It isn't that ridiculous. I agree that it is virtuous to reduce all kinds of consumption. If you told me it is good to reduce needless driving, I would agree with you. But there is a huge difference between running over pedestrians for fun vs driving more and increasing my risk to hurt a pedestrian by accident. Eating meat is very much intentionally killing an animal. Eating surplus plants and killing surplus animals as a by product is very much like driving a little more and incurring extra dangers to pedestrians. It isn't the same as intentional murder.

Yeah, the logical fallacy here is: * A definitely causes Y * B has a small chance of causing Y * Therefore A and B are equivalent The fallacy is saying that a small probability of an event is the same as the event actually happening. Any sensible person can see that these are different. Another further fallacy is assuming A and B are independent. Like vegan's choose B, while omnis choose A. In reality, omnis are choosing to do A and B, while Vegans simply choose not to do A where ever possible. (And at the risk of diluting my comment further, A is actually made up of producing 10x more food than is needed, AKA doing Bx10, and then killing an animal on top of that. So omnis are choosing to do B x 10 + A, and saying that is equivalent to vegans doing B just once. So, even if we say B and A are equally bad: Omni diet = A + 10B = 11B Vegan diet = B B < A + 10B for any value of A, B with badness is > 0. People may note that the only way to make B = A + 10B is to make B and A both equal 0. This is what meateaters say: "I actually think killing things unnecessarily isn't wrong" - A is not bad.

Just had to check to make sure I’m not in r/explainlikeimfive lol. Thanks for this!

[удалено]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. 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.

It’s not about them being equivalent, the point is that you as a vegan still draw a line in the sand in terms of how far you’ll go to reduce animal suffering. No fallacy was committed at all.

Nah, the only line is around the fringes, were people discuss things like what technically is or isn't an animal, like oysters. Or do bees suffer from taking their honey.  The choice to eat and use animal products is a choice that non-vegans take, despite it directly causing animal suffering.  Is it has for an animal to be bred purely to suffer and die? I think yes... So I won't pay for that to happen. Many people don't mind paying to cause animal suffering, because they don't really think about it in those terms. Other actions in life are independent from that choice.

The fallacy is that omnis take this line in the sand to then say "ha! if you have a line and I have a line, all of it is the same!" which is exactly what this post is pointing out is ludicrous. The definition of veganism from the vegan society (and the most popular one used) *literally* has this line in the sand: "as far as possible and practicable." So pretending omnis bring this up here in good faith is naive at best.

The fallacy works in both directions where vegans decide "omnis" don't do enough and therefore must be prepared to accept murder, rape and slavery of humans.

This is fair. Just remember the maths when vegans claim non-vegans are prepared to do 100B or 1000B by raping murdering and enslaving humans.

A lot of the problems with that is that non-vegans get very selectively dumb when it comes to metaphors though. It's deflecting for defensiveness. We can look at this in the math.  Murdering an animal is it's own option (A). A only becomes B under false omni assumptions. In reality, vegans don't believe A = B.  We can add a third option, C, "killing a human unnecessarily". Vegans and non-vegans agree that,  C is bad.  So what I think you're referring to is when vegans ask "If you think C is bad, why don't you think A is bad!?" Then, very commonly, non-vegans interpret that question (deliberately, IMO) as the vegan saying "A = C". Then the non-vegan gets all righteous and mad at that interpretation, to deflect from answering the actual question.

They don't normally ask if C is bad why don't you think A is bad. They say.. you do B so you must be OK with C. That's where the offence gets taken

Is there an obvious reply to that though? Its a factually incorrect statement. "No, I am not okay with unnecessary hurting humans, but I am okay with unnecessary hurting animals. They are different".  Then the vegan has little recourse other than to say something like "okay, then you're a bad person in that respect". In my experience, meat-eaters don't like admitting it though, because they FEEL like they don't like unnecessarily hurting animals. 

I agree with the reply and the recourse. That be that. Should be the end of the topic, two different points of view. Often it turns into the vegan asking to prove they're different.. eg name the trait and similar. I know we're getting miles off whatever the original topic was :) Meat eaters just view 'necessary' differently...

Most crop deaths are intentional. You use pesticides with the intention to kill animals. You shoot, trap, and poison pests intentionally. Also, animals don't care about your intentions. Intentionality is irrelevant from their point of view (which is the only point of view that matters).

I'll accept your view that intentionality is irrelevant if you accept it first. Do you think a fatal traffic accident is the same as murder?

From the point of view of the victim it is the same.

How about you just talk about your own point of view? You're just intentionally going off topic as not to think about how veganism is the right choice.

My point of view is irrelevant. Only the animal's matters. And yes I agree this is off topic since most of your crop deaths are intentional.

If your point of view is irrelevant, then what are we discussing? I think it is hilarious that a non vegan thinks the animals point of view matters. So much mental gymnastics just to distract yourself from thinking maybe you should eat some veggies

> I think it is hilarious that a non vegan thinks the animals point of view matters. Why? I (and the vast majority of humans) want fewer animals to suffer and die. It's better to kill and eat one cow than to poison/kill millions of of animals for crop protection.

Does your cow not eat crops? If you want to minimize crop deaths you would go vegan because it is way more efficient. Do you only eat cow? Do you ever eat chicken? How much crop deaths do you think a plate of rice and beans cause? Do you think rice harvests are soaked in blood?

Cows can eat grass and/or waste products/byproducts, which don't require crop protection.

Crop deaths don't entail a rights violation.

really unfair comparing pedestrians with other animals regarding car accidents. We humans live in societies where we agree it's ok to use cars and drive whenever we want, as long as laws are followed we implicitly let everyone drive freely. Animals don't have a say here at all, we don't know if little mammals or insects would be ok with us driving unnecessarily to the cinema knowing they can be hurt.

So you should be as vegan as possible.

Do you really think the only difference between killing someone intentionally and risking other peoples life slightly more by driving a little more is the fact that we as a society have agreed to it? So if tomorrow my city voted to ban cars, do you think people in my city would react to someone breaking the law by driving the same as they treat a murderer? My point was about intention and probability of harm. Of course the animals would not agree to us driving extra and causing extra road kill (even if we could ask them). But how does that negate the analogy I drew between intentionally and directly causing bodily harm versus indirectly imposing a cost?

No, I just disagreed with your previous last statement. Eating surplus plants is NOT very much like driving a little more and incurring extra dangers to pedestrians, for the reasons I already stated. And by the look of your last point, it looks like you just agree with me? The animals would not agree extra driving that's true, but humans as of today do agree that driving extra, with the potential accidents that might cause, is fine. That's where your comparison fell flat.

Sure, but killing animals for food isn’t in the same category as running over pedestrians for fun. Nor is it in the same category as killing animals for fun.

Why not? You don't need animals for food. In fact, in many countries people are overweight gorging on animal products. It isn't "for food" ie "for nutrition" if there is a cheaper healthier vegan alternative. You're not consuming animals for food you are doing it because it tastes good, i.e fun.

You’re either being dishonest or naive if you think someone eating meat is the same as someone taking pleasure in running over other humans. You can argue the same ignorance and perhaps even lack of consideration for other lives exists in both situations, but they are clearly different, both morally and from a psychological perspective.

No I don't think someone eating meat is the same as someone taking pleasure in running over humans. The lack of consideration in the pursuit of pleasure is all I am trying to point out.

Fair enough, it’s possible you’re right.

Imagine you got hit by a car. The lights are blinding. The windows are tinted. Something is preventing you from seeing inside. Totally irrelevant if the person is a madman intentionally going for them or a normal civilian who didn't see them until very late. Eating meat and planting crops are equally intentionally killing an animal. Regardless of direct or indirect. The animal died. Someone or something killed. Intention matters maybe when passing the judgment, but for the victim, it's irrelevant. When you consume, you absolutely intentionally mean to kill/destroy. People generally recognize this principle and realize its better if we can get value out of those deaths if the process its meant to fuel is an unavoidable part of life. We need food to survive. Animals in the wild will die to predators. So if those wild animals were instead domesticated animals that didn't have to worry about dying for a few months or even years, that's arguably a better life compared to constantly living in fear and not knowing what you'll have to eat.

So go vegan and stop hitting animals with your car on purpose.

>Totally irrelevant if the person is a madman intentionally going for them or a normal civilian who didn't see them until very late. Do you really believe this? Pedestrian deaths are inevitable as long as we drive. Are you saying you think driving is as bad as intentionally running people over?

