Philosophical Vegan Forum

So let me get straight to the point:

There a few cases of hypocrisy I noticed amongst vegans until now:
1)vegans who claim predators killing prey is less painful than humans killing predators and prey by shooting
2)vegans who are buying cats as their own pets
3)vegans still driving cars when they dont need to or taking airplanes on vacation (so when they off course dont need to)
4)vegans buying products from pretty unethical brands (regarding labor conditions, climate change (GHG) and environmental pollution)
5)pro-choice vegans who think women should request abortion in all cases

Let me start by saying: veganism is a lifestyle, not only a diet.
1)Now, to start with the first point: if humans had to choose to rather die by getting shot in the head, or being thrown to the lions, all humans would choose for the firing range, period. Just to be up front; I am convinced the world would be better off without all carnivores, omnivores, viruses, parasites and malignant bacteria and insects as I view them as superfluous abominations, as humans have the capacity to supervise prey population way more ethical than other species by sterilization and simple supervision (and dont worry, humans are herbivores, just like other animals who can fully thrive on a 100% plant-based diet like dogs).

I have heard tons of excuses by vegans in debates who either refer that humans are way more terrible than predators as we kill way more than we need to (which vegans obviously do not, and this argumentation is also a strawman argument because they dont answer the problem of pain, suffering and death that lions cause) or that lions can kill because they have to (which is also a strawman argument).
To the latter argument I say: I am an utilitarian consequentialist, as I am convinced this is the only logical consistent ethical stance. And as a utilitarian consequentialist, it is my moral obligation to lower pain, suffering and murder/killing as much as possible in all beings, as fast and effective as possible, which is the same stance as veganism promotes. No excuses.

To conclude my first point for now: Predators like lions are bloodthristy killermachines and monsters, not innocent animals. I couldnt care less if all lions on this planet would die and every vegan should have this stancepoint.

2)Cats are smaller size of larger felines like lions and tigers. A recent study concluded that cats are still just as agressive as lions are and would attack and eat human beings if we a edible small size for cats. Cats also have already killed about 80 species in the last few deccenia as cats became way more widespread than other animals. And even think about all the mice and birds that cats kill outside when they dont eat all the cows, pigs, fish and chickens we feed to them.

No matter how cute cats may look like, just as vegans had to 'conquer' good looking food, we must now also conquer the cute looks of our cats. I am being really serious here, I'm not joking even if it may seem so :') xD

I can make the same argument now off course for vegans who own snakes or other predators. As you may noticed, my second point looks a lot like the first one, but is still abit different though.

3)This one is pretty obvious: as veganism also tried to limit climate change/global warming/greenhouse effect to every bit they can, it is logical to take the bicycle as much as one can, and to only take a car (which can also be as green and sustainable as possible) when really needed. Vacations are better if they are as local as possible. Taking the airplane and car and stuff is hypocritical by my view.

4)This one is also pretty obvious. As humans are animals as well, it is also mandatory to be wary of labor conditions as well when buying products. I use the site rankabrand.org for this, but to be entirely sure one can simply buy products at thrift shops. Rankabrand.org also rates brands on pollution and greenhouse gases next to labor conditions. Sustainable = better.

5)And last but not least: my opinion on abortion at rape-cases in which the women couldnt do anything about it is up for the woman to decide, the same goes for incest-cases and cases of very young women/girls and severe medicinal cases in which the lives of both the mother and the baby is at stake.
Abortion is always a sad case. But what I wanted to talk about is cases of vegan women and men who disvalue the life of that if an unborn child by being promiscious without taking any sterilization/vasectomy (and dont worry, you can still have babies at a later age, maybe only not via the natural way).
Pro-choice vegans reason that embryos/zygotes aren't sentient and lack consciousness, even comparing them to plants in some cases. I think this is a false analogy. I think a better comparison would be to compare the insentience of a zygote/embryo to that of a person with 'congenital analgesia' (AKA pain insensitivity) or to a person in vegetative state (of which there are cases of full recovery after months/years of the accident).
Or, in other words: if one reasons abortion in consensual (non-incest) cases is not a bad thing, the logical consistency would be then that killing people with cogenital analgesia and people in vegetative state immediately would be reasonable , which is both, off course, clearly absurd and unethical to the average person.



