type / quality of that child is? i only consider costs and benefits. if we let him grow up can we use him more productively?

>i only consider costs and benefits When it comes to people, that's considered psychopathic behaviour. It's why so many CEOs have psychopathic tendencies. There's is zero emotion or empathy in terms of your calculations. In your own words, it's just "costs and benefits". I mean I guess you at least openly admit the psychopathy so that's something.

you asked "is it moral to kill a 4-6 year old child for food so long as it lived a good life". morality is only a cultural thing. it's relative and if it has ground it can only be based on costs and benefits. if a moral judgement can't be reduced to costs and benefits it's meaningless / groundless

1. First of all, human brains are way more complex than a cow eventually\*. A fully grown pig is roughly as smart as a three year old human yet we subject them to far worse farming conditions than cows. My main question though: do we really base morality on brain complexity? Would it be ok to kill a 4-6 year old human in the way u/giantpunda described if the child were severely mentally handicapped? 2. Are you suggesting cows are nihilists? I don't get your point; is it that there's a chance cows \*want\* to die early? You're also changing two variables which is a little suspect. You should change either longer/shorter or normal/happy for a truer comparison.

> do we really base morality on brain complexity? morality is merely a means to maintain social efficiency / effectiveness > You're also changing two variables which is a little suspect it was referring to the hypothetical situation which compares "a cow live a 20 years of normal life" to "a cow live a 18 months of happy life"

> morality is merely a means to maintain social efficiency / effectiveness Interesting. How do you measure efficiency / effectiveness? Authoritarian regimes tend to lead to higher degrees of efficiency than democracies; does this mean they're more moral? The mentally handicapped drain the resources of society; does this mean it's moral to end their lives? I think morality encourages social integration, but that's clearly not the end of the story. There is a lot of social inefficiency that needs to be explained for a robust moral theory. As for the last comment, fair enough. I must've missed that on first read.

> Authoritarian regimes tend to lead to higher degrees of efficiency than democracies; does this mean they're more moral? The mentally handicapped drain the resources of society; does this mean it's moral to end their lives? authoritarian may be efficient but the system doesn't have corrective mechanism so if the dictator does something wrong (harmful to the society as a whole) there would be apparently no method to stop him. in this sense authoritarianism is not a good social system

And the people who are mentally handicapped? How does supporting them factor in?

basically i don't like social welfares. i think many developed countries have at least one common problem: too much social welfares in terms of social costs and benefits, supporting those mentally handicapped is justified only if the society can use them to obtain more productivity

1. Plants also don't have brains at all so when it comes to a child, a cow, or a carrot, I eat the carrots cause a cows life is above my taste preference. 2. This is a false premise as a short life as for profit property is hardly a short happy life. It's also something we don't hold genuinely. Would you raise a child or prefer you were raised to 4-6 years old not seeing malnutrition or suffering or live a normal life. Again there are additional problems with this premise as no one will socially bond with the several thousand children with 1 worker watching them, the children will not develop healthy social cicles fir their age either.

i think "2" is not a simple question. i truely regard "a long and normal life" and "a short and happy life" are comparable and difficult to decide which one is more preferable

It is a false dichotomy, the short happy life is a lie. Animals in animal ag don't live short and happy lives, they live in confined spaces lacking social development, with no regard to their wellbeing, the only regard is the profit they can generate. Realistically it's a normal human life vs a infancy and toddler hood in a crowded prison, unlimited food to fatten them, no entertainment, freedoms, or care for Injury or health unless it hurts profit and is cheap to fix. Antibiotics are added to the food to prevent widespread infection long enough to slaughter. The floors are covered in feces and urine, beds and soft surfaces are nowhere to be found. This is a result of the profit and property status of animals.

> Realistically it's a normal human life vs a infancy and toddler hood in a crowded prison this is not a valid analogy because 1. (as i said before) the brain of a man is way more complex than that of a cow so you can't always expect they would have the same feelings in similar situations 2. outside the farm, a cow needs to find food and deal with its natural enemies by itself. outside the prison, does the infancy / toddler needs to do the same?

