Philosophical Vegan Forum

Hello.

As implied in the subject, a friend of mine recently had a brief conversation with the vegan YouTuber "Ask Yourself" (aka Isaac Brown) about the moral side of veganism. I joined a little late in the convo which, by that time, Isaac had already ditched the thread, which I understand is because he might just be busy with other things. Here's the link to the entire conversation: https://plus.google.com/109962215079387517038/posts/JCviehxHryf?iem=4&gpawv=1&hl=en-US

There are two questions we'd like to have addressed:

1) Does a logical inconsistency exist in the non-vegan system of morality, as Ask Yourself proposes, or has JJ sufficiently demonstrated that no such inconsistency exists?

2) Is morality utterly bereft of an objective standard, thus making it mere preference, and if it is preference, is it obligated to demonstrate logical consistency at all?

BONUS QUESTION (related to #1): On what grounds does an ethical vegan assert that a non-vegan is being logically inconsistent when they say that they support murder of animals, but not murder of their relatives?

Before responding, it would probably help to review the aforementioned YouTube link first to make sure your response hasn't already been made by someone else. You may respond here or at the YT link provided.

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2017 11:56 pmDoes a logical inconsistency exist in the non-vegan system of morality, as Ask Yourself proposes, or has JJ sufficiently demonstrated that no such inconsistency exists?

There is no logical inconsistency among non-vegans who say that they don't care about animals. The logical inconsistency is among those who are bothered by the suffering of one animal but not (or less) of the suffering of another equally sentient animal. Writing that something is ok because it is the norm or something one has become accustomed to is both lazy and closed-minded.

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2017 11:56 pm Is morality utterly bereft of an objective standard, thus making it mere preference, and if it is preference, is it obligated to demonstrate logical consistency at all?

Most people would agree that any act that benefits or pleasures the acting agent (and/or his closest friends and relatives) while causing suffering in others is selfish and immoral. Let me clarify that an act is not either moral or immoral, rather it falls along a spectrum. Buying a first class train ticket while I could be donating that extra money to The Humane Society would be a little selfish, while eating the parts of a dead cow who wanted to live just because I like the taste would be severely selfish. Many people like to claim that morality is subjective. Who do you think those people usually are? The ones who regularly commit selfish acts or the ones who try to avoid committing selfish acts?

Either an act causes suffering or it doesn't. There is nothing subjective about that.

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2017 11:56 pmOn what grounds does an ethical vegan assert that a non-vegan is being logically inconsistent when they say that they support murder of animals, but not murder of their relatives?

That would depend on their reasoning. They wouldn't be logically inconsistent if they say that they don't care about the murder of animals. However, most people do care and this is when they start to become inconsistent.

Jebus wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 12:30 am The logical inconsistency is among those who are bothered by the suffering of one animal but not (or less) of the suffering of another equally sentient animal.

Hi Jebus. Can you demonstrate how this is a logical inconsistency?

Jebus wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 12:30 am Most people would agree that any act that benefits or pleasures the acting agent (and/or his closest friends and relatives) while causing suffering in others is selfish and immoral. Let me clarify that an act is not either moral or immoral, rather it falls along a spectrum. Buying a first class train ticket while I could be donating that extra money to The Humane Society would be a little selfish, while eating the parts of a dead cow who wanted to live just because I like the taste would be severely selfish.

The question of preference still remains though. By saying "most people" you're acknowledging the preference of that majority, are you not? The example of choosing the first class ticket over Humane Society is an act of preference - you may conclude this as an act of selfishness, but selfish is irrelevant with our question.

Jebus wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 12:30 amMany people like to claim that morality is subjective. Who do you think those people usually are?

I don't think it matters either way. If I were to transit over to veganism next month my moral arguments still wouldn't change.

Jebus wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 12:30 amThey wouldn't be logically inconsistent if they say that they don't care about the murder of animals. However, most people do care and this is when they start to become inconsistent.

Again, can you demonstrate how this is a logical inconsistency?

Thanks for your time.

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 2:46 am

Jebus wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 12:30 am The logical inconsistency is among those who are bothered by the suffering of one animal but not (or less) of the suffering of another equally sentient animal.

Hi Jebus. Can you demonstrate how this is a logical inconsistency?

He said it's not logically inconsistent to carry on eating meat among those who truly don't care, if you're a nihilist or moral relativist who only cares about what value the culture they live in ascribes to animals then your golden.