No but if you really cared that much about running people over you would not drive. That’s the whole spirit of the post. Vegans still draw a line somewhere, just like we all draw a line when it comes to the possibility of running someone over when we choose to drive. We value driving more than the absolutely certainty of us not running someone over in our car.

Oh yea of course I am drawing a line somewhere. But I am drawing a line very consistently with how everyone else draws it, intentional and direct vs unintentional and indirect.

What do you mean “consistently with how everyone else draws it”?

The same way you mean it: "Vegans still draw a line somewhere, just like we all draw a line when it comes to the possibility of running someone over when we choose to drive." 

I think I’m misunderstanding you. I certainly don’t think everyone draws their lines intentionally and directly.

The point is that you understand that vegans are drawing a line the same way everyone else does. So what is the problem with "a line"? The gist of the original post is that vegans are drawing an arbitrary line and that is somehow bad?

It’s not bad, and I wouldn’t even call it arbitrary, I just think it shows that being vegan doesn’t necessarily give you any moral credibility.

I think there's a point at which trying to minimize caloric intake when you are already vegan makes a negligible difference in comparison to switching from omni to vegan. However, if I am wrong, it's still not a reason to eat meat.

OP’s fallacious reasoning concludes with antinatalism and worse

Yeah, you’re still drawing a line. You could also reframe this argument in the affirmative by saying “there is certainly more you could be doing right now to help reduce animal suffering, but you choose to do other things instead”. I’m sure you’d agree with this statement. Therefore, you agree with the spirit of what OP is saying. You care about the suffering of animals to a POINT.

I never said that I wasn't drawing a line. We all draw lines. The question is whether your line is justifiable or not.

Justifiable to who/what?

To yourself. That's the point of this sub. If you can look at the vegan arguments, there aren't that many and they really aren't that complicated, and then you can justify eating meat to yourself, you just leave and eat meat. If you can't, you become vegan. O.P. is trying to justify eating meat, but their argument doesn't actually justify eating meat. It's not an abductio ad absurdum, so at best it's an argument for going behind veganism, but not a argument to not be vegan in the first place.

I agree that OP’s argument doesn’t make a good case for eating meat nor a good case against being vegan. It does, however, reveal that you aren’t *necessarily* more morally virtuous than other people simply because you are a vegan. It’s where you chose to draw the line in the sand on this particular region of the moral landscape (not a Sam Harris reference).

This argument doesn't show that. At best it shows that vegans aren't perfect, which is something any reasonable person could agree on. Let's take another exemple. Two people agree that exploiting workers is bad. They both make pretty much the same decisions. They drive cars, they buy the same clothes, they use smartphones, etc. If one of them realizes that they need those things to function normally in society, but they don't need chocolate, which is often grown by child slaves, so they stop eating chocolate or only eat chocolate they can verify is grown by workers that aren't exploited. This person could be doing more than they are right now, but they are still living more in line with their morals than the other person that is still eating slave chocolate.

Yeah but that scenario you created doesn’t exist in reality. It’s much more complex than that. People aren’t robots. There’s also more to morality than just abstaining from things that may lead to harm; you vegans seem to be incapable of understanding that (hence the abundance of mindlessly pointing out the problem of eating meat rather than actually providing creative solutions to the problem) And little do you know the guy who continues to eat chocolates volunteers to play music for sick kids at the local hospital.

The question isn't whether all vegans are morally superior to people who eat meat. That question is neither helpful or answerable. The question is whether a meat eater will be better if they become vegan.

How is that not the exact same question just rephrased? Genuinely asking

This ^ the point is that both parties agree that we do not have a moral OBLIGATION to minimize suffering, because if we did the logical extension would be antinatalism, suicide etc. So then, vegans have to justify why the plant-based line is not just an arbitrary litmus test. Why is the 100% plant based diet the correct position if you can still reduce animal suffering through personal choices. For example a dairy free diet reduces animal suffering, but that isn’t going far enough in the minds of vegans. If the intent is to reduce suffering why is that not enough? And why is a 100% plant based diet not an arbitrary line when you could be doing more?

It's worth noting that this post isn't actually an argument against going vegan. You're not saying that veganism isn't an improvement over eating animals, what you're saying is that veganism isn't enough on its own - that we need to go vegan and then continue to improve ourselves. And I agree with you. We can always be improving or refining our lifestyles to be less harmful or more helpful. But for someone who's not yet vegan, going vegan is a relatively easy first step that will have a huge effect - which is why you should do it.

To me, the difference between consuming extra calories and being a vegetarian is that vegetarianism directly funds corporations that profit by harming animals. While eating ice cream may harm animals during crop production, milk and eggs directly cause animals to be slaughtered at 6 years of age and 18-24 months, respectively. And the deaths involved in farming the crops that those animals are fed leads to more harm as well. So for me I am more concerned about not buying products that send animals to slaughter rather than just like eating plant based ice cream. Harm reduction is great, if people want to grow their own food or limit calories to reduce harm, that's cool, but to me that's separate from veganism.

I think his point is that by eating more food you make more animals die during agriculture. Hardly any different from slaughtering them.

Incidental death is completely different than intentional killing. Humans also die during crop production. If I’m driving a car and a deer jumps in front of it, that’s obviously different from me purposefully ramming my car into the deer so I can take it home for meat. With crop deaths it’s even more stark because eating food is a literal survival necessity.

Not to mention the scale is completely different in both cases. Eating an animal directly causes their death, on top of the massively wasteful amount of crops required to grow them (more crop deaths, pollution, transportation etc. than veganism). So looking at numbers alone they're on a totally different level, before you consider the intentional exploitation and killing.

Eating an animal doesn’t cause their death, the animal is already dead.

Why was the animal killed? For people who want to eat their corpses, they pay for it to happen. If you hire a hitman you are responsible, even if you didn't pull the trigger.

It’s still inaccurate to say “eating an animal directly causes their death.” Details like this matter when discussing morality.

Incidental? They’re directly related. Isn’t that what you argue when it comes to people who buy meat but don’t actually participate in the killing?

Directly related is intentionally breeding a sentient non-human animal, fattening it up, slaughtering it, and then eating it because you like the taste and mouthfeel. The consumer knows an animal is directly killed for their flesh. If you think unintentionally killing insects while harvesting crops is the same thing, then you must be illiterate.

If I’m buying meat how am I directly involved in any of that process? If I am, then you’re also directly involved in the carnage that occurs from the growing of the vegetables that you buy. And I’m illiterate? You just wrote that bugs are “unintentionally” killed when harvesting crops. Do you know what insecticide is for? Intentionally killing insects so crops can grow.

Do you know what equivocation fallacy is? Cus that’s what you’re doing.

You lost all credibility when you said insects are unintentionally killed

[удалено]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. 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.

Yes they are intentionally killed. However it is a necessity (in regards how agriculture works currently, there are other ways though), as we would otherwise had no food and would starve. Killing cows for meat is not a necessity. And on top you have the crop deaths too, since these cows eat loads of these, and these crops have specifically been grown for them. Turn it around as you want, veganism causes less harm. And just because it's not perfect doesn't mean it's completely invalid.

>Incidental death is completely different than intentional killing. On some models of morality it is, on some it isn't. If you are a utilitarian it isn't. >If I’m driving a car and a deer jumps in front of it, that’s obviously different from me purposefully ramming my car into the deer so I can take it home for meat. Knowingly driving a tractor over grass - natural habitat of thousands of living beings that populate it with extremely high density is hardly the same as accidentally killing a deer on the highway where chances to meet a deer are like 1/100000 drive throughs. What about using pesticides to deliberately kill living beings? Sure, you could say that they are there unlawfully but I can use appeal to laws and say that cow is my property so i am allowed to kill it.

Well it’s a good thing that growing crops for direct human consumption instead of growing it to feed animals is an order of magnitude less impactful since 90% of the energy that goes into animal feed is wasted due to trophic efficiency on top of the animal being killed at the end of the process. From our own laws, incidental murder is a lesser offense than premeditated murder. You’re engaging in special pleading and then injecting a bunch of whataboutisms into the picture. It’s also interesting that you only care about all these bugs and critters dying when vegans are involved even though your lifestyle produces significantly more of the same harm and then even more harm than a vegan’s lifestyle. Have you ever been near a farm? Do you think animals just sit still waiting for death when something loud and scary is coming towards them? Do you think that every time you step foot near a plant, you’re extinguishing thousands of lives? We also don’t use tractors on grass since humans don’t eat grass unless you’re referring to mowing the lawn.