I'm sure there are a lot of questions by now. I am going to wait for responses before I elaborate myself any further before I lose myself in all the details about how I see things.

Cortez48 wrote:Just to be up front; I am convinced the world would be better off without all carnivores, omnivores, viruses, parasites and malignant bacteria and insects as I view them as superfluous abominations, as humans have the capacity to supervise prey population way more ethical than other species by sterilization and simple supervision (and dont worry, humans are herbivores, just like other animals who can fully thrive on a 100% plant-based diet like dogs).

Probably true, but that's an issue for a future trans-humanist paradise; it's not really an issue for today. It's also not an issue most people are ready or able to discuss right now.
Once the world is vegan, we can start talking about what to do with population control for other animals. Maybe even genetically engineering the lions to eat grass.

Since this is an issue that is only likely to alienate people today, it's not something a consequentialist of any stripe should really be bringing up.
This is one of those things you leave alone for now, unless somebody else brings it up, then try to change the topic if they do.

Cortez48 wrote: No matter how cute cats may look like, just as vegans had to 'conquer' good looking food, we must now also conquer the cute looks of our cats. I am being really serious here, I'm not joking even if it may seem so :') xD

Let's focus on the vegan message first. It would be very helpful to develop good vegan cat foods, and make sure people keep their cats indoors. The latter at least is a very useful message. And we should always be against breeding cats and dogs as long as there are any animals in shelters.

Cortez48 wrote: 3)This one is pretty obvious: as veganism also tried to limit climate change/global warming/greenhouse effect to every bit they can, it is logical to take the bicycle as much as one can, and to only take a car (which can also be as green and sustainable as possible) when really needed. Vacations are better if they are as local as possible. Taking the airplane and car and stuff is hypocritical by my view.

Bikes don't have that much better mileage than cars. It's good to get an electric car, though, and to limit travel and possibly buy carbon or green energy credits to offset necessary travel.

Be wary of pushing for too stoic a degree of abstinence, though; the little things like this could push people away more than they do good.

http://www.peta.org/living/food/making-transition-vegetarian/ideas-vegetarian-living/tiny-amount-animal-products-food/

Kind of like this, except now you're saying "if you're vegan you can never see the Eiffel tower, unless you're from France and bike there"
People will more likely than not tell you to fuck off and just won't even try to be vegan if you're too pushy on this stuff.

Limiting unnecessary travel is great, but it's a much smaller issue.

Cortez48 wrote: 4)This one is also pretty obvious. As humans are animals as well, it is also mandatory to be wary of labor conditions as well when buying products. I use the site rankabrand.org for this, but to be entirely sure one can simply buy products at thrift shops. Rankabrand.org also rates brands on pollution and greenhouse gases next to labor conditions. Sustainable = better.

On this point you're just very misinformed. Sweat shops are a good thing for poor economies, and represent the best jobs available in many impoverished regions. It's not exploitation when the people WANT to work at your plant, and you're offering coveted jobs. People won't work for unsustainable wages, and they willingly charge a premium for dangerous jobs. There are cases where deception occurs and results in exploitation, but these are comparatively rare.

Second hand stores are a great way to go, though; not to save humans, but to save energy and resources.

Cortez48 wrote: Pro-choice vegans reason that embryos/zygotes aren't sentient and lack consciousness, even comparing them to plants in some cases. I think this is a false analogy. I think a better comparison would be to compare the insentience of a zygote/embryo to that of a person with 'congenital analgesia' (AKA pain insensitivity) or to a person in vegetative state (of which there are cases of full recovery after months/years of the accident).
Or, in other words: if one reasons abortion in consensual (non-incest) cases is not a bad thing, the logical consistency would be then that killing people with cogenital analgesia and people in vegetative state immediately would be reasonable , which is both, off course, clearly absurd and unethical to the average person.

