3 ms·

> I really don't think there's a generally applicable moral framework that doesn't require veganism. You know, it is one thing to say that you believe it is be

> I really don't think there's a generally applicable moral framework that doesn't require veganism. You know, it is one thing to say that you believe it is best, and argue for it vigorously. But if you are unable to imagine someone else holding a differing view in an intellectually and morally self-consistent manner, that says a lot more about your thought patterns than it does about the intrinsic validity of a cause.

crucio 6y ago
He isn't saying he can't imagine it, I believe he's saying there is no way that one can say they are living a moral lifestyle while still consciously contributing to the destruction of the planet and abuse of animals when it can so easily be avoided by eating different foods. I understand some people can be naive of the issues or not be in a position to choose their diet.
hombre_fatal 6y ago
It's perfectly reasonable to me that some people consider the morality of veganism as settled as the morality of, say, rape. Especially in a world where the vast majority of us only eat meat because we were born into it and it pleasures us. Frankly, I think the moral superiority of veganism is obvious to most people and very difficult to argue against. I think a lot of the drama is only the fallout of our difficulty squaring those morals with our culturally-backed, deeply-seated, identity-level behavior and our already existing struggle to control what we eat.
ianleeclark 6y ago
> You know, it is one thing to say that you believe it is best, and argue for it vigorously. I'm not a vegan. I just think that, if you are trying to live an ethical life, it is the most ethical position. > But if you are unable to imagine someone else holding a differing view in an intellectually and morally self-consistent manner I don't know what you mean by "morally self-consistent manner." If you mean moral anti-realism, then, no, I agree with moral realism and choose to side with expert opinion. I don't think morals are subject-dependent.

crucio 6y ago

He isn't saying he can't imagine it, I believe he's saying there is no way that one can say they are living a moral lifestyle while still consciously contributing to the destruction of the planet and abuse of animals when it can so easily be avoided by eating different foods. I understand some people can be naive of the issues or not be in a position to choose their diet.

hombre_fatal 6y ago

It's perfectly reasonable to me that some people consider the morality of veganism as settled as the morality of, say, rape. Especially in a world where the vast majority of us only eat meat because we were born into it and it pleasures us. Frankly, I think the moral superiority of veganism is obvious to most people and very difficult to argue against. I think a lot of the drama is only the fallout of our difficulty squaring those morals with our culturally-backed, deeply-seated, identity-level behavior and our already existing struggle to control what we eat.

ianleeclark 6y ago

> You know, it is one thing to say that you believe it is best, and argue for it vigorously. I'm not a vegan. I just think that, if you are trying to live an ethical life, it is the most ethical position. > But if you are unable to imagine someone else holding a differing view in an intellectually and morally self-consistent manner I don't know what you mean by "morally self-consistent manner." If you mean moral anti-realism, then, no, I agree with moral realism and choose to side with expert opinion. I don't think morals are subject-dependent.