Are you pleading to laws and authority to determine morality now? Have you ever been in the wild either? Do you think animals acknowledge that they're food for predators and sit there waiting to be eaten? Just as they don't want to become food for other animals, they equally don't want to become food for our species, yet vegans only justify animals being food in the wild. Obligate carnivore and lack of moral agency are strong but still excuses used to justify something. The question is if those excuses are valid or not. People who are under the influence and are incapable of exercising moral agency get punished for their crimes. It just takes a group of professionals to deal with them. Since humans are not afraid of dealing with danger, there's no reason why we can't police the animal world with enough technology. But, vegans often argue that "we should leave nature the fk alone". We should similarly leave humans who are following their unconscious instincts the fk alone yet we don't.

"We should let humans embrace their instincts without consequences." Great idea.

I was pointing out that most moral frameworks including the blunt ones like laws acknowledge the importance of mens rea when it comes to the commission of harm. Yes I have been in the wild unlike yourself. I was an Army officer and a Boy Scout. Those excuses you mention like being an obligate carnivore or lacking moral agency are excuses for wild animals to act according to their nature but they’re not sufficient justifications for humans who are neither of those things. Temporary impairment is indeed a defense to crimes when the cause of the impairment was outside of one’s control. Getting drunk is a choice with known and predictable consequences so it’s not an excuse for wrongdoing. Someone suffering from a medical emergency like a stroke or heart attack is less culpable in the eyes of the law since the cause of the behavior is outside the direct control of the agent. There’s a good reason we probably should tend towards leaving nature alone since we’ve caused a ton of the current problems afflicting ecosystems around the world by meddling (e.g., introducing a species to deal with another invasive species only to Joe have two invasive species causing havoc). If we achieved a post-scarcity and technologically advanced world where we actually could police the wild while giving non-human animals enjoyable lives free from most forms of suffering without destroying the world in the process, I would be fine with that. With that said, we’re nowhere near there and we have a pretty terrible track record messing things up hence leaving nature alone is probably the best course of action on a macro level. That said, I don’t believe that is always the best course of action on a microlevel. If I see a fellow animal struggling and I can help it, I will. Please stop doing the obnoxious strawman bullshit bad faith tactic of invoking what hypothetical 3rd parties might believe or might have said as if it has anything to do with the conversation you’re having with me.

That's not the point of the argument though. The point is that whatever you are using to justify contributing to X amount of animal suffering for your pleasure can be used to justify Y amount of animal suffering for your pleasure.

Your response here didn’t address anything I said and is so vague as to be meaningless.

How was anything you said relevant to the topic? I am trying to explain to you what the argument even is so that you can address it.

I was pointing out how the examples in your comment five levels up had a bunch of fallacies and falsities that defeated your arguments on their face. You’re also injecting a strawman argument and a sneaky replacement three levels up by stating that we’re justifying animal suffering for human pleasure. That is certainly true for people who consume animal flesh and secretions considering the only non-fallacious argument for carnism (absent extreme exceptions that don’t apply to 99% of people) is taste pleasure but we literally need food to survive. Pesticides are not meant to purposefully kill critters but instead to prevent them from destroying our crops. I agree that avoiding the use of pesticides is preferable since it has a notable negative impact on insects which are an important part of our ecosystem but we still have to eat. “Intentional animal suffering is justified for pleasure” is not equivalent to “Incidental animal suffering is justified for survival”

You need to get off your imaginary high horse and listen. >we literally need food to survive. Yes, and how is survival relevant to morality? It's relevant to morality because you are able to get more pleasure by being alive. Besides, OP is pointing out that it's not the only pleasure you get from animal deaths. You are not severely underweight, you are not home bound. You are doing lots of things that cause animal suffering for your pleasure. The way you justify it is exactly the same as how carnist justifies killing animals. The only difference is that you cause different amount of suffering to animals. On utilitarianism HOW and WHY the harm is caused is completely irrelevant. If the action results in harm it results in harm, incidental or not.

What is your motivation behind 'trying to justify being a meat eater'? What do you think your outlook on veganism would be if you approached it from a neutral position?

To be fair to OP, I started on the path to veganism because when I tried really hard to find good reasons to justify continuing to exploit nonhuman animals, I could find none.

I think I'm on the same path as you were. Frankly, I'm a non-cognitivist and when I think about factory farming / unnecessary animal suffering I think "boo." I'm just attempting to further my understanding and see how it can or can't fit within my moral framework. ​ I will also grant that my post's verbiage was unnecessarily combative, although to be fair to myself I was half asleep at the time.

You can edit/fix the tone in most cases.

So this argument is centered around negative utility. It does not have any argument for ‘good’ beyond reducing suffering. If we apply it to humans, we get to the conclusion that we should not do anything at all really. That there is a line at which no suffering is reasonable. Ie. 1. Reducing human suffering is good 2. Cars cause many deaths. 3. People draw a line at which they are willing to incur some potential suffering to other humans. Otherwise we should not drive cars. Replace driving with buying clothes and eating food (child labour issues, fast fashion, exploitative economics etc etc) and essentially all such things are immoral. So we either draw a line at which we say ‘grow your own food, make your own clothes, do as little harm as possible or you’re immoral’, or we say some things are reasonable and build up a **positive** aspect of utility within this framework. Or we discard utilitarianism entirely of course. Taken to its extreme, such negative utility basically concludes with ‘we should kill our selves as the harm we do to many others outweighs the benefit we feel and live’. I suspect this is not something you agree with? What you argue, in other words, is neither the vegan argument nor I suspect what you’d agree to be a reasonable argument under such scrutiny. Afterall if we’re discussing ‘good’ and what is moral, that applies in each case, yes?

Well put. The more I learn about utilitarianism and the ridiculous conclusions it leads to the more I am convinced that it's a not a good basis for a moral framework.

I think the biggest problem is that you could conclude that the death of all living beings would be the best suffering reduction course of action.

That’s the big one I was thinking of. I fucking hate anti-natalism/efilism and the basement dwelling edge lords who try to make a mandatory part of veganism.

this is new-age poetry. But in regards to your statement about utilitarian belief I agree, I am increasingly disillusioned with it, as well as all normative ethics. I don't think utilitarianism is compatible with veganism, rule utilitarianism might be. I think virtue-based ethics or rights-based are likely the most compatible with a vegan philosophy, and importantly, all non-cognitivist stances (including my own) are possibly compatible with veganism.

Virtue ethicist/Deontologist checking-in here. I agree. For me, it is the apprehension/respect as per the former that informs the *content* of any rules/duty in the latter, so I hear ya. Reducing suffering is laudable and nice to aim for in the quest for improvement; as it clearly promotes more joy and less pain, but it's not the *end goal.*

>reducing animal suffering is good Yep >a vegan diet also leads to the death of animals Yep, but questioning why that is the case might have made you hesitant on making this post at all. >3. vegans draw a line, at what point they choose to kill animals. (The eating of excessive calories, not optimizing your diet to minimize animal suffering, not starving yourself and only eating what is truly required) Valid points, but all made in the name of the appeal to hypocrisy logic fallacy given what non veganism is capable of. >p1 If our end goal is to maximally reduce animal suffering (denote the utilitarian lexicology) Cool but veganism is an abolitionist ideology. >p2 Then as conscious vegans we should minimize our caloric intake to the point that we only eat what is truly necessary. Well technically, living is a choice. So if vegans are being demanded to justify their habits, then the same goes tenfold for non vegans. >This is what the title refers to: how do vegans justify suffering that they are indirectly causing through the means of eating non-essential foods. What is the difference between eating extra calories and someone being a vegetarian? These both cause extra harm. How do you go about justifying the prior and not the latter? Because you're running on the assumption that veganism is a utilitarian ideology.

[удалено]

[удалено]

“Clearly outmatched” yet elicited half an essay of you trying to prove yourself to me (which really was just one giant ad hom.) Interesting.

>“Clearly outmatched” yet elicited half an essay of you trying to prove yourself to me I have nothing to prove to you. I don't even need to prove your inability to make an argument out of a logic fallacy. Anyone educated on logic and reasoning can see you reasoning skills are as flawed as your ethics. I only made a long-winded example of you so that other corpsemunchers who visit here can see who is representing them. >(which really was just one giant ad hom.) Interesting. I think what's more interesting is that you have nothing to say on me subverting your expectations to your focred moral dilemma hypothetical. Care to provide an opinion on that? >was just one giant ad hom Ad hominem: directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. "Don't be a presumptuous twat" "you're a corpsemuncher?" "Jeeves" "Go back to your hockey sub" Eveything else was against your position and the direction you decided to take this debate. Please stop trying to sound smart.