That's a bad analogy on your part, and it stems from a crucial mistake in your ethical framework. Morality is based not on pleasure and pain, but on interests (only some of which involve hedonic experiences). That is: preferences. Look into preference utilitarianism.

A non-sentient fetus has no interests/preferences. A person who can't feel physical pain (who can feel emotional pain, by the way) does have interests. Somebody with CIP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_insensitivity_to_pain ) has preferences, and it's wrong to violate them.
A person who is in a persistent vegetative state will not wake up. If you talk about people who are in comas (with brain activity), then it's wrong to kill them because they were sentient before hand and probably had an interest in waking up. You'd have to look at their wills, or ask their family members to figure it out. It's the same reason it's wrong to kill a person in his or her sleep.

Hey! I honor your response! I think it is great and learnful to meet another person that thinks as deeply as I about common topics! Just a short question up front: are you the admin of this site?

Now, to answer to your response by number:
1)Wow, I totally agree! It's even a bit scary how much I agree with you on every single bit here! :O

2)Once again, I fully agree!!

3)I did not say bikes though, I meant bycicles I must admit that I am quite obsessive, abstinent and stoic on this issue. I just want to let you know that I do this lifestyle out of love for the next generation! I agree that it can push people away from veganism, which is the last thing I want to do. But I do want to point out the 'hypocrisy', tbh.

Also, you said that limiting unneccesary travel is great, but a smaller issue. What is this opinion based on? The fact that transportation is only a small cause for climate change/global warming???

4)I am not a big fan from economies and globalization, as I am a green anarchist and an alter/anti-globalist myself.
Still, even if globalization is a good thing as you are trying to point out here (which I dont agree on); I most definitely do not agree about the lack of exploitation that is going on. The site rankabrand.org I mentioned is clear about the lack of ethical rules/rights/conditions these industries engage in. Did you even know that the clothing industry (together with the smartphone/computer industry) is the most exploitative of all product industries? I also dont agree that as long as people want to work, it is not exploitation. When offering coveted jobs, it is exploitation even more.
Why? Well what about the climate, the environment, (in)equality, freedom, chances, worker rights, labor conditions??? And sometimes the workers dont even have a better alternative choice, it is either that or sex tourism, child (sex) exploitation, forced labor, slavery, human trafficking, selling drugs, theft or just simply dying from starvation. The effectiveness of mini crediting people in poor countries and development aid has also been documented.

Dont you even think it is incredibly vain, narcisstic, oblivious and unethical to view and consider oneself to have the right to earn a wage at least four times the wage of your average worker, who works even harder than the CEO of that company? And most of the time, the CEO of that company is more unethical than the average worker on many other fronts like carbon footprint, environmental pollution, lack of worry for the lives if the workers, general exploitation, lack of connections/mutual understanding. It is pretty much the industrial era in Europe all over.

What about mental suffering of these people (or when they suffer from a mental disorder), the difference in freedom, chances, equality and interests that people have, what about if these people need medical help or get disabled, what about changing the well-being and health of these people (like nutrition-knowledge/science, recreation, social activities, exercise), what about (financial) certainty, safety and security, what about people with submissive, nice, oversenstive and non-assertive personalities who want to please others (even unempahtic people) no matter what, what about if one of the workers has way more potential that he/she is now not able to develop (like a certain talent, intelligence or something)...?!

And even in the first place, do you think it is normal and healthy for these people to be working up to 48/60 hours a week (and overtime without getting paid in some cases)? I think it is rather greedy, vain, envious and that there is a lot of anger and frustration involved due to general misunderstanding. It is all rather sad and terrible.

I do not agree in general about the 'virtue of dilligence/vices of laziness/idleness/sloth'. In some cases, I think being dilligent is good, in other cases it is bad. It is about the type of work.