AskYourself deals with a lot of people wedded to badly formulated pseudo-universalist rationalizations in order to justify their eating meat. It's logically inconsistent when someone appeals to a universal standard like I don't want to see you kill dogs because they are intelligent and sociable animals we can form a connection with because the same is true of pigs.

The only complaint vegans have is that people don't educate themselves about animal abuse because it's intellectually lazy and choosing to live in denial because many more people would start to empathize with a pig the same way they do dogs.

Vegan activism proves we can turn the tide and start to experience a more desirable world, who wouldn't want that for themselves or their progeny?

You could make the case that all non-vegans fall into 1 of 3 categories, on the brink of starvation and having no choice about what food you put in your body to carry on living, ignorant of the untold suffering or logically inconsistent to the extent that you know it's hurting the planet and your body but doing it anyway because it's a comforting security blanket of death like smoking.

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 2:46 am

Jebus wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 12:30 am The logical inconsistency is among those who are bothered by the suffering of one animal but not (or less) of the suffering of another equally sentient animal.

Hi Jebus. Can you demonstrate how this is a logical inconsistency?

It would simplify the discussion if you could demonstrate how it is not an inconsistency. The default position should be to not give preference to one equally sentient being over another. Anyone person who cares about morality would have to explain why a dog deserves better treatment than a pig.

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 2:46 amThe example of choosing the first class ticket over Humane Society is an act of preference - you may conclude this as an act of selfishness, but selfish is irrelevant with our question.

Yes, it would be a mild case of selfishness and of course it's an act of preference. Every intentional act is an act of preference. Do you disagree that an act of preference which benefits the acting agent while harming others is selfish? Do you disagree that such an act of preference is immoral?

Jebus wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 12:30 amMany people like to claim that morality is subjective. Who do you think those people usually are?

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 2:46 amI don't think it matters either way.

It matters in the sense that people who regularly commit selfish acts, in order to reduce their cognitive dissonance, will be drawn to objectivism or the idea that one can simply make up one's own rules about morality.

Jebus wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 12:30 amThey wouldn't be logically inconsistent if they say that they don't care about the murder of animals. However, most people do care and this is when they start to become inconsistent.

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 2:46 amAgain, can you demonstrate how this is a logical inconsistency?

Again can you demonstrate how it is not? I fear that this will turn into a circular debate. Please demonstrate your position and then we can go from there.

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2017 11:56 pm 1) Does a logical inconsistency exist in the non-vegan system of morality, as Ask Yourself proposes, or has JJ sufficiently demonstrated that no such inconsistency exists?

Yes, but you first have to understand what makes a moral system.
The moment somebody asserts a moral claim by which others are to be judged, that person has made a couple of implicit assertions about the system being referenced.
1. That the system being appealed to is non arbitrary (otherwise all that person is saying is "I don't like what you're doing", not "what you're doing is [morally] wrong", since the opposing party negating it by nothing but counter-assertion would make the latter claim meaningless).
2. That the system is consistent, otherwise it suffers death by logical explosion and is incapable of making claims.

Both of these assumptions rely quite simply on the utility of the act of judgement. It's meaningless to say "what you're doing is wrong" if you do not already believe those two things about the system you're referencing.

These are both implicit, but they are very strong.
Denying them would be like saying, "hey you in the red hat!", and then when the only person around in a red hat asks what you want, you reply "Nothing, I was just saying words without intended meaning, it has nothing to do with you."

You could make the claim that when you use language of moral judgement you don't mean anything by it, but that's bullshit. Whether you think anything else in the universe does or not, language has a purpose, and people who make socially meaningful claims and then weasel out of them by saying they're meaningless are just dishonest.

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2017 11:56 pm 2) Is morality utterly bereft of an objective standard, thus making it mere preference, and if it is preference, is it obligated to demonstrate logical consistency at all?

See above. If you believe that, then you should avoid making moral claims. As long as you make no claims of any kind, you can't be accused of inconsistency.

That said, there is an objective standard. I want to make sure there's agreement on what I explained so far before moving on.

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2017 11:56 pm BONUS QUESTION (related to #1): On what grounds does an ethical vegan assert that a non-vegan is being logically inconsistent when they say that they support murder of animals, but not murder of their relatives?

It would only risk inconsistency if they claim it is wrong or immoral. If people simply do not like having their relatives murdered and make no claims about the morality of it or anything else, then there would not be such an immediate appearance of inconsistency.

