Ethics is the only way to go fully vegan, people may also choose to become an ethical vegan because they care about human beings more, and see how destructive animal products are to humanity. From pathology to global warming, these are ethical issues.vegan81vzla wrote:All your arguemnts come from your particular perspective that the only way for humans to become vegans is that they should care about animals.
If somebody is only vegan for health reasons, that person would be a dietary vegan only (there would be no compulsion to avoid leather, fur, etc.).
There has to be a little ethical consideration in there for somebody to go fully vegan.
It's the most effective at keeping people vegan. Health is a partial motivator for many, but ethics keeps people vegan (health fads come and go).vegan81vzla wrote:That might be a reason for some to become vegan, but that is far from the only one or the most effective,
This is due to misinformation or stubbornness. It's hard to get people to change their minds. Psychology shows us that people tend more toward being rationalizing than rational. They don't want to accept that they're doing something wrong. People don't even want to accept that processed meat is unhealthy, because they like it. Give somebody poor evidence that bacon is healthy, and that person will choose that over very strong evidence that bacon is unhealthy because it's what the person prefers to believe.vegan81vzla wrote:hence the so many so called animal lovers who won't even consider veganism or would try it, only to go back to become reducitarians while perpetuating the notion that we need meet in our diets.
With respect to the consequences and their effects on the world, all other things being the same, of course it does. The person may not have a more ethical intent, but the effect is better which makes them more all-around better people for the world.vegan81vzla wrote:Veganism does not make individuals more moral or ethical or better people.
Most people already regard animals favorably, but they make the mistake of saying that pigs and dogs are different because pigs are meant to be eaten due to species. There are differences -- pigs are smarter for one -- but there's nothing about the species boundary that makes pigs OK to eat and dogs wrong to eat. Differences are about real qualities, not arbitrary species boundaries.vegan81vzla wrote:The roots of carnism don't lie on how people regard animals, but on gluttony and addiction to a overall distructive behavior.
Do you still agree with that when we apply the same reasoning to racism? It's natural, and it arguably comes from our tribal history to fear and distrust people who look different from those we are used to (close friends and family).vegan81vzla wrote:[racism] is not against reason, actually in our evolutionary path it became important to identify enemies, which most [other tribes/races] were to some extent. We had to identify [other people] that might have killed us foor food [or out of fear], or those we had to fight for to get food [or other resources, being in competition].
They're either both something unreasonable to overcome, or you accept speciesism and racism with the same reasoning by an appeal to nature fallacy.
Speciesism comes from feelings and 'instinct', just like racism. Being anti-speciesist or anti-racist is only the realization that these arbitrary qualifiers are meaningless in ethical terms. It's an intellectual and rational understanding of what is or is not meaningful.vegan81vzla wrote:Being antispeciesist comes from feelings and emotions, not reason.