I think you are reasoning from your own experience and point of view. I would even go so far to state that I think your answer on this topic is from a perverted or unknowing/unaware/ignorant/oblivious, privileged position.
Personally, I also think you are too confident and have too much assertion on the less moral position that you hold on this topic.

At the end you do admit that these cases exist, but are "comparatively rare". Well even if they were, one should still do not engage in buying from these brands. That is if you want to 'play it safe'.

5)I am not yet convinced that my own moral/ethical framework has a crucial error or mistake. I think there is no person on earth that would volunteer for torture unless there is something to gain out of it (like fame of a world-record of some sort). I think ethics/morality is always about physical pain, mental suffering, utilitarian consequentialism, and value of life and death (murder and killing). Not about interests/preferences. Because if it were, it would also be a good thing to kill a person who has no interests in life or preference to live anymore (permanently, which is also very hard to diagnose). Anyway, can you explain a bit more about interests/preferences?

About abortion, my real analogy wasnt about congenital analgesia, but about a person in vegetative state. Personally, I think your mistake is in suggesting that you know beforehand, that a embryo/zygote/fetus has NO interest in becoming a baby/fullgrown man/woman. You dont know that. This is a riskful (perverted) position that you hold. I already covered my opinion/logic/reason on sentience/interests/preferences in a few sentences ago, so I'll skip that as I think you can already deduce my opinion/position of this topic when it comes to abortion.
Do keep in mind that a person in vegetative state can have awoken from a coma, but still haven't gained awareness. So a coma is an even deeper state than someone in vegetative state can have, not (only) the other way around. And a person in vegetative state still has brain activity. Also, straight from a source I found:
"A coma, sometimes also called persistent vegetative state, is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. Persistent vegetative state is not brain-death. An individual in a state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her environment."

I do off course, think it is wrong to kill someone in his sleep. But I think you could've already deduced this from my reasoning. I think euthanasia of a person in vegetative state can only be done when it is sure such a person will never recover from a coma. If I am right, this only happens after about at least a year (and a half) went by.

I also want to point out that I wonder if 'hypocrisy' is the best word for the title of this post. 'Misunderstanding' might be a better word I think this word is a bit less negative

Hi, welcome to the forum. You should make an intro!

I just want to address the abortion issue-

Cortez48 wrote:5)I am not yet convinced that my own moral/ethical framework has a crucial error or mistake. I think there is no person on earth that would volunteer for torture unless there is something to gain out of it (like fame of a world-record of some sort). I think ethics/morality is always about physical pain, mental suffering, utilitarian consequentialism, and value of life and death (murder and killing). Not about interests/preferences. Because if it were, it would also be a good thing to kill a person who has no interests in life or preference to live anymore (permanently, which is also very hard to diagnose). Anyway, can you explain a bit more about interests/preferences?

About abortion, my real analogy wasnt about congenital analgesia, but about a person in vegetative state. Personally, I think your mistake is in suggesting that you know beforehand, that a embryo/zygote/fetus has NO interest in becoming a baby/fullgrown man/woman. You dont know that. This is a riskful (perverted) position that you hold. I already covered my opinion/logic/reason on sentience/interests/preferences in a few sentences ago, so I'll skip that as I think you can already deduce my opinion/position of this topic when it comes to abortion.
Do keep in mind that a person in vegetative state can have awoken from a coma, but still haven't gained awareness. So a coma is an even deeper state than someone in vegetative state can have, not (only) the other way around. And a person in vegetative state still has brain activity. Also, straight from a source I found:
"A coma, sometimes also called persistent vegetative state, is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. Persistent vegetative state is not brain-death. An individual in a state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her environment."

I do off course, think it is wrong to kill someone in his sleep. But I think you could've already deduced this from my reasoning. I think euthanasia of a person in vegetative state can only be done when it is sure such a person will never recover from a coma. If I am right, this only happens after about at least a year (and a half) went by.

