4 ms·

You'll quickly end up with some very unsettling conclusions if you follow this line of reasoning. I am not saying it's wrong, just that society isn't quite prep

by marvin 7y ago

You'll quickly end up with some very unsettling conclusions if you follow this line of reasoning. I am not saying it's wrong, just that society isn't quite prepared for the implications. But, you know, if you assign human ethics to animals, there's relatively little we do to animals that's less than abhorrent. Pets are okay to a significant degree. But just about everything else falls out the window if you start to consider the idea that animals may be sentient and have thoughts, feelings and emotions the way that humans do. I guess what I'm saying that in an ideal world I'd be a vegan, but for now it's challenging enough to go through life eating everything nature has turned out to make possible. Nature is absolutely cruel (well, doesn't care at least), and humanity is just another part of it.

AQuantized 7y ago
If someone is at the point where they consider exploiting animals for their milk basically torture, I think they've probably already taken the logic to its natural conclusion.
lonelappde 7y ago
To be clear, you are saying that veganism is irrational because under vegan ethics, ...nonveganism is immoral? Furthermore, it's unclear how your argument is fixed at the human/non-human boundary. Nature is cruel intraspecies as well, so your line of thinking also challenges the notion that slavery and race- or clan-based oppression is wrong.
- marvin 7y ago
  I'm saying that there'a a good argument to be made that we'll consider today's domestication, breeding and exploitation of animals immoral. But that the world isn't ready to make that moral judgement yet, because the alternatives to meat and animal products aren't convenient enough. We like to consider morality absolute, but it's strongly affected by a society's requirements. As a side note, vegans probably have a more sound moral judgement than the rest of us. There have obviously been cultures that considered slavery and various forms of oppression morally right, but I don't think my argument states that this is okay; quite the opposite.
  - TheAquir 7y ago
    "vegans probably have a more sound moral judgement than the rest of us" Whoa! That's what is call generalisation... On the other hand diet had nothing to do with moral, it's all about health! None of the extremes are good, our body still have the hunter-gatherer digestion system
esotericn 7y ago
Otherwise known as 'veganism'. It's not at all a challenge for an individual any more except in certain areas (e.g. northern Norway). In most major cities vegan food is everywhere. In some countries McDonalds has vegan stuff for christ's sake. We arrived. It's about as much of a challenge as putting a differently coloured shirt on in the morning. Of course, you have to want that colour first. If you don't care, that's fine, but this shifty "oh but we're not ready", "falls out of the window" nonsense doesn't really come across well at all. Who are you trying to convince?
- marvin 7y ago
  Yes, I am talking about veganism. (I'm probably just incidentally arguing in favor of veganism by arriving at the same ethical reasoning; I don't follow the principles and views of this movement to any significant degree). It is obviously less convenient to be a vegan than to be omnivorous because, at the very least, you actually have to think about what you eat. Both from a purely pragmatic perspective ("does this product contain any animal products?") and wrt. healthy nutrition. It is practical to do this, but it's not convenient. And that makes a big difference in a society where time and attention is at a premium. Pragmatically, there needs to be a big shift in attitudes, probably prompted by the trivial availability of ingredients equivalent to the main classes of animal products, before the moral view that exploitation of animals is immoral will become mainstream.
  - esotericn 7y ago
    Right; but you're conflating individual action with societal attitude. If you want to be vegan, no-one is stopping you. If you don't, don't. There is no need to sit on the fence all wishy-washy. I strongly disagree that it's not convenient. By that line of argument making any active choice at all is "not convenient". You specifically call out nutrition as an example. You can pretty much literally directly switch out meat for substitute meat. It's not convenient to say, cycle 30km to work instead of driving, without making major life changes. It takes substantially more time, changes the way in which errands are done, etc. Buying a different thing from the supermarket and cooking it is trivial. If anything eating meat is more faff because the risk of food poisoning is way higher if you e.g. cook chicken badly. I don't like coffee so I tend to drink tea. Is that inconvenient? It makes no sense to me as a concept; even if it is (it's really not), who cares? I don't want the coffee?
brigandish 7y ago
The perfect is the enemy of the good. Just because lots of things are cruel or everything is cruel or there is a spectrum of cruelty in this process but we're not at the worst of it… none of that is an argument against being less cruel nor against applying ethics fairly. The unsettling conclusion would be to ignore ethics for convenience.
jelliclesfarm 7y ago
I grew up on cow and buffalo milk because we had cows and then we collectively owned a cow with a few families and hired a milkman. The problem is over population. We have far surpassed carrying capacity and you can’t feed the billions with humane animal food. Especially when everyone thinks dairy and almonds should be cheap and available to all. Add capitalism on top of it as gluttonous consumerism thrives in a world burdened by overpopulation..when people don’t consider that resources are limited and having excessive progeny is akin to stealing shared resources from the commons, there is no polite way to point it out to them except to ask them to procreate responsibly. Each according to their means. But even better 1/2 surviving child/ person for long term comfortable survival of our species. Less than optimal: 1 surviving child per person for long term bare maintainence of our species.

