Posted by amp3083 on August 11, 2017
I’m aware of the different flavors of veganism, so if you advocate specifically for the reduction of animal deaths then this is not for you, rather it’s an appeal to the more hardcore vegans advocating for a vegan world. However, I do encourage any kind of vegans, whether extreme or moderate, to try and have a say in the matter.
Sticking with the foundation of logical consistency — IF (a big IF) it exists between humans and animals when murder is the concern — a vegan world obviously means people are no longer killing animals. Would this also imply that people should stop killing each other too?
If we’re using the foundation of logical consistency, then the former (killing animals) and the latter (killing people) must co-exist. If not, then a vegan world where people are still killing other people is actually NOT a vegan world. To have a vegan world, it seems people must also stop killing each other, and… is this even possible?
1) Is it possible for humans to stop harming/killing ANIMALS for whatever reason? (minus accidents)
2) Is it possible for humans to stop harming/killing HUMANS for whatever reason? (minus accidents)
Perhaps this might be more practical asking on a case-by-case basis, but if you advocate for a vegan world then I submit these questions for your consideration.
I was compelled to express this thought after watching a video that showed up in my YouTube related list entitled ‘The World Will Be Vegan (Mathematical Proof)’ uploaded by Vegan Speak.
Now