What if there is a person who would volunteer for torture, though (a masochist?)? Would it still be wrong, even if that person wants to be tortured? How could it be wrong if that's what that person wants?
If you agree that it would be moral to torture someone who genuinely wants to be tortured, then you have to concede that the fundamental reason why things are right or wrong is due to interests. It's just that, in practice, people usually want to avoid suffering, so utilitarianism usually seems to make sense.

Even if there is no person who wants to be tortured, the torture is wrong because the people don't want to be tortured, not because torture makes them suffer in and of itself.


Are you religious? I'm just not sure why else you would believe an embryo or a fetus is capable of having an interest. And I thought you believed morality wasn't based on interests?

From my understanding, a fetus cannot be sentient until it has brainwaves, and it doesn't have brainwaves until a significant amount of time into the pregnancy.
If a life has never been sentient, then it really can't have any moral value. It's like saying that it's wrong to kill plants.

Also, do you believe that abortion is the same as murder (like a lot of religious people do)?
If you do, why do you support abortion in cases of rape? What's worse, rape or murder?
I'm glad that you do support a woman's right to have an abortion in cases of rape, I'm just wondering what your rationale is.


Also, something that you posted before:

And last but not least: my opinion on abortion at rape-cases in which the women couldnt do anything about it is up for the woman to decide, the same goes for incest-cases and cases of very young women/girls and severe medicinal cases in which the lives of both the mother and the baby is at stake.
Abortion is always a sad case. But what I wanted to talk about is cases of vegan women and men who disvalue the life of that if an unborn child by being promiscious without taking any sterilization/vasectomy (and dont worry, you can still have babies at a later age, maybe only not via the natural way).
Pro-choice vegans reason that embryos/zygotes aren't sentient and lack consciousness, even comparing them to plants in some cases. I think this is a false analogy. I think a better comparison would be to compare the insentience of a zygote/embryo to that of a person with 'congenital analgesia' (AKA pain insensitivity) or to a person in vegetative state (of which there are cases of full recovery after months/years of the accident).
Or, in other words: if one reasons abortion in consensual (non-incest) cases is not a bad thing, the logical consistency would be then that killing people with cogenital analgesia and people in vegetative state immediately would be reasonable , which is both, off course, clearly absurd and unethical to the average person.

It's a misconception that most women who get abortions are just being 'promiscuous'.
There's nothing wrong with not getting sterilized to have sex. Isn't that a little excessive? Unless you REALLY don't want to get pregnant, just use birth control.

We have a teen pregnancy epidemic in America (*cough cough* because of conservative culture *cough cough*), because teenagers are often misinformed about sex and don't bother to use protection. A lot of people in general are misinformed about birth control, like they figure they won't get pregnant because they're on their period or something. What about them?

brimstoneSalad wrote:Bikes don't have that much better mileage than cars. It's good to get an electric car, though, and to limit travel and possibly buy carbon or green energy credits to offset necessary travel.

There are some other very significant advantages to cycling, though. It's safer (provided proper infrastructure, such as in the NL), beneficial to health and very cheap. The energy efficiency of cycling improves for vegans, since vegan food requires less energy to produce.

And are you sure bikes don't have much better mileage? David MacKay puts it at roughly 3 kWh/100person-km for a cyclist at 20 km/ph. He may not have accounted for food production etc., but an average car is 7 times less efficient (20 kWh/100p-km) if full, and 27 times less efficient (80 kWh/100p-km) with only one occupant. I find it hard to believe he's that off.

Besides that, cycling is free excercise. More people cycling to work great from a public health perspective, is it not? Not to mention it results in fewer traffic accidents (provided good infrastructure, like in the NL).
Also, besides electric cars I think promoting public transport is very positive; it's more efficient (as long as the vehicles are not empty) and opens up roads.

miniboes wrote: There are some other very significant advantages to cycling, though. It's safer (provided proper infrastructure, such as in the NL), beneficial to health and very cheap.