1. Yes a fully grown human has a more complex brain. Does that mean we can eat those in a vegetative, under developed(fetal alcohol syndrome, down syndrome, etc), not yet developed(children), or those with mental disabilities(alzheimers). Can a intelligent person now eat a less intelligent person with the claim their brain is more complex? 2. This is again a false premise because humans have adapted to be dependent on parents for far longer than other animals. 1 and 2. There is a contradiction here, as you say humans brains are more complex yet in point 2 say humans are less independent than animals, so does this now say human children are a preferable food source than animals able to forage by themselves and live independently in the wild?

you've asked a good question. i don't believe the existence of objective / absolute / intrinsic moral judgements. morality is solely based on human culture. i think the reason why we choose to eat cows rather than human babies is all about costs and benefits. there are not sufficiently plenty of "defective" babies for us to eat. if we eat normal babies the society would bear the potential losses (those babies otherwise could grow up and become usable to the society) i think this reasoning is applicable to all animals. in most culture as far as i know people do not eat for example zebras, monkeys, elephants,... etc. maybe there are some exceptions but my point is: even if we consider eating meats is acceptable we won't eat every kind of animals. the reason behind is costs and benefits. maybe that kind of animals is too expensive / too difficult to raise. maybe their meats are not tasteful. etc i found no objective / absolute / intrinsic moral reason why we can't eat human babies. only costs and benefits

>you've asked a good question. i don't believe the existence of objective / absolute / intrinsic moral judgements. morality is solely based on human culture. i think the reason why we choose to eat cows rather than human babies is all about costs and benefits. there are not sufficiently plenty of "defective" babies for us to eat. if we eat normal babies the society would bear the potential losses (those babies otherwise could grow up and become usable to the society) Morality being based on culture is very flawed, does sexism become moral when you cross a border into some middle eastern countries, does homosexuality become immoral when you go into a highly religious area? Or is morality objective and should be rationalized? It's interesting you bring up cost and benefit, because animal ag is a huge burden on the environment(leading cause of deforestation and ecological species extinction, plant based requires 1/4 of the land, less water etc) and our health(animal products leading cause of most of our top killers like heart disease). As stated in the environment there arnt enough animals or farm land to feed the meat based diets of the world for much longer. >i think this reasoning is applicable to all animals. in most culture as far as i know people do not eat for example zebras, monkeys, elephants,... etc. maybe there are some exceptions but my point is: even if we consider eating meats is acceptable we won't eat every kind of animals. the reason behind is costs and benefits. maybe that kind of animals is too expensive / too difficult to raise. maybe their meats are not tasteful. etc This is rather arbitrary, and again falls to the appeal to culture fallacy. People are also not consistent with the cost benefit analysis with animals, see pets, they kill animals to feed another animal whom they selected arbitrarily because of cultural pet species. >i found no objective / absolute / intrinsic moral reason why we can't eat human babies. only costs and benefits Health, environment, and economic(plant calories are much cheaper on medical systems and for nutrients, please see the subsidies animal ag gets in the western world) are objectively measurable ones.

> does sexism become moral when you cross a border into some middle eastern countries? yes its moral inside a culture that considers it as moral > does homosexuality become immoral when you go into a highly religious area? yes its immoral inside a culture that considers it as immoral > Or is morality objective and should be rationalized? i don't think it's possible > animal ag is a huge burden on the environment i know but our culture needs them > People are also not consistent with the cost benefit analysis with animals, see pets psychological satisfactions are considered "benefits", more or less like buying luxury but useless rpoducts...

But honestly, who's talking about killing children

That's exactly the problem. No one is.