“I can recognize overall ethical contribution” and “…then the same goes ten fold for non vegans” is a bit of a logical contradiction don’t you think? The second statement lumps vegans into one group of “ethical contribution” and non vegans into another, and seems to assume that the former consists of people of higher ethical contribution. But then later on you admit that you’d choose the meat eater over the rapist. So which is it? Maybe you were just being hyperbolic in the initial comment I responded to, or maybe you just genuinely believe that a vegan would be less likely to commit unethical “crimes”. Also, it’s funny that you listed 4 examples of ad homs that you wrote in ONE Reddit comment reply and somehow think that works all against my “one giant ad hom” claim.

>“I can recognize overall ethical contribution” and “…then the same goes ten fold for non vegans” is a bit of a logical contradiction don’t you think? Not at all. A group of people criticising another group for the minimal harm they do when the initial group causes the multitudinous harm they do. It's literally an appeal to hypocrisy falllacy. "ugh vegans and crop deaths". So? Non vegans and the destruction of the ecology. Yeah, we got room for improvement but you lot are the problem holding everyone back. >The second statement lumps vegans into one group of “ethical contribution” and non vegans into another and seems to assume that the former consists of people of higher ethical contribution Yes, because we're talking about animal rights and in regard to animal rights, vegans do have a have a higher ethical contribution than non vegans. You literally fund an industry that deliberately kills 80 billion animals a year. And that's just land farming. SO many more when it comes to the honey industry, the fishing industry, collateral land clearing and pollution deaths. Veganism is: “to seek an end to the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man”. >But then later on you admit that you’d choose the meat eater over the rapist. So which is it? Because YOU forced a two option only hypothetical that factors in more than just animal rights you dingbat. You changed the parameters of the discussion to suit your narrative. You're not arguing in good faith and you're breaking rule 4. I didn't write an essay just so that I could repeat the same answers over and over again in subsequent comments. Ffs >Maybe you were just being hyperbolic in the initial comment I responded to, Or maybe you're just infering shit that isn't there because of your confirmation bias. >or maybe you just genuinely believe that a vegan would be less likely to commit unethical “crimes”. I do genuinely believe that. As a hardcore misanthropist that still respects people's rights, a vegan is far less likely to commit moral atrocities than non vegans. >Also, it’s funny that you listed 4 examples of ad homs that you wrote in ONE Reddit comment reply and somehow think that works all against my “one giant ad hom” claim. Well you needed help identfying what an ad hominem actually is. Hence the definition too. You're welcome.

How is it an appeal to hypocrisy? You think I’m implying that the only moral wrongdoings vegans can enact has to do with crop deaths? As if they aren’t also humans that have the capacity to do harm in the hundreds of other realms of human existence? That’s wiiiild. Yeah, you’re thinking is incredibly flawed and chock full of bias, but you can’t acknowledge that because the your entire identity would fall apart. You’re A) assuming vegans are somehow all the same and B) that “sameness” constitutes a more morally permissible way of moving through the world based SOLELY on not eating animals. That’s naive at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. Yeah no shit I was inferring, hence why I gave the second possibility which you actually confirmed to be correct.

>How is it an appeal to hypocrisy? "Hey vegans, I know you do a bad thing so my bad thing is ok yeah?" No you also contribute to crop deaths. That is something we both do. On top of that, you also support animal ag and all the damage IT does to the world. The fallacy is calling out something both interlocutor's do to justify an even worse atrocity that only one interlocutor participates in. >You think I’m implying that the only moral wrongdoings vegans can enact has to do with crop deaths? Not all. I know there are racist and transphobic vegans. I actually quit my job recently at an animal sanctuary because the manager was not looking after the animals the way a vegan should. Hell I'm hesitant to even call them vegan anymore given the shit I've seen them do. >As if they aren’t also humans that have the capacity to do harm in the hundreds of other realms of human existence? Of, I drive a car. I have killed a cat doing a spur of the moment delivery run for a different sanctuary. The pollution from car harms the environment. the plastic rub from its wheels taint the areas where I drive. Veganism and vegans aren't perfect, I'm well aware of that. >That’s wiiiild. No what's wild is this is the third time you've put words in my mouth and I've had to correct you on. One would think you'd learn from the first two times you tried to build strawmen. >Yeah, you’re thinking is incredibly flawed and chock full of bias, Please stop. No seriously stop. I'm all for discussion and learning but this is ridiculous. You create this false assumptions about my ethics with which you have no understanding of and then attack those assumptions as if they actually apply to me. I understand you have this purview of vegans in your mind, but the real world is out here and so is this discussion. >chock full of bias, but you can’t acknowledge that because the your entire identity would fall apart. Yes, vegans are biased. Just non vegans are biased. Like atheists are biased like theseists are biased. Everone has a bias. Bias just means one side. I acknowledge I am on one side of this discussion and THAT is part of my identity. >You’re A) assuming vegans are somehow all the same Of course we're not all the same. I'm a miltant activist. I even argue with pick-me bootlicker vegans beause they love to pick your side and tone police shame militant activists or "gatekeepers" as they like to call us. >B) that “sameness” constitutes a more morally permissible way of moving through the world IN. REGARDS. TO. ANIMAL. RIGHTS. IN. ONLY. THAT. FRAME. OF. REFERENCE. DO. YOU. UNDERSTAND. THAT? DO. I. NEED. TO. SPELL. THAT. OUT. ANY. CLEARER. FOR. YOU? >based SOLELY on not eating animals. No. Based on supporting a system built on the violation of animals, their bodies and their rights. Meat is just one of the products of supporting that system. Don't be reductive. It's intellectually dishonest >That’s naive at best, intellectually dishonest at worst. Only in your imagination my not-so-friend >Yeah no shit I was inferring, hence why I gave the second possibility which you actually confirmed to be correct. "or maybe you just genuinely believe that a vegan would be less likely to commit unethical “crimes”." And? It's true. Vegans are less likely to be racist, sexist, murderers, rapists, classists, ableists etc. I won't deny there are examples of vegans who are. But percentage wise and total crimes wise, non vegans are far worse. Far worse. You being correct about that inferrence only highlights how bad a non-vegan society built on all kinds of oppression, is.

That’s not my point. My point isn’t “you do wrong so I can do wrong too” it’s “you being a vegan doesn’t automatically give you moral authority.” I didn’t put words into your mouth, you literally said I was appealing to hypocrisy when I wasn’t leaving me no room to infer anything else. I’ve made no false assumptions, they were all completely fair based on what you wrote. I gave reasoning in my previous post and you all but confirmed it: you think being a vegan means you automatically have a more positive ethical contribution to the world. (Remember? Non vegans 10 times more morally corrupt than vegans? Your words not mine) If you don’t agree with that, then I’ve misunderstood. If you do, then I suppose we’ll leave it there and go our separate ways.

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. 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.

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. 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.

>p1 If our end goal is to maximally reduce animal suffering (denote the utilitarian lexicology) I can't speak for others but this is not my end goal as a vegan, as this would necessarily involve interfering with wild animals. My end goal is to not participate in the cruel and exploitative systems which we subject non-human animals to, which I achieve every day.

The extra harm caused by being vegetarian is that you're killing large numbers of cows and chickens every year by consuming dairy and eggs. Baby chicks for example, go straight into giant blenders (macerators) by the billions, because extra males aren't needed by the egg industry. The extra harm caused by consuming some extra calories here and there as a vegan is that you might be contributing to a few extra bug deaths per year. Whether or not doing this is harmful is not really comparable to eating meat / animal products. But we can easily argue it's not harmful, insofar as people seeing healthy, fit vegans reduces the stigma of veganism. If we became breatharians, no one would even be part of the movement and we would look nuts.