Given the proper infrastructure, sure.
It could be worth making more bike paths for those reasons.
Without it, though, biking is very dangerous.
I also think we would need better planned cities, with work places closer to residences. Modern zoning is a scourge.

miniboes wrote: The energy efficiency of cycling improves for vegans, since vegan food requires less energy to produce.

Sure, but I have doubts that it's good enough to beat a very fuel efficient car like a hybrid, or even just a newer non-hybrid model. I don't think there's any chance it would beat an electric, just due to how inefficient human food production and metabolism is.

Maybe we could start a thread on this where we look at the numbers and compare various forms of transport.

miniboes wrote: Also, besides electric cars I think promoting public transport is very positive; it's more efficient (as long as the vehicles are not empty) and opens up roads.

I agree, public transit is great. Particularly electric public transit,

Cortez48 wrote: 3)I did not say bikes though, I meant bycicles

Same thing. Motorbikes or motorcycles would be the powered equivalent. Those almost certainly have better efficiency than humans, though, given the small payload they carry. E-bikes, or small cars (like the light three wheeled cars) are probably the best of all.

Cortez48 wrote: I must admit that I am quite obsessive, abstinent and stoic on this issue. I just want to let you know that I do this lifestyle out of love for the next generation! I agree that it can push people away from veganism, which is the last thing I want to do. But I do want to point out the 'hypocrisy', tbh.

What you're pointing out is more imperfection than hypocrisy. Most vegans recognize that people aren't perfect.

When a smoker tells other people not to smoke, that doesn't mean he or she is being a hypocrite; he or she may just not have the will power to quit smoking, and may still consider that bad for his or herself too.

Cortez48 wrote: Also, you said that limiting unneccesary travel is great, but a smaller issue. What is this opinion based on? The fact that transportation is only a small cause for climate change/global warming???

Most transportation is based on the necessary daily commutes to work, and transportation of goods. Vacations and other trips make up a vanishingly small proportion.

Telling people they can never take vacations if they go vegan is likely to do more harm than good by discouraging them from going vegan (which has a much larger effect).

A better message is to encourage people to buy carbon credits, or renewable energy credits, to compensate for their transportation.

Cortez48 wrote:4)I am not a big fan from economies and globalization, as I am a green anarchist and an alter/anti-globalist myself.

You have a lot to learn on this topic.

Please red this thread, which discusses anarchism (capitalist and non)
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=175

Here's a thread on an anarchist vegan group, addressing the issue with other members:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=2008
It looks into Mondragon and alternative models

This thread discusses money in Politics
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=2041

You're basically arguing the flat-earth-theory of economics here.

Cortez48 wrote:Still, even if globalization is a good thing as you are trying to point out here (which I dont agree on); I most definitely do not agree about the lack of exploitation that is going on.

I didn't say there was no exploitation. When somebody is lied to and a contract is broken, that is exploitation (in the negative sense). The benefit of pouring money into impoverished countries, however, vastly exceeds the harm from occasional 'exploitation'.

You can find many articles like this, and numerous first hand accounts from the workers who saved money working in these places and elevated themselves out of poverty.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/05/02/sweatshops-in-bangladesh-improve-the-lives-of-their-workers-and-boost-growth/

The people helped by this exceed the people harmed by it. This is not like animal agriculture; we are NOT breeding these people into shitty situations. They're already there, anything we can do to lessen their suffering is good.

Cortez48 wrote:Did you even know that the clothing industry (together with the smartphone/computer industry) is the most exploitative of all product industries?

Yes, and these industries also do the most good for these people. There's harm and benefit; if you're a consequentialist, you should NOT care about "exploitation" in itself that's deontological nonsense (particularly so vaguely defined to not include harm), you should care about harm vs. benefit. If you ignore the benefit because you don't like the system for being "unfair", you are not being an honest consequentialist, you're being a dogmatist.

Cortez48 wrote:I also dont agree that as long as people want to work, it is not exploitation. When offering coveted jobs, it is exploitation even more.