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Thu May 11, 2017 11:56 pm Before responding, it would probably help to review the aforementioned YouTube link first to make sure your response hasn't already been made by someone else. You may respond here or at the YT link provided.

I like Ask Yourself, but his argument has holes in it; namely, people who don't make any moral claims, or who make aberrant ones.
He admits to the former in his more detailed description (The belief that actions should be morally justified). Nihilists and relativists fall through those cracks.
While nihilists etc. are rare in everyday life, he exercises a selection bias for only people who won't respond emotionally, and thus the problem is they make up much of his potential audience. He needs to spend more time addressing the nature of morality itself, but I'm not sure he's equipped to do that.
So, it's good you came here, but I won't defend his formulation unless you're already in the habit of making moral claims (and those that remotely resemble what most people would think of as morality).

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 4:46 am So, it's good you came here, but I won't defend his formulation unless you're already in the habit of making moral claims (and those that remotely resemble what most people would think of as morality).

Hey brim. I don't know about making moral claims. We only have the questions I proposed in the beginning.

Jebus wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 4:35 am It would simplify the discussion if you could demonstrate how it is not an inconsistency.

I don't remember saying that there is no inconsistency in the moral paradigm among non-vegans, but anyway here's a quick example of what I mean:

Vegan eating meat = INCONSISTENT with his morals
Non-vegan eating meat = CONSISTENT with his morals

Jebus wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 4:35 amYes, it would be a mild case of selfishness and of course it's an act of preference. Every intentional act is an act of preference. Do you disagree that an act of preference which benefits the acting agent while harming others is selfish? Do you disagree that such an act of preference is immoral?

Hold on, Jebus. We still haven't directly addressed all of question #2. Thank you for acknowledging the preference part. So, do you agree that morality is merely preference? I'll ask again:

Is morality utterly bereft of an objective standard, thus making it mere preference, and if it is preference, is it obligated to demonstrate logical consistency at all?

Jebus wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 12:30 amIt matters in the sense that people who regularly commit selfish acts, in order to reduce their cognitive dissonance, will be drawn to objectivism or the idea that one can simply make up one's own rules about morality.

Before we shift over to selfish acts, cognitive dissonance, objectives and assuming that people are making up rules about morality, we first need to clear up the 3 proposed questions.

Jebus wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 12:30 amAgain can you demonstrate how it is not? I fear that this will turn into a circular debate. Please demonstrate your position and then we can go from there.

Vegan eating meat = INCONSISTENT with his morals
Non-vegan eating meat = CONSISTENT with his morals

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 1:41 pm Vegan eating meat = INCONSISTENT with his morals
Non-vegan eating meat = CONSISTENT with his morals

It would help if you wrote how you made these conclusions because as they stand now the statements make little sense. Please let me clarify my position:

Person who doesn't give a shit about animals eating meat - Morally consistent - no further explanation needed
Person who cares about animals who chooses not to eat meat - Morally consistent - no further explanation needed
Person who cares about animals who eats meat - Morally inconsistent - explanation needed

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 1:41 pmdo you agree that morality is merely preference?

Absolutely not! An act that causes suffering to others because of self benefit is immoral.This has nothing to do with preference.

Jebus wrote:

AMP3083 wrote: ↑Fri May 12, 2017 1:41 pmdo you agree that morality is merely preference?

Absolutely not! An act that causes suffering to others because of self benefit is immoral. This has nothing to do with preference.

@ AMP3083: Welcome to the forum! Glad to see that you're starting fascinating philosophical discussion here. I hope that you like this forum and will start & participate in more discussions.

@ Jebus: I agree with this. I think it might be useful here to point out that morality does depend upon preferences (interests; preferences are a form of interests). However, the morality of a person's actions does not depend upon their own interests, but upon the interests of all others* affected by their actions.

@ AMP3083: Regarding the matter of whether or not a moral system can be objective, I'd say it depends upon what is meant by "objective". If, when you say "objective", you're referring to a person's moral system which does not depend upon his/her own desires, emotions, or opinions; then yes. In order for someone's moral system to be objective, he/she would have to treat others based upon what they themselves value, and not upon what he/she values.


*Referring to anyone and everyone who has interests that can be respected or denied. Including humans, animals of most (but not all) species, AI, any intelligent aliens out there, etc...