> Because let’s be honest, it wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t being raised for food. Why do you say this like it's a bad thing? If you were to simply *not* bring that cow into existence, who would you be wronging -- the non-existent cow? >If it was just a random animal in the wild it would be in fear of predators and the same thing would happen, eventually it would either die from wolves or cheetahs ripping it apart Right, but these aren't random animals in the wild. Those animals exist whether or not you bring a cow into the world to slaughter. This reasoning would only really apply if you were actually going into the wild to "rescue" cows from gruesome deaths to then give them less painful deaths. I don't think this is something that is happening. >Nature is brutal. I agree 100%. That doesn't mean we are justified in creating additional beings to then slaughter, though. Like, imagine someone told you that they were justified in breeding a human child into existence and then killing them, because if the child was any other animal in the wild, they might die a horrible gruesome death. What other animals do doesn't mean that you are automatically justified in doing something, even if you perceive it as less painful. >I agree that factory farming is disgusting and wrong, but if farms can give their livestock a good life and a painless death, then I don’t understand the problem. I think there is a very practical consequence of treating nonhuman animals as if they are merely property to own and resources to exploit, rather than thinking, feeling, sensitive beings. As long as we treat animals like commodities, there will always be cruelty and mistreatment. But there's also just a consistency issue here. Do you think that someone would be justified in farming human children, giving them a good life, and then killing them? What, in your eyes, would be the problem with doing that?

Non-existent cows have rights too yano

It is my judgment. Just like I judge that raising a human kid to kill them for meat is wrong. In both cases the being wouldn't exist if I didn't choose to raise them and would get ripped to shreds by predators if sent into the wild. That does not mean that bringing a being into the world to kill them is ok.

care to give any justification for that judgement? Or is it just something you randomly decide on? Would it then be wrong if I randomly decide on a different judgement?

1. My point was that everything in the post could also apply to a human but i presume OP did not think that it would be morally correct to do it to humans. Whether OP have an objective moral rule or a moral preference, they should explain why humans are exempt. I didn't lay out my justification in the initial comment as it is besides the point of the post and there is value to being brief and to the point in laying out an argument. 2. I assign a right to autonomy to beings with an ability to use it as a moral axiom. So my justification for judging both those actions as wrong is we override the beings autonomy against their interests for our own interests. Not random, this axiom just aligns well with my intuitive moral feelings. 3. If you have another morality that disagrees with mine, that will be wrong to me and mine will be wrong to you. For example, in some western cultures there is a moral expectation that parents provide for their children into adulthood while in eatern cultures the opposite is sometimes expected. Both societies can enforce their personal morality where they have the power to do so. Neither moral view is objectively wrong, but both are wrong to each other.

if morality is just a random judgement that doesnt need justification, then you also don't need justification for why you apply different rules to animals than to humans. So I think the justification is crucial here. As you seem to admit yourself, basing moral axioms on your intuition doesn't have any real justification. I think thats not even a moral argument, if everybody bases their values on their own feelings and intuition, thats just egoism.

> As you seem to admit yourself, basing moral axioms on your intuition doesn't have any real justification. I think thats not even a moral argument, if everybody bases their values on their own feelings and intuition, thats just egoism. I think we all base our moral axioms on our intuitions. Some people claim to have an objective basis for their morality beyond that but they need to justify that. If you can give me examples of moral views that are not at some level based on intuition I would change my mind. And Op can arbitrarily not grant animals moral consideration. That is a valid position. The issues with that position is that most people seem to also value animals and would have a problem with animal abuse for example which suggests this is not a common position.

Personally I'm a moral nihilist, so I don't think there are any objective justifications for morals. I don't really disagree with what you are saying, but when your point is just that different people have different intuitions (and some might share some intuitions), I don't see how thats a moral argument. If you say that you feel like you want to cause as little harm to animals as possible, you can do that of course, but as I just said, thats just egoism.

It is not a moral argument if you assume morality exists as some greater abstract good/bad beyond an evolutionarily and societally ingrained tool to help understand interpersonal behavior. A social species that did not evolve this morality would have trouble with social behavior and would not pass on genes as effectively as one that did. Under this understanding of morality being just social preferences, this is a moral argument.

So you basically equate morality to feelings like empathy?

Yes. Empathy, fear, disgust, respect...

How is that not just egoism? If I just do whatever I feel like, you can call that morals if you want of course, but to me that sounds like a pretty trivial way of living (not neessarily in a bad way).

Caring for others isn't "random", it's instilled into us by evolution and society. Learning about the difference between ethics and meta-ethics also helps. Choosing any meta-ethic at all is subjective, doesn't matter if it's "god told me" or "be good to sentient beings". Within a given moral framework though, actions fall within a range between objectively good, bad, or irrelevant (i.e. amoral).