This is deontological nonsense. I care about harm, not what you arbitrarily regard as "exploitation". In the cases where we strictly define exploitation as harmful, that's fine. If it's causing harm, that's something to consider. BUT that harm has to be weighed against the alternative (which is them being worse off) and weighed against the benefits it produces.

Maybe ten people die from the 'exploitation', while 90 are elevated out of poverty. We can talk about what ratio is acceptable, but to say that no ratio is acceptable is dogma, not rational ethics.

Cortez48 wrote:Why? Well what about the climate, the environment, (in)equality, freedom, chances, worker rights, labor conditions???

"Rights" is a deontological concept, not consequentialist.
You're giving me the impression that you're picking and choosing when to apply consequentialism, and when to ignore it in favor of dogmatic deontological beliefs.

Cortez48 wrote:And sometimes the workers dont even have a better alternative choice, it is either that or sex tourism, child (sex) exploitation, forced labor, slavery, human trafficking, selling drugs, theft or just simply dying from starvation.

Right, which is why a consequentialist will recognize it as GOOD -- the lesser evil -- to support.
Supporting something even better than sweatshops is better, obviously, but you first have to prove there is something better than sweatshops and that it works. Charity doesn't work well; the money just gets lost in corruption, and there's very little of it.

Cortez48 wrote:The effectiveness of mini crediting people in poor countries and development aid has also been documented.

No it hasn't; that's a widely propagated lie.

These programs are rife with exploitation and corruption, and probably cause more harm than good. Even when properly implemented, NO, they are not effective.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2015/jun/10/the-microfinance-delusion-who-really-wins

What’s so fascinating about the microfinance craze is that it persists in the face of one unfortunate fact: microfinance doesn’t work. Of course, there are some lovely anecdotes out there about the transformative power of micro-loans, but as David Roodman from the Center for Global Development put it in his recent book, “The best estimate of the average impact of microcredit on the poverty of clients is zero.” This is not a fringe opinion. A comprehensive DFID-funded review of extant data comes to the same conclusion: the microfinance craze has been built on “foundations of sand” because “no clear evidence yet exists that microfinance programmes have positive impacts.”

There are dozens of articles on the issue.
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2013/nov/19/microcredit-south-africa-loans-disaster

There's extensive criticism of microloans. I don't know how you've avoided it all of this time. You could even just read the Wikipedia article on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcredit

Critics argue, however, that microcredit has not had a positive impact on gender relationships, does not alleviate poverty, has led many borrowers into a debt trap and constitutes a "privatization of welfare".[6] The first randomized evaluation of microcredit, conducted by Esther Duflo and others, showed mixed results: there was no effect on household expenditure, gender equity, education or health, but the number of new businesses increased by one third compared to a control group.[7]

Third paragraph. It is in no way clear that the microloan systems are good as they are implemented now. There are ideas about incorporating savings systems which may help, but this is all speculative.

Why would you claim the effectiveness is documented? Where's the study that shows it improves quality of life?
Because sweatshops do. That's the ONLY thing we currently know of that really works, and does so to the tune of billions of dollars a year.

Cortez48 wrote:Dont you even think it is incredibly vain, narcisstic, oblivious and unethical to view and consider oneself to have the right to earn a wage at least four times the wage of your average worker, who works even harder than the CEO of that company?

No.

I think everybody should have the right to work for whatever wage they can, CEO or sweatshop worker. Even if that's a wage that, in your rich developed world privilege, you would turn your nose up at.
Just because you don't want a job or think it's beneath you, doesn't mean other people don't want the job. To deny these people jobs in a sweat shop, which they WANT, to please your ego is incredibly vain, narcissistic, oblivious, and unethical in my view.

Let them work. Give them the freedom to choose. Support them in their work by buying their products if you need them. That's the ethical thing to do.

Cortez48 wrote:And most of the time, the CEO of that company is more unethical than the average worker on many other fronts like carbon footprint, environmental pollution, lack of worry for the lives if the workers, general exploitation, lack of connections/mutual understanding.