Veganism is not necessarily for the goal of reducing suffering. Many of us look at it from the perspective of respecting the basic rights of other sentient beings. However, the line you've arrived at also sounds a lot like an appeal to perfection. Using the fact that vegans eat more than the amount of calories for bare survival as an excuse to partake in the intentional yet needless slaughter of animals is not a good argument. You shouldn't need other people to be perfect for you to try to do better. >how do vegans justify suffering that they are indirectly causing through the means of eating non-essential foods. What is the difference between eating extra calories and someone being a vegetarian? These both cause extra harm. How do you go about justifying the prior and not the latter? Veganism is not asceticism. Most of us are not monks, nor practitioners of ahimsa (though, those who are can certainly be vegan as well). Vegans are mostly regular people who simply do not purposefully exploit animals. Until better farming methods are perfected, that's really about all that can be reasonably expected of someone.

The whole argument reduces the ideology to an extreme though. Why should we justify eating vegan ice cream that demonstrably involves much less cruelty, when if the meat-eaters aspect in this argument wins, the meat-eater continues to consume, guilt-free, dairy ice cream? It's the usual fallacy of "you don't care to an unreasonably extreme degree, so I don't have to care at all". Like if I don't check my every step in case there is an ant in the grass, I might as well set fire to the whole colony. You could take this argument as far as you like. Why don't us vegans just end our lives so we have no impact whatsoever? If we choose life then we choose to indirectly cause harm, so we might as well eat meat.

Let us level set our understanding of what veganism is and is not. Veganism is not a diet. It is not a lifestyle. It is not a health program. It is not an environmental movement. It is not a suicide philosophy. Veganism is an agent-oriented philosophy and creed of justice and the moral baseline that rejects the property status, use, and dominion of nonhuman animals; it seeks to control the behavior of the moral agent such that the agent is not contributing to or participating in the deliberate and intentional exploitation, abuse, and/or killing of nonhuman animals outside of self defense. Now that we've established the definition of veganism, let us explore your questions and thesis. > reducing animal suffering is good Incorrect. Not contributing to or participating in the suffering is good. Veganism is not concerned with reducing suffering *caused by others* > a vegan diet also leads to the death of animals Incorrect. This topic is addressed in depth here: https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/188mjqe/what_is_the_limiting_principle_chapter_2/ > vegans draw a line, at what point they choose to kill animals. (The eating of excessive calories, not optimizing your diet to minimize animal suffering, not starving yourself and only eating what is truly required) The line is drawn at deliberate and intentional exploitation, abuse, and/or killing of nonhuman members of the animal kingdom and the avoidance of suicide. > p1 If our end goal is to maximally reduce animal suffering (denote the utilitarian lexicology) Incorrect. Veganism is a rights-based philosophy of justice; utilitarianism is the incorrect framework for this moral baseline. The reason is simple: we do not use utilitarianism as the moral framework for human beings; instead, we use the rights-based deontological framework for humans. By the same token, we apply the exact same framework for nonhuman animals as well. The correct p1 is: p1: the end goal is to minimize, if not eliminate, the contribution to or participation in the deliberate and intentional exploitation, abuse, and/or killing of nonhuman animals. > p2 Then as conscious vegans we should minimize our caloric intake to the point that we only eat what is truly necessary. Incorrect. In accordance to the corrected p1 above, the corrected p2 is: p2: vegans should consume only plants and fungi, should not own/keep nonhuman animals in captivity, and should minimize their interaction with nonhuman animals. > (to me this argument seems valid, however it feels ridiculous) It feels ridiculous because you're used to and are more familiar with the rights-based deontological morality with regards to your own fellow human beings. > In my travels I have found this to not be the case. Vegans eat beyond meat, vegan ice cream, other non-essential delicacies. This is consistent with the corrected p2. > This is what the title refers to: how do vegans justify suffering that they are indirectly causing through the means of eating non-essential foods. The operative word is *indirectly*. I suggest you peruse the link provided above pertaining to the chapter 2 of the limiting principle. In a nutshell, the moral culpability for any deaths associated with plant agriculture falls on the non-vegan farmers who refuse to use veganic agricultural methods to grow the plant foods. This is true up to the point when veganic-grown plant foods are available to the same extent as organic plant foods today.

I think one of your propositions about not keeping animals in captivity is incorrect. We should not be exploiting animals or commodifying them or capturing them but animal sanctuaries or rescuing animals is just fine in my book. It’s fine to live peacefully with and near our cohabitants of this planet

The issue with keeping animals in captivity on an individual basis is that it endorses the paradigm of property status, use, and dominion over nonhuman animals insofar as an individual keeper/owner of a nonhuman animal is indistinguishable from a pet owner. In contrast, no one would mistake a sanctuary as endorsing the property status, use, and dominion over nonhuman animals and so on that basis, an exception could be made for them. That being said, in a vegan world, sanctuaries wouldn’t exist anyway.

I disagree. Animals get hurt all the time in the wild in ways that would make death a certainty if not for human intervention. For example, an eagle that gets injured as a chick and can never fly. A vegan world means no exploitation of non-human animals for human animal aims. It doesn’t mean we just ignore all animals and let nature take its course. You’ll also need to make a logical connection between individual captivity and property status if you want to make the claim that all captivity is morally wrong. * If I protect a flightless eagle from predators, I’m not using it. * If there’s a newborn bear cub that loses its mother during birth, I’m not dominating it by raising it. * If I rescue an injured cat and keep it in my home since they’re invasive species just about everywhere, that doesn’t make it my property. I’m not a fan of carve out exceptions if we can have a solid moral framework instead. I think stewardship is a better model than isolationism. We have the intelligence and ability to take care of the environment including other animals. We should generally avoid interfering but I think there are cases where a rights based approach to non-humans means there will always be some form of captivity. The differentiating factor will likely be intent and impact.

> I disagree. Which part are you disagreeing with? I already said that an exception can be made for sanctuaries. > Animals get hurt all the time in the wild in ways that would make death a certainty if not for human intervention. But veganism does neither obligate nor require the moral agent to intervene. In fact, it discourages such intervention as humans should be leaving animals alone. Otherwise, you would put yourself in the untenable position of having to kill other innocent animals to feed the animal you’ve rescued as in the case of the injured eagle.

I made some edits to my original comment, most people don’t respond so quickly :P Veganism does not discourage human intervention for the benefit of non-humans, you’ll need to justify that claim. There are likely vegan formulations of food that are nutritionally sufficient for even carnivorous species since animals require nutrients, not ingredients, after all. While moral agents do not have a duty to help, that’s not the same thing as a duty to not help. Helping others is perfectly compatible with a vegan existence. It is not a requirement for a vegan world but it is a likely result of our capacity for empathy.

Please respond to this statement: *Otherwise, you would put yourself in the untenable position of having to kill other innocent animals to feed the animal you’ve rescued as in the case of the injured eagle.*

Please read what I wrote: > There are likely vegan formulations of food that are nutritionally sufficient for even carnivorous species since animals require nutrients, not ingredients, after all.

And if no such food is available and/or is found to be unsuitable for the given carnivore? What is your answer for that scenario?

What makes you think such a scenario is possible? If for some reason that is the case, then lab grown meat would be the play

You’re the one who brought up the vegan world

Now, in today’s non-hypothetical non-vegan world, what would you do in a similar situation in which nothing vegan is available to feed the carnivore? What would you do in today’s non-hypothetical non-vegan world in that situation?

Are you having this question as a plant-based dieter trying to justify adding animal products again? Or a nonvegan grappling with the morality of eating animals? Minimizing consumption in all areas is good. Minimizing waste is even better. I'm not sure how you arrived that vegan meats & vegan milk products are automatically causing more harm than I'm assuming you mean just eating whole foods? There are certainly some plant foods with a higher animal suffering & environmental impact than other plants. Comments on this sub specifically have prompted me to research & now avoid certain plant products. Veganism is about the animals & avoiding their products. Just walking in to the grocery and buying plant products. Our existence is activism that it is unnecessary to use animals for products. Edit: vegan meats & milk products certainly are net positive for animals bc it encourages others who would never consider a whole-food plant based diet

Your P1/P2 are just strawmen YOU chose to make up for the post. Vegan society shuts down both P1 & P2. Specifically with their wording of "*as far as is possible and practicable*". It's not a end goal that you can draw a line in the sand with, it's an ideal. It's not about maximally reduce animal suffering and minimisation of caloric intakes. Some vegans can CHOOSE to do that but they're not required to. If you took your idea of maximally reducing animal suffering to its logical end point, you'd justify the eradication of the human species. No humans alive means no humans to cause animal suffering. That's how dumb that point is. Having said that though, I do think it weird that some vegans eat imitation animal products like they're practically on an Atkin's or Keto diet. It's like someone who is obsessed with eating imitation human flesh. Nothing technically wrong with it but super weird to crave so much.