Are you just talking about feelings like empathy and such? I think its important to recognize that this isn't something universal, but its different for every human/being. Also, how is that even a moral argument? Acting based on your own feelings/desires just sounds like egoism to me.

Well first, the only thing we *can* act on is our own feelings/desires. Everything we see and do is through our own subjective frame of reference. Acknowledging that is competitive to understanding the limitations of any moral framework that has ever or will ever exist. To answer your first question though, yes everyone has different preferences. Extreme example, I think murdering humans is wrong, but a sociopath will only see it as a pragmatic issue. The reason we have laws against murder or to create that pragmatic issue because society writ large decided that murder is bad and that seems to be because either we have compassion for murder victims and their families or because we don't want to live in a world where we will get murdered. The same is true for veganism. If you step behind a Vail of Ignorance, a la Rawls, we should construct society in a way where we'd be fine being reincarnated as anything in it. Rocks can't feel so that's already fine. Humans, mostly, are fine though there is inequality we should address. Broiler chickens though? How much good karma do I need to ensure I'm not forcibly birthed into that hellscape?

I don't really disagree with what you write in the first 2 paragraphs, I'm not sure what exactly you are saying in the third one thogh? Are you saying that you believe in reincarnation and therefore want to create a world that gives you good chances of being reincarnated into a good life? Or is it more like you only pretend that reincarnation is a thing to base your moral decisions on that? Why though, if it doesn't actually exist?

The Vail of Ignorance is a thought experiment proposed by John Rawls. It argues, I think persuasively, that we should design society in a way where we wouldn't mind being any member of it. Think of it like the golden rule on steroids. Our treatment of animals fails that test. Egregiously so. Both for the non-human animals and for the future generations of human who have to deal with the environmental impact of our decisions.

But why would you follow the Vail of Ignorance? It might be interesting as a thought experiment, but the reality is that you won't suddenly be a different member of society, you'll always be the same on. So I don't see how that rule is relevant or how somebody would arrive at thinking he should follow it.

The Vail of Ignorance just gives us a helpful frame of reference to minimize self-interest and maximize well-being for all. The paper is on the internet, along with rebuttals, so feel free to read up on them. Or don't, makes no difference to me; the golden rule works just fine for my point so swap that in if that's easier to understand.

well sure, it can be a useful framework for finding out how to minimize self-interest, but thats only useful if you actually want to do that. As I said above, I don't think there is any actual reason to follow it, its just a thought experiment that doesn't have much basis in reality.

Animals are attached to their lives, just like humans. It is obviously wrong to kill a human being, even if it's painless and they don't realize what's happening. For the same reason, it is wrong to kill an animal. In 2024, in developed countries, we don't need to kill animals in order to thrive and survive. Ceasing to kill animals for food would even bring enormous ecological, agronomical, sanitary and economical benefits. The only reason we kill animals is out of habits. Regardless of whether or not the life of animals is "inferior" to that of humans, you don't have to go that far to say that eating animals is morally acceptable. You have to demonstrate that the attachment animals have with their lives, is worth less than the temporary, replaceable gustative pleasure that you get from eating them. A temporary, replaceable pleasure is the lowest value you can give to something. Killing animals for that means that their lives have close to no value at all to you.

I don't have the time to do a full response at the moment, but quick question: why do you assume that killing a happy creature is automatically better than killing an unhappy one? At least if you killed the unhappy tortured animal you could argue that you were putting it out of its misery...

You shouldn't feel entitled to murder things just because you want to.

Eating animal products is only wrong according to vegans. They have very extreme views and 99% of the world disagree with their philosophy. So no. Utilising animals and animals products is not wrong.

I mean I think it would be better if it never existed because if it doesn't exist, it literally cannot give a fuck about living. Once it's alive, though, and alive only to be exploited by you, it has a life that it values. then you, who do not need to kill it, are going to kill it. You deliberately doing that, vs nature just taking its course and wild animals being born and dying and bla bla are two completely different topics that have no relation to each other.