If particular people are behaving unethically, that's a completely different issue, and not justification to punish poor people by denying them jobs and not allowing them to improve their lives if they so choose.

Cortez48 wrote:What about mental suffering of these people (or when they suffer from a mental disorder), the difference in freedom, chances, equality and interests that people have, what about if these people need medical help or get disabled, what about changing the well-being and health of these people (like nutrition-knowledge/science, recreation, social activities, exercise), what about (financial) certainty, safety and security, what about people with submissive, nice, oversenstive and non-assertive personalities who want to please others (even unempahtic people) no matter what, what about if one of the workers has way more potential that he/she is now not able to develop (like a certain talent, intelligence or something)...?!

What if we had a Utopian colony on the Moon where everybody could go and live in peace and happiness?
What does this have to do with anything?

We have multiple systems that don't work, and we have one that does: sweat shops.
If you have evidence for something better, then show it.
If you don't, then the rational thing to do is not to boycott the only means we currently have for reliably improving the lives of the poor, it's to support it until we have something better.

Cortez48 wrote:And even in the first place, do you think it is normal and healthy for these people to be working up to 48/60 hours a week (and overtime without getting paid in some cases)?

Yes, and on average they are paid, otherwise they wouldn't work. A 60 hour work week is pretty modest. The alternative jobs are much harder, more dangerous, involve more hours, and a lower wage. Sweat shops provide better jobs. You aren't accepting this for some reason, or you're dismissing it for dogmatic beliefs instead.

Not everything in life is perfect.

Cortez48 wrote:I think you are reasoning from your own experience and point of view. I would even go so far to state that I think your answer on this topic is from a perverted or unknowing/unaware/ignorant/oblivious, privileged position.
Personally, I also think you are too confident and have too much assertion on the less moral position that you hold on this topic.

I can say the same of you. Except I'm providing evidence, and speaking from reason. You're making bald assertions counter to evidence, and appealing to dogma.

You're wrong here.

Cortez48 wrote:At the end you do admit that these cases exist, but are "comparatively rare". Well even if they were, one should still do not engage in buying from these brands. That is if you want to 'play it safe'.

Of course we should buy from the brands, because the good they do greatly exceeds the harm. That's playing it safe. That's consequentialism. Nothing is completely without harm; if you want to avoid harming others entirely, your only option is to kill yourself.

Cortez48 wrote:5)I am not yet convinced that my own moral/ethical framework has a crucial error or mistake.

Read this thread: http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=1737&start=30#p17975
You can start near the bottom of page 4.
Hedonistic frameworks are easily debunked.

http://www.livescience.com/54774-fetal-pain-anesthesia.html

"The science shows that based on gestational age, the fetus is not capable of feeling pain until the third trimester," said Kate Connors, a spokesperson for ACOG. The third trimester begins at about 27 weeks of pregnancy.

There's a much more compelling argument that can be had in the late stages of pregnancy. But "potential life" is not a good one to base your beliefs on.

I'll let EquALLity handle this one.

Cortez48 wrote: 3)I did not say bikes though, I meant bycicles

The poster who said that bikes are not much better than cars was referring to bicycles. They aren't as "clean" as you may think. The conversion ratio of food energy to moving a person on a bicycle is piss poor. Take in to account how much energy goes in to making the food and how much pollution making and transporting the food comes out (especially if the bicycle rider eats animal products) and you end up with the energy needed to move the bicycle not being very clean.

And yes, if you bicycle a lot, you will be eating a lot more food, I've been there bicycling a lot one summer and was consuming a very noticeable larger amount of food. So yeah, not "free" energy.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I agree, public transit is great. Particularly electric public transit,

I think more people should take the bus actually. The more people that take the bus, the less traffic, since drivers who use a 4-seater car are usually the only one in the car. (Maybe invest in a Smart Car?) This, other than being an annoyance, can contribute to pollution and shit like that. But for some reason, people are reluctant to take the bus to work.