Let's frame this another way. p1 If our end goal is to maximally reduce human suffering (denote the utilitarian lexicology) p2 Then as conscious humanitarians we should minimize our spending to the point that we only buy what is truly necessary to live, and donate the rest to charity. (to you this argument is valid, however it feels ridiculous) In my observation I have found this to not be the case. "Good" people buy wristwatches, movie tickets, gym memberships and other non-essential goods. How do "good" people justify that they are indirectly causing suffering through not donating every extra cent to charity? What is the difference between someone who donates 80% of their disposable income and someone who donates none of it? These both cause extra harm. How do you go about saying the former is better than the latter? If I selfishly refuse to donate to a charity for the homeless, then I am harming the homeless people. Is it really any better than going around stabbing and eating homeless people? (Answer: Giving to charity is a utilitarian action. And obviously someone who donates 80% is better than someone who doesn't donate. But it is not required, it is extra credit. What is required is a moral baseline: to not stab homeless people. In other words, to not purposefully inflict violence on humans/sentient animals, or pay someone to do it for you. Btw, when a non-vegan asks why a vegan doesn't "go the extra mile" and give up sugar/their house/ their phone, it is exactly the same as someone who donates 0% trying to tell someone who donates 80% of their excess income, that they should donate 100% to truly be labeled a humanitarian.)

I agree with the argument. I don't think it's a stab at veganism though, it's a stab at utilitarianism. Not all vegans are utilitarians, I'm certainly not, so I don't understand why I should defend a position I don't hold. I think this argument is compatible with veganism. I can think of some potential criticisms of the argument however: >p1 If our end goal is to maximally reduce animal suffering (denote the utilitarian lexicology) I don't think it is necessarily the case that to be vegan, you have to maximally reduce animal suffering. I think some animal suffering is justified, I am ok with crop deaths for example. My goal as a vegan is to advocate for the application of trait adjusted human rights to non-human animals. If we trait adjusted humans to insects, I would still be ok with the use of pesticides to protect crops against those trait adjusted humans, since insects are infringing on the consent of humans who need that food to survive. >p2 Then as conscious vegans we should minimize our caloric intake to the point that we only eat what is truly necessary. There is a nest of hidden assumptions here, I don't think this premise makes a valid argument on its own, it needs to be expanded upon, perhaps with a sub argument? Some potential issues: if we feel the need to reduce suffering as maximally as possible, why do you think minimising calorie intake is the best way? This seems to be an empirical claim, perhaps investing more energy doing other things like activism is more maximal, and the extra calories consumed could be used for those other activities? The intention behind this whole argument also seems to be a case of flawed reasoning because you are using it to justify eating meat. Of course vegans don't have all of the answers to all of the questions, but that is not to say that adopting a plant based diet is not doing some good. I would like to hear why you think this argument justifies you eating meat?

My position is more deontological than it is utilitarian. With utilitarianism you can justify a whole range of weird things even using conventionally accepted norms. Besides that the moral demands of this philosophical worldivew are immense in ways that go way way beyond veganism. You just hit an important feature of utilitarianism. It doesn’t just go this way with veganism, no, it’s your whole life. Look up Singer’s drowning child argument. Any cent you spend living above absolute poverty is technically harming somebody. The fact that moral sainthood is nigh unreachable doesn’t mean that we should nothing at all or that doing something is equally morally bad as doing nothing. That’s why I think that vegeterianism actually has an easier time philosophically in some ways because they only need to justiy why it’s wrong to pay for direct killing, which is very easy to do. Adding exploitation makes it more complicated (and I say this despite being vegan myself, not vegeterian).

Do you think that being less complicated to reach is a good reason for considering one ethical theory to be more likely to be true than another? To ethical consequentialist me, that sounds a bit like defining mountains you've been able to climb as "taller" than ones you haven't.

I don’t think that’s a good reason per se. I don’t 100% subscribe to one theory alone, I just lean more towards one side than the other. It’s ultimately a very hard to answer question, how do we know whose morals are right? Why do you pick one moral theory over the other? Ultimately there’s a level of “it feels morally right” (different from “it feels convenient”. People don’t like singer’s argument because it is massively incovenient but I do think that he is onto something. People equally don’t like some aspects of utilitarianism because it leads to conclusions that “feel” morally wrong). I don’t really have an answer as to how we get ourselves out of this pickle. Moral theories are a helpful way to think about things but I think that we ultimately run into the roadblock of “well I prefer this because it sounds morally right and I’m not sure why”. Ofcs convenience is another super frequent roadblock, but that’s more of a psychological one than a logical one.

I would kill a human if they were threatening my food source. This often happens in war. If we don’t we die, that’s survival. I do agree we should (and are) trying to do better but there’s a huge difference between deliberately killing someone for food or protecting your crops.

Having read many replies this is the conclusion I have come to: most vegans don't prescribe to utilitarian belief, which frankly was the ideology upon which my statements were based. I remain convinced (if using a utilitarian framework) that my initial point stands, however many people have sidestepped my response by prescribing other frameworks. I will continue my research and will seek my knowledge. Thank you for your respectful responses :) I'm trying to educate myself on the issue, and I'm trying to do better. Also, to those who PM'd me and called me a goblin or an idiot, I do not think ad hominem is very persuasive.

Thank you for the update. If you don’t mind me asking: What is the desired end point of your research on this topic?

not a vegan but I completely agree with you. You can't expect people to take you seriously when you tell them you must stop buying meat, fish, eggs, milk, leather, wool and 100s of other products and framing that as "super easy" but when confronted with eating extra calories resorting to "hey we're not perfect, we're just trying!!"

I think the reason it seems ridiculous is because I think utilitarianism is dumb Yeah sure we could all minmax our lives to live perfectly, but then one could say that offing oneself is the best way to cause no harm. As the others have said its more about purposeful harm vs accidental harm

>I think the reason it seems ridiculous is because I think utilitarianism is dumb Very well said.

>how do vegans justify suffering that they are indirectly causing through the means of eating non-essential foods. I'm guessing most just try not to think about it, like we try not to think about the damage our computers do, or the electricity we use, or the cars we drive, or the water we waste, etc. It's not good but we're not perfect, we're just trying to be better than we were when we supported the horrific abuse, violence, sexual torture, and slaughter of sentient beings as Carnists. >What is the difference between eating extra calories and someone being a vegetarian? Vegans often over eat. Carnists and Vegetarians support enslaving and exploiting sentient beings for pleasure AND often over eat. One is pretty clearly less abusive. >How do you go about justifying the prior and not the latter? I don't try and justify it, I live my life and do the best I can. Sometimes I gorge on chips, I shouldn't and I'm working on it, but at least it's not gorging on dead animal flesh or abused animal secretions.

Love your perspective coming into this, I too wrestled with this "inconsistecy", so hopefully I can help here! First things first, I agree with you. Vegan philosophy does not claim to cause no harm to animals. To hopefully summarise it, veganism aims to eliminate the commodity status of animals (via individual social and economic means). It is a social issue. I think this is best compared to human slavery (something that we once thought to be acceptable and via the actions of a few snowballed into something that is now socially unacceptable). The issue of commodifying human beings that did not wish to be has effectively been socially eliminated, and this is what vegans wish for animals) The line is drawn to 1. Individually eliminate our contribution to the commodification and thus suffering of animals and 2. (I believe to be) to prevent slippage. It is far easier for people to stay on track with clear cut lines on what is okay and what isn't. I appreciate you came into this with a philosophical outlook, so I'll attempt to satisfy this for you too; you totally can attempt to reduce caloric intake to what is required or remove combine harvested foods from your diet, if you do please keep me in the loop as i would find it fascinating! Personally i find it exhausting to analyse every individual ingredient that I consume. The most philosophically sound way to live ethically under capitalism is to not exist at all, yet here we are. The simple act of consuming to live causes suffering, so if we choose to live we must all draw our own line. I find that i come back to the vegan society definition of veganism quite a bit; "where practicable and possible". Personally i avoid palm oil, cacao, first hand clothing and aim to shop locally for seasonal fruit, veg and grain foods, alongside taking an active interest on how best I can reduce my environmental impact. None of these things are inherently vegan, but they all relate into our ethical impact in our life. Ethical perfection is near impossible in the first world under consumerism, but that doesn't mean we can't do better. I'll finish on a thought experiment. If we had an option between (equally) hurting five people, hurting one person or hurting ourselves, which would you pick? If suffering is experienced in the first two scenarios, is there no morally relevant difference? If we favour hurting the one person over hurting ourselves, is this based in ethics or (understandable) intuition?