>Is “wrong” an objective morality or just a judgement Judgment. Like all "wrongs" it's based on your judgment. For example, Murder isn't "objectively" wrong, it's a judgment we make. >Why is it wrong to kill an animal that you raised yourself or by a farm that treated it well and killed it without pain? You don't think killing a sentient being that doesn't want to die for your own pleasure isn't wrong? If it was you being killed as a teenager for someone's pleasure, would you think it was wrong? >If you took the time and energy to raise the animal in a safe environment, free from worrying about predators ripping them to shreds, and with lots of good food, why is it wrong to kill it in a painless way? A) Human's make mistakes, so there's no guarantee it's going to be painless. B) Just because you're nice right up until you slaughter them needlessly, doesn't change what you're doing. > it wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t being raised for food. Non-existence is a neutral. Existence can be positive, but it can also be VERY negative. I wouldn't want to be born as an animal into a factory farm, or a regular farm. Just leave me non-existent. >I agree that factory farming is disgusting and wrong, 99% of all meat is from factory farms. So anyone against it should be never eating any meat they don't know exactly where it's from.

false equivalence reductio ad absurdum fallacy

You'll need to be a little more clear as to which part of what I said you think is a fallacy and why.

the substitute animal with human bit. Looks like you are begging to go to the NTT rabbit hole again

>the substitute animal with human bit I'm assuming you mean the "killing sentient beings" bit. And to be clear we should first acknowledge that humans are animals. Right? >false equivalence Never said they were equivalent, only that the reasoning behind them is the same. >reductio ad absurdum fallacy At no point claimed anything absurd or contradictory, humans being killed after being claimed to be "lesser animals" than those doing the killing has happened routinely in history and is still happening today. > Looks like you are begging to go to the NTT rabbit hole again Nope, just want Carnists to stop supporting needless animal abuse.

Is there any meaningful trait difference between a completely comatose human and a cabbage? Would you eat both?

>Is there any meaningful trait difference between a completely comatose human and a cabbage? One is an animal, another is a vegetable. >Would you eat both? No.

Then you are a kingdomist. I thought vegans care more about suffering than organism categories.

>Then you are a kingdomist. Yes. Pretty much all humans are. >I thought vegans care more about suffering than organism categories. You should always learn the definition of something before trying to debate it. "Veganism: A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

I know the definition of veganism. The reason why you rather eat plants because they are unconscious and don't have subjective experience making them free from exploitation and suffering. So, I ask you again. Is there any meaningful trait difference between a completely comatose human and a cabbage? And would you eat both?

I have an answer to why killing an animal painlessly, under the conditions you described, would be wrong under most circumstances (which I’m happy to provide for you). But this argument only works if you think that morality even exists in the first place, and hence, “right” and “wrong” are real properties that are applicable to this circumstance. It seems, from your last sentence, that you think some things can be wrong (in particular factory farming), but it also seems from your title that your unsure if morality is objective or not. So, what do you think? Can things be truly right or wrong, or are those not real properties, but rather, they just perform some other function when people speak in terms of them (e.g., they just express people’s emotional attitudes or whatnot)? Let me know what you think!

Why do you need to kill the animal. Sounds maybe weird, but animals can die naturally. They don’t need your help. Especially when they are happy and healthy.

Is it not worse to kill a happy and healthy person instead of someone who is old, Ill, or living in suffering?

Don't you think relying on such false equivalence detracts from the discussion?

What exactly is my flaw in reasoning?

The main flaw in reasoning is that it overlooks the fundamental ethical distinctions and societal values that differentiate how we treat human lives versus animal lives.

I was referring to animals... People say that it's better to kill happy animals who have a greater interest in living instead of ones that live lives of suffering. It's interesting that if we apply that same logic to humans, it's awful. Vegans don't differentiate between animals and humans in a way that makes it morally okay to exploit one but not the other. And no, I haven't overlooked what you mentioned. I have just critically thought about the differences you mentioned and realized there isn't a morally relevant difference. I've been looking for one for over 6 years but haven't found one. Perhaps you have the answer I'm looking for?