by marvin 7y ago

AQuantized 7y ago

If someone is at the point where they consider exploiting animals for their milk basically torture, I think they've probably already taken the logic to its natural conclusion.

lonelappde 7y ago

To be clear, you are saying that veganism is irrational because under vegan ethics, ...nonveganism is immoral? Furthermore, it's unclear how your argument is fixed at the human/non-human boundary. Nature is cruel intraspecies as well, so your line of thinking also challenges the notion that slavery and race- or clan-based oppression is wrong.

marvin 7y ago
I'm saying that there'a a good argument to be made that we'll consider today's domestication, breeding and exploitation of animals immoral. But that the world isn't ready to make that moral judgement yet, because the alternatives to meat and animal products aren't convenient enough. We like to consider morality absolute, but it's strongly affected by a society's requirements. As a side note, vegans probably have a more sound moral judgement than the rest of us. There have obviously been cultures that considered slavery and various forms of oppression morally right, but I don't think my argument states that this is okay; quite the opposite.
- TheAquir 7y ago
  "vegans probably have a more sound moral judgement than the rest of us" Whoa! That's what is call generalisation... On the other hand diet had nothing to do with moral, it's all about health! None of the extremes are good, our body still have the hunter-gatherer digestion system

esotericn 7y ago

Otherwise known as 'veganism'. It's not at all a challenge for an individual any more except in certain areas (e.g. northern Norway). In most major cities vegan food is everywhere. In some countries McDonalds has vegan stuff for christ's sake. We arrived. It's about as much of a challenge as putting a differently coloured shirt on in the morning. Of course, you have to want that colour first. If you don't care, that's fine, but this shifty "oh but we're not ready", "falls out of the window" nonsense doesn't really come across well at all. Who are you trying to convince?

marvin 7y ago
Yes, I am talking about veganism. (I'm probably just incidentally arguing in favor of veganism by arriving at the same ethical reasoning; I don't follow the principles and views of this movement to any significant degree). It is obviously less convenient to be a vegan than to be omnivorous because, at the very least, you actually have to think about what you eat. Both from a purely pragmatic perspective ("does this product contain any animal products?") and wrt. healthy nutrition. It is practical to do this, but it's not convenient. And that makes a big difference in a society where time and attention is at a premium. Pragmatically, there needs to be a big shift in attitudes, probably prompted by the trivial availability of ingredients equivalent to the main classes of animal products, before the moral view that exploitation of animals is immoral will become mainstream.
- esotericn 7y ago
  Right; but you're conflating individual action with societal attitude. If you want to be vegan, no-one is stopping you. If you don't, don't. There is no need to sit on the fence all wishy-washy. I strongly disagree that it's not convenient. By that line of argument making any active choice at all is "not convenient". You specifically call out nutrition as an example. You can pretty much literally directly switch out meat for substitute meat. It's not convenient to say, cycle 30km to work instead of driving, without making major life changes. It takes substantially more time, changes the way in which errands are done, etc. Buying a different thing from the supermarket and cooking it is trivial. If anything eating meat is more faff because the risk of food poisoning is way higher if you e.g. cook chicken badly. I don't like coffee so I tend to drink tea. Is that inconvenient? It makes no sense to me as a concept; even if it is (it's really not), who cares? I don't want the coffee?

brigandish 7y ago

The perfect is the enemy of the good. Just because lots of things are cruel or everything is cruel or there is a spectrum of cruelty in this process but we're not at the worst of it… none of that is an argument against being less cruel nor against applying ethics fairly. The unsettling conclusion would be to ignore ethics for convenience.

jelliclesfarm 7y ago

I grew up on cow and buffalo milk because we had cows and then we collectively owned a cow with a few families and hired a milkman. The problem is over population. We have far surpassed carrying capacity and you can’t feed the billions with humane animal food. Especially when everyone thinks dairy and almonds should be cheap and available to all. Add capitalism on top of it as gluttonous consumerism thrives in a world burdened by overpopulation..when people don’t consider that resources are limited and having excessive progeny is akin to stealing shared resources from the commons, there is no polite way to point it out to them except to ask them to procreate responsibly. Each according to their means. But even better 1/2 surviving child/ person for long term comfortable survival of our species. Less than optimal: 1 surviving child per person for long term bare maintainence of our species.