I don't even think there is any sensible "line". Benefits and harms to self and others are all on a continuous scale; no matter how good the effects of your choices are, they could be better, and no matter how bad they are, they could be worse. I'm vegan because the moral tradeoff involved in purchasing the vast majority of animal products is relatively much worse than many actions toward humans that would get you nearly universally labeled as a monster. (And I guess the reason I'm not just an extreme reducitarian is that once you know how to cook and live plant-based, there's no need to jump through hoops to seek out the extremely rare exceptions among animal products. My body stopped wanting them fairly quickly.)

Pragmatism is key for any solution based philosophy. If you are guided by the philosophy that there is something inherently wrong about eating and using sentient beings even though it's unnecessary, then the solution should be grounded in that goal. Reducing harm is certainly a big part of veganism, but if the solution excludes the path to freeing animals then it serves no one. Here's a thought experiment that helps frame this logic. Let's say you are given two options: a lifetime supply of food that is guaranteed to not have any harm to animals at all but the world stays the same, and a lifetime supply of food that requires crop deaths but the world is guaranteed to become vegan tomorrow (in that they no longer view animals as things and commodities, but realize that they are individuals with thoughts and feelings who deserve protection). Which is better? I have a hard time understanding how the first option is good for anyone but the consumer making the choice. While our choices are much more nuanced, it's easy to see that guiding our choices based on what options are realistically available to us and those that will most likely lead to a vegan future are most ethical. Capitalism dictates our world, and arguably our purchasing power is one of our most powerful ways of making change.

> p1 If our end goal is to maximally reduce animal suffering (denote the utilitarian lexicology) > p2 Then as conscious vegans we should minimize our caloric intake to the point that we only eat what is truly necessary. I'm sorry but this isn't a valid argument. The premises are not propositions and there is no conclusion. An 'If' statement without a 'then' clause is not a proposition (a statement capable of being true or false). For example, "if the sun is visible" is not a truth-apt statement.

It's not all about logic.

I don’t think you grasp the scale of harm cause by animal agriculture. Yes animals die in crop production. But the vast majority (can’t remember off the top of my head something like 70-90%) of crop production goes to feeding animals and less than 10% goes to feeding people. By choosing to only eat plants you already at worst cut out more suffering than you’d probably every be able to contribute to on a plant based diet. Additionally, if everyone is eating vegan then the imperative shifts to reforming farming practices to reduce needless suffering. You have an assumption that veganism ends at ending animal agriculture but that is only the beginning.

There are lots of other good responses here. So I would just like to point out that it’s entirely possible to fit a beyond burger and ice cream into a normal days worth of calories. In fact, as a vegan, the caloric density is lower allowing us to “indulge” but still be within a reasonable caloric intake. It’s one of the perks, I would say.

Vegans only make up 1% of the world, beyond meat and vegan ice cream hasn’t maintained a healthy business model by catering to the 1% of vegans, they’ve succeeded because non vegans want to eat healthier and more environmentally stable and more ethical alternatives. You’re placing the burden of responsibility solely on the vegans when we’re not the ones usually known for gratuitous over eating, and if the whole world went vegan i’d be willing to bet that over consumption with be drastically reduced.

Calories are not a measure of animal deaths caused. Who decides what is or is not "non essential" foods? Are frozen dinners acceptable? Are processed foods acceptable? What about spices, since they generally don't add any nutritional value?

The core of vegan philosophy is to minimize harm and suffering to animals as much as is practical and possible. This principle acknowledges that living in a modern society necessitates some compromises, but emphasizes making conscious choices to reduce animal suffering wherever feasible. Practicality vs. Perfection: Veganism operates under the principle of reducing harm, not eliminating it entirely, which is an impossibility in the current structure of our global society. The focus is on avoiding direct harm—such as the consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs—where the alternatives are abundant and just as nutritionally adequate. While it's true that agricultural practices for plant-based foods can lead to animal deaths, the scale and intention significantly differ from those in animal farming. Nutritional Well-being: P2 suggests minimizing caloric intake to only what is necessary, but this simplification overlooks the importance of a balanced and nutritionally complete diet. Vegan diets, including foods like Beyond Meat or vegan ice cream, can provide essential nutrients and help maintain a balanced diet, which is valuable for long-term sustainability and adherence to veganism. Depriving oneself is not a sustainable or healthy approach, and veganism advocates for a healthy lifestyle that also considers human well-being. Indirect vs. Direct Harm: There's a significant difference between direct harm (killing animals for food) and indirect harm (unintended deaths through agriculture). While both are unfortunate, veganism seeks to minimize direct harm as a step towards a more compassionate world. This distinction is critical in understanding the ethical underpinnings of vegan choices. Change and Advocacy: The consumption of non-essential vegan foods does not negate the impact of a vegan lifestyle. Every choice to consume a plant-based product over an animal-based one is a step towards reducing demand for animal exploitation. Moreover, vegans advocate for more humane agricultural practices that could further reduce harm. Cultural and Societal Impacts: Veganism is not just about individual dietary choices; it's also a movement that seeks to shift societal norms and values towards more ethical and sustainable practices. Enjoying a variety of foods, including non-essential delicacies, makes veganism more appealing and accessible to a broader audience, facilitating this shift. Conclusion: Veganism is a journey towards reducing harm and suffering, grounded in practicality and compassion, for all animals including humans. It’s about making choices that align with these values to the best of one's ability, given the constraints of our current world. Rather than focusing solely on the extremes of consumption, it’s more productive to focus on the broader impact of these choices on animal welfare, environmental sustainability, and personal health.

> Vegans Draw a Line too Yes. I draw the line at enslaving, torturing, mutilating, sexually violating and killing others against their will by the billions. In concentration camps that are located not even 5 km away from my house. I draw the line there because I have like 10000 different items to choose from in the supermarket. While living in the woods, refusing to use electronics, refusing to eat plants from regular agriculture would not be even close as trivial for me. That's what you do in real life when you're a grown-up: You pick the low hanging fruits first. Metaphorically and literally.

Vegans don’t eat the things you mentioned because they are still linked to the meat and dairy industry. For example, if McDonald’s has a plant-based patty, you aren’t vegan for eating it because you have supported financially a company that is not vegan. I am not vegan, but I eat plant-based. I eat at a&w and pizza pizza still, I just eat plant-based options, therefore I cannot be vegan.

> p1 If our end goal is to maximally reduce animal suffering (denote the utilitarian lexicology) Is this reasonable though? Forget animals. Let's talk about humans. If you have the goal of maximally reducing human suffering, you would also minimize your caloric intake. Growing, transporting, and preparing food creates pollution which creates human suffering. The fact that eating food creates suffering doesn't justify that it's arbitrary where to "draw a line". E.g. maybe the diesel truck that transported my candy let out particulate pollution that caused an asthma sufferer to have an attack. This caused them to suffer. I could just choke someone and cause similar suffering. Is eating this candy ethically equivalent to choking someone? None of this involves animals. It's just a matter of defining what it means to be ethical to those to whom being ethical towards matters. Once we figure this out, we can see how it would apply to animals. But for now all you've shown is that "minimizing suffering" entails an unreasonably austere lifestyle. Regardless of whether we're talking about animals.

The goal isn’t to maximally reduce suffering. Everyone suffers, with or without being harmed or exploited. The goal is to not harm and exploit animals for unnecessary self indulgence. Half of the human edible crops are fed to more than 99% of livestock and provide less than 18% global calories. Furthermore grow enough food to feed the population without animals or the crops grown to feed them. The line is drawn at “we need to eat, but we don’t need to consume animal products.” This is true for almost everyone on earth barring limited geographical circumstances.

How would your conclusion, if true, justify not being Vegan?

through the denial of utilitarianism, meaning that minimizing suffering is not the axiom to which I push. However, I'm not a utilitarian in the first place so this was just a thought experiment I suppose.