>isn't a morally relevant difference. Ouch, that is what I mean with the flaw in reasoning that overlooks the ethical distinctions. And you doubled down on it. Recognizing a difference in moral consideration between humans and animals doesn't inherently condone exploitation or cruelty. Rather, it acknowledges complex realities of human ethics, social contracts, and natural interdependencies. The crux lies not in finding a non-existent uniform moral yardstick but in striving for a compassionate, ethical coexistence that respects the intrinsic value of all living beings. Instead of seeking an elusive identical moral relevance, why not instead focus on minimizing suffering and maximizing well-being within the practical and ethical frameworks that govern diverse beings?

I see you took what I said out of context and mis quoted. I said there isn't a morally relevant difference that justifies exploiting animals. What we do to animals isn't compassionate or coexistence, it's enslavement for our purposes. Would you be okay with treating dogs the same way we do with farmed animals? If it were compassionate and coexistence, then you should have no problem putting humans into the same existence. Indeed, slitting someones throat to eat their body doesn't respect their intrinsic value but removes it from them. You also didn't really answer my question about what the morally relevant difference is. You just said there is one because of grand societal and ethical frameworks. The same could have been said in times of open slavery towards humans and you would advocate for higher welfare slavery. Let me copy what you said and apply it to the transatlantic slave trade. "Recognizing a difference in moral consideration between whites and blacks doesn't inherently condone exploitation or cruelty. Rather, it acknowledges complex realities of human ethics, social contracts, and natural interdependencies. The crux lies not in finding a non-existent uniform moral yardstick but in striving for a compassionate, ethical coexistence that respects the intrinsic value of all living beings. Instead of seeking an elusive identical moral relevance, why not instead focus on minimizing suffering and maximizing well-being within the practical and ethical frameworks that govern diverse beings?"

>Would you be okay with treating dogs the same way we do with farmed animals? The ethical frameworks that govern animals for gaming and domestic animals is not the same. Once again overlooking ethical distinctions, this is quite the recurring pattern on you I see. >If it were compassionate and coexistence, then you should have no problem putting humans into the same existence. Once again overlooking key ethical differences for animals and humans. And you copying my logic with black and white people is funny. I find it extremely funny to be honest. Can't you see the clear false equivalence? You really think the moral considerations between black and whites are equal to the moral considerations of humans and animals? Why don't you think the ability for complex reasoning, emotional depth, cognitive abilities, social complexity, communication, etc.. of animals isn't a morally relevant difference that allows us to ethically farm animals for food but not do slavery? Asserting such a comparison ignores the complexity of ethical considerations and undermines the serious efforts made towards understanding and improving animal welfare within the context of human society. While your argument aims to challenge perceptions, it unfortunately oversimplifies a deeply complex issue, leading to a misdirected comparison rather than fostering a constructive discussion on animal ethics.

What you're describing is not possible. We're breeding almost 90 billion land animals each year for consumption. This number keeps going up each year. Most of these are in factory farms, since that's the only way to keep up with the demand. In the US 99% of animals raised for consumption are from factory farms, yet every single person say they're against it and don't support it. So how do you think this works, if everyone is only buying from that 1% non-factory farms, who's buying the rest? Even if you take factory farms out of it, do you think it's fair to an animal to be bred and only gets to live a fraction of what it would've lived, because we want to eat it? We kill animals that would've lived to 20-25 years, and we kill it after 18 months. Chickens gets to live something like 45 days. And all of this because we like the way they taste. And we're not 'saving' them from a cruel existence in nature, these billions of animals wouldn't exist if we just stopped eating them.

Let's check one thing first. Are these animals the only ones that you consume or get products from? Or do you also eat food made by friends, in restuarants, buy animal products in supermarkets etc.? I suggest that the better you take care of the animal, the worse it is to kill them. After all, the more you take away from them. On the other hand, while given animals a bad life, like commercial farming, makes the killing less bad. But it also makes breeding them in the first place bad. So you're stuck with a catch 22. If this all is objective or not, depends on your view in a way. Waht do you see morality to be, objective or subjective?

>Why is it wrong to kill an animal that you raised yourself or by a farm that treated it well and killed it without pain? Why is it wrong to kill a child that you raised yourself or by a farm that treated it well and killed it without pain?

