A Synopsis of the Ethics of Eating Cows by Matt Dillahunty

Vegan message board for support on vegan related issues and questions.
Topics include philosophy, activism, effective altruism, plant-based nutrition, and diet advice/discussion whether high carb, low carb (eco atkins/vegan keto) or anything in between.
Meat eater vs. Vegan debate welcome, but please keep it within debate topics.
Post Reply
User avatar
IsacharJones
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 6:50 pm
Diet: Vegan

A Synopsis of the Ethics of Eating Cows by Matt Dillahunty

Post by IsacharJones »

I'm referring to the content of this video from 28 May 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGItzKbXZDg

Matt's position is that because we can't make an agreement with a cow, it's not immoral for us to eat cows just as it wouldn't be immoral for cows to eat us.

He goes on to describe a tool in his ethical reasoning which is thinking about the consequences of everyone in his circumstance doing what he is claiming is okay. If that would lead to bad outcomes then it is not moral for him to take such an action. But doesn't the data show that everyone in Matt Dillahunty's circumstance eating cows leads to environmental, health and animal well-being issues?
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: A Synopsis of the Ethics of Eating Cows by Matt Dillahunty

Post by brimstoneSalad »

IsacharJones wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:15 pm I'm referring to the content of this video from 28 May 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGItzKbXZDg

Matt's position is that because we can't make an agreement with a cow, it's not immoral for us to eat cows just as it wouldn't be immoral for cows to eat us.
That's basically the position of Randian Objectivists.

Interestingly, if used consistently it also applies to people with mental disabilities and children. Is Matt OK with eating children (your own children, or those you have purchased, not the children of others)? If so, then he may be consistent, but evil.
IsacharJones wrote: Mon Jun 05, 2017 6:15 pm He goes on to describe a tool in his ethical reasoning which is thinking about the consequences of everyone in his circumstance doing what he is claiming is okay. If that would lead to bad outcomes then it is not moral for him to take such an action. But doesn't the data show that everyone in Matt Dillahunty's circumstance eating cows leads to environmental, health and animal well-being issues?
The data certainly does show that. We know Matt is in denial of the health effects, he may be one of the cholesterol "skeptics". He may reject climate change too, or wave that off since it's not 100% caused by beef, or that "one person can't do anything" kind of fallacy (although he contradicts himself if that's the case, because he talks about what it would look like if everybody behaved in a certain way, not one person), or he expects technology to solve the problem for him.

He doesn't care about non-human animal well-being, because he can't make an agreement with them for them to support and protect him. He doesn't not think he has any moral responsibility to not torture and kill non-humans.

It would be interesting to see if he thinks raising and eating children and the mentally retarded is OK. Is he literally one of the baby eating atheists?
He certainly doesn't show atheists in a good light with this selfish egoist approach to life.
Morality is only what benefits his own well being? Way to make Christians' arguments for them.
Post Reply