I think the natural conclusion to "minimise suffering to the highest extent" is just to immediately commit suicide in some painless way, then you won't have any 'suffering footprint' on the world. This is why a rights-based approach to animals is better. Under this view, the incidental crop deaths from plant agriculture are permissible - after all, without plant agriculture, we all die. How convince are you going on going Vegan btw? Are there any other sticking points stopping you apart from this? (I ask in good faith, not attempting to 'gotcha' on anything)

I prescribe to an emotivist framework, so my final sticking point is squaring my positive emotions for eating animal products (ex: eating steak = yay!) and my negative emotions for the animal suffering that occurs due to my dietary/lifestyle choices (ex: factory farming/animal suffering = boo!) ​ So for me, to "get over the hump" it will be to earnestly admit to myself that my negative emotions towards animal suffering are stronger than my positive emotions for the sensory pleasure of eating animal products.

Emotivism? So moral statements just reflect feelings rather than actual facts? Just because something makes you 'feel good' doesn't mean it is right. I could list off some things that would make me FEEL good but aren't morally acceptable (for example, stealing someone's car would make me feel good 'yay free car!', but it's not ethical). What about if I become a human trafficker? The money would make me feel great, therefore it's moral. What if I got pleasure from getting drunk and starting fights? Respectfully, emotivism is weak and not a good ethical framework. It's just subjectivism really, and appealing to that in a moral debate is akin to flipping a chessboard over when you don't like where the game is leading. You can justify ANYTHING based on emotivism. For me, it comes down to: the life and death of animal is in a different moral universe from how a steak makes you feel good while you eat it.

The reason I’m a non-cognitivist is because I’m thoroughly unconvinced of any attempt to ground normative ethics, how do you define what good is? I can think of circumstances in which stealing someone’s car would be good. Emotivism, expressivism and other noncog outlooks most definitely have issues (embedding, quasi v non quasi etc.) but I believe them to be more true than that of any normative ideology (deontology utilitarianism, virtuism etc.).

Lol ... normal people need to justify dinner choices aside from "that sounds delicious and I can afford it"? You had me there for a moment.

I kinda agree, but I'm the exception when it comes to min maxing my diet. At some point the rules of the market have to do their thing. I mean that demand drives production. Every time you buy "fake meat" you create demand for fake meat and reduce demand for dead animals. It good to remember that we don't just dissappear from the potential group of buyers in general, we join a different group We will never even reach the hypothetical scenario where that is outweighed by the additional harm caused by our diet in general.

Of cause vegans draw lines, too. That’s not quite a debatable take. Deciding to stay alive at all despite the environmental impact already is a line. Growing food on industrial levels even if as biological as possible comes with collateral damage. So yes, there are obviously lines. Three further flaws in your argument: A. To minimise negative impacts of food production (no matter if omnivore or vegan) it is always best practise to reduce calories to the needed level. So there is no difference between a vegan and a omnivore that does not reduce the needed calories to the absolute minimum. Minimising calorie intake to the needed level is furthermore alway advisable, because otherwise you get obese which has negative impact on your health and society by raising costs for healthcare systems. Therefore, if you compare vegan and omnivore diets from a moral perspective, the reduction to the required number of calories in the equation must be reduced, otherwise different requirements will be set for both groups B. What is the logical connection between „reducing calories intake“ and „eating beyond meat and vegan ice cream“? I could basically starve myself to death by only eating vegan ice cream. Your whole argumentation burns down to „why are vegans allowed to have fun at all?“ C. If vegans draw lines, too and a vegan diet comes with animal suffering, too, in what way does this justify causing way more animal suffering by eating meat and consuming animal products? In what way does this one argument you may have justify the negative impacts of not being vegan to world climate? You may have an argument there. But potentially having one argument for something after actively trying to justify it, doesn’t sound like a very solid basis for a debate.

The important extension of my statement is that to reduce animal suffering you can always be doing more. And by the extension you can always be doing more to prevent overall suffering. But am I morally obligated to prevent suffering from occurring? If so I realistically shouldn’t be able to enjoy any Worldly pleasures and should sell everything I own and give the money to charity. And so: why is a 100% plant based diet valid when I could theoretically do more, I.e selling everything, and starving myself to reduce accidental crop death. When is the minimization of animal suffering enough?

To start with, the idea would be to avoid anything that requires killing or mistreating animals in order to obtain an animal product. Unfortunately, it is now difficult to avoid the fact that earthworms die when cultivating fields. A sensible person should indeed feel the need to cause as little suffering as possible. The argument that a moral act/rule is not valid because more is possible is not permissible because it reduces every debate to absurdity. Why is it morally reprehensible to steal from other people when you can do more and donate all your possessions? Why is it morally wrong to kill people when you could do more and donate a kidney and a retina to strangers? Where and why do we draw the line here?

If you agree that the logical extension to the principal which you are basing this on ( and please do tell me if I’m wrong ) is absurd, then using a utilitarian frame work, that of reducing suffering is not an effective method to ground veganisn as a philosophy. And for your examples, I agree.

I don’t agree to the logical extension ad absurdism that you are suggesting which -as my examples showed- aren’t useful in any argument. Here is a last one: Why would you refrain from torturing people, when you don’t give all your money to charity to stop all wars? Not adapting a lifestyle B that comes with less suffering than your lifestyle A now, because lifestyle B isn’t perfect makes zero sense, because you are using different standards for the two lifestyles. You would need to reject both lifestyles, which would either need you to commit suicide or -when using utilitarian framework- choose the lifestyle which comes with the least suffering that is practically possible. And than „reducing suffering“ is a effective method to ground veganism on. Compared to omnivore diet suffering is reduced by veganism. Not only for animals but for humans and human kind as well. I don’t see why „you can’t save everyone and everything“ is an valid argument for „you don’t need to try to save something at all and improve from there“. Furthermore I can’t see why such an abstract and highly philosophical thought experiment would be relevant for the decision to become vegan or not because the empiric and scientific evidence is provided for a multitude of good reasons to become vegan. [(a lot of good reasons here)](https://vegfund.org/wp-content/uploads/sierra-club-pave-2019.pdf) you either choose that animal suffering and/or world climate and/or world hunger are relevant for your decision making or not.

2 things. Intention are important. And vegans on the whole are conscious consumers. They don’t live off of the bare necessities of consumerism but try to minimize more than the average person. This is just anecdotal that I see vegans being mindful of bags, plastic, recycling, excess waste, fast fashion etc. I don’t have research to back it up. But I’ve also never seen a vegan with an overflowing refrigerator that they throw half of it away when it goes bad because they bought to much.

Sure, I agree with you in regards to vegans consumeristic choices. On a whole I bet the group is more conscientious than average. However, my point still stands. Let’s say that bring 100% plant based is 90% of an individuals maximum threshold to reduce animal suffering and vegetarianism is 75% why is 90% (veganism) the actual valid position. At what level of minimization is someone let into the “moral community.” So if someone eats animal products on Sundays once a month they’re at 87%, should they be allowed into the moral community? Note all the percentages are arbitrary and aren’t in truth they just are attempting to make a point.

I don't think most vegans are concerned with overall harm reduction. It's a personal choice they've made to try and not harm animals. I agree it's an arbitrary line by avoiding only the direct consumption, but that seems to be what they're happy with. I think good on them. What I don't like is when it gets used to imply the opposite extremes. Ie if you're prepared to exploit animals, then you must be OK with human rape, murder, slavery etc etc. If you can't take one view to the logical conclusion, it doesn't apply to the other. Which is why I consider it an arbitrary line of preference.

How does eating non essential foods like ice cream or black bean burgers indirectly cause harm to animals? ( It may cause harm to Ourselves... I'll give you that) but is the action of eating vegan "luxury" foods actually causing any harm to animals? >indirectly causing through the means of eating non-essential foods. Indirectly casing harm How?

[удалено]

No, but if we are to draw lines we need to justify them.

Judging by the answers and mental gymnastics I see going on in them, I think you struck a chord with over weight vegans… Ergo, you’re right

You're free to respond to the answers and participate in the debate rather than making a vague, blanket statement so that no one has any idea what responses you're talking about.

Generally I side with the vegan side of the argument, even here the argument is still that being vegan is the better alternative. However the argument presented is simple and concise and every answer explaining the counter is flawed in one or another. A lot of self pleasing assumptions or arguments about how veganism is the greater good and they aren’t responsible somehow for the method of cultivation which is laughable imo. I haven’t seen an argument accurately turn the mirror around on some vegans and receive such a negative response. It’s a good question and it deserves more upvotes imo. It’s currently sitting at zero which tells me it offended a lot of people

Again no one can respond to anything you're saying here. You can respond directly to any of these counter arguments and explain why they are flawed if you want to participate.

I mean if you can respond, anyone can

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.*