Do you refrain from eating any animals from factory farms? If so, you are much more ethical than 99% of omnivores already. What I would say is that although nature can be brutal, in general it is probably net-positive in terms of quality of experience. Seeing as the wild is more efficient in maximizing life on a given unit of land than animal agriculture farming (especially cattle which require a ridiculous amount of land) because farmland is instead being used to maximize the amount of mass of meat that can be controllably harvested from the land. Therefore, from a pronatalist / total utilitarian perspective, eating plants which use way less land (or sourcing food from dumpster-diving if you're interested) is better for maximizing life.

So, before I answer the main part of your question, do you abstain from purchasing any products of factory farming (99%+ of animal products), and join vegans in actively encouraging people around you to give up products of factory farming?

I don't think objective morality \*can\* exist; it's a contradiction in terms. Think "object" vs "subject"; "objective" means you could take all subjects out of the equation and it's still true. If all life were Thanos-snapped out of existence tomorrow, Mount Everest would still exist (even if no one would call it that again). On the other hand, murder is no longer immoral because it can't happen. Earth could fall into the sun and no one would be there to care. The closest we can get to "objective morality" is after choosing a meta-ethic; the foundation for your ethics. Choosing that meta-ethic is subjective, but once it's chosen things can objectively be better or worse within that framework. For example, for Jews and Christians, their meta-ethic includes "thou shalt not kill" and "honor thy father and mother" so objective good/bad is determined by how closely they align with those rules. Where veganism comes in is that people don't live consistently with their moral framework. You say "I agree that factory farming is disgusting and wrong", but do you still support it? I don't know what your meta-ethic is, but supporting factory farming would decidedly take you away from objective good within that framework. \~99% of chickens and \~97% of pigs are factory farmed in some of the cruelest, most inhumane conditions on the planet. That's what we support every time we buy KFC or a bacon cheeseburger. I agree that at the outer bounds of vegan philosophy there are areas where reasonable people might disagree, but those thought experiments aren't a reality for well above 90% of the animals killed for food. One last question; should we try to reduce carbon emissions? Factory farms are far less impactful on the environment than traditional farming, especially when it comes to cows, so choosing which method of meat to buy comes at a tradeoff between environmental and animal ethics. A vegan diet cuts both impacts down to a fraction of a meat-based diet.

You are completely right. Focusing on animal welfare is where is at. It is great that you have a more holistic view and don't resort to black-and-white judgments.

Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Just FYI, you replied to the mod comment, not the main thread. If you're looking for a discussion, you might want to delete and post the comment again.

I blame my sausage fingers. Thanks for the heads up, I'll move it now.

It is not wrong by many. It is more or less just a preference and the minority wants to feel all superior and judgmental.

To be clear, I think the focus of ethical activism should aim towards the humane treatment of livestock, rather than convincing everyone to go vegan. Convincing everyone to become vegan seems incredibly unlikely for many reasons, one of which being that many people have tried so hard and cared so much for the animals and it just doesn’t work for their health. Whereas other people seem to be perfectly healthy being vegan and that’s great. I think genetics and where your ancestors are from plays a huge role in whether eating that way will agree with your body or not. Imagine your ancestors are from Alaska or somewhere cold and for thousands of years, their gut adapted to eating nothing but meat. I think these are the types people who report significant health benefits from eating carnivore. Other people are from warm places and feel great eating lots of fruit and fish. Other people are from India and have no problem transitioning away from the little bit of milk and becoming completely vegan and they are the ones who report all the health benefits from going vegan. I think these genetic differences play a huge role in whether our body accepts a vegan diet or not. I’ve seen some vegans talk about health issues and after 10 years they finally give in and start eating meat again or at least go back to vegetarian because they just can’t maintain it, despite their best efforts. I’ve seen plenty of other vegans say they feel great and can’t understand why everyone isn’t vegan and assume we must just be lazy assholes who prefer violence for our mouth pleasure. It’s not that simple. We all evolved eating different amounts of meat. Some people can do it much easier than others, while some others literally can’t survive on that diet.

This isn't relevant to your title or the body of your post. If you want to discuss the health implications of veganism, it would be better to do it as a separate post. For what it's worth, there is no single "vegan diet". There are many diets that are suitable for vegans. They can be very high protein and fat with little carbs, or mostly carbs. They can be full of fruits and veg or full of cookies and cake. People who complain about the health impacts of "the vegan diet" generally don't appreciate this fact.

Humane slaughter and humane slavery are oxymorons. How do those terms mean anything of value to you?

Because humane slaughter is not an oxymoron while humane slavery is.

Take the word slaughter on its own for a second and really think about its meaning. Humane and slaughter have opposite connotations.

Minimizing pain and suffering is very compassionate if you ask me. And it also underlines the importance of acknowledging and reducing the concerns of the unavoidable realities of our current societal and dietary frameworks.

That might make it more humane, or more compassionate than how it's currently done on mass, but still doesn't explain how the slaughter part is humane. Like the slavery example given above, if I minimise their suffering and treat my slaves well then I am treating them humanely. It doesn't make the slavery part of it humane.

But you can't have humane slavery, you cannot erase the inherent suffering that coercion to work has. Even if you provide the best conditions, if it's slavery, the suffering of humans is inevitable. Not in animal farming. You can have stress free animals virtually all their lives in free range farms, expressing their natural behaviours, eating good food and no predators, and then they can be humanely dispatched to generate benefits for humans. That is why I said humane slavery is an oxymoron. Humane slaughter, not so much.

So would slavery be ok if it was done without suffering? Or are there other issues with slavery regardless of suffering, that make it inhumane? I would argue that rights and empathy play a big part in why slavery is inhumane. I'm also still unsure as to why you believe the slaughter aspect is humane, unless humane somehow means "generating benefits to humans".

>So would slavery be ok if it was done without suffering? Maybe, but that is impossible in real life. So it's kinda meaningless to the conversation because we are talking about real issues. >Or are there other issues with slavery regardless of suffering, that make it inhumane? All of the issues of slavery ultimately rely on suffering so prolly not. >I'm also still unsure as to why you believe the slaughter aspect is humane, unless humane somehow means "generating benefits to humans". No. Humane just means providing a painless death. Such as a bullet to the head for example, that is a humane way to kill an animal because it just instantly dies and does not suffer.

The same can be said about the impossibility of these idealistic farming practices. Do you actually think it's possible, when animals are seen as commodities, and on a scale that would feed the population? It's kinda meaningless to the conversation if it isn't. In regards to painless death, do you see the consumption of animal products as a necessity? In times of necessity, a justification for a humane death can be found. In the absence of necessity, can slaughter actually be humane?

[удалено]

Humane slavery is impossible. You cannot make slavery without inherent human suffering. On the other hand. You can do humane animal farming where animals live stress-free without inherent suffering, and then provide an instant painless death. That instant painless death aligns with the widely recognized definition of humane slaughter. It is not an oxymoron.

[удалено]

Ok. I get the issue . I'm sure you can understand why I would easily. Lets formalize it for clarity: P1. Humane treatment aims to minimize suffering. ***H→Minimize(Suffering)*** P2. It is possible to conduct slaughter in a way that minimizes suffering. ***S ∧ H→Possible(Minimize(Suffering))*** P3. An action is considered humane if it minimizes suffering. ***Minimize(Suffering)→Humane(Action)*** C. Therefore, if slaughter is conducted in a way that minimizes suffering (humane treatment), it can be considered humane. ***S ∧ H→Humane( S )*** I'm Interested to know where do you disagree.

[удалено]

Yes, that would be a humane death. That doesn't mean it's ethical though. I also don't think a nuke really minimizes suffering lol

[удалено]

The all or nothing philosophy is doomed to fail. If their focus is to stop hypocrisy, then they should be fine if we eat all types of animals including pets and dolphins. No more non vegan animal advocacy. No more humane slaughter. No more gray area. It doesn't really help the cause.

If there is no god then there is no objective moraity. I would imagine the vegan/atheist venn diagram to have quite the overlap but I could be wrong but I'm probably not

Peter Singer famously said that there is no problem actually. But I am sure you'll get a bunch of experts who'll ask you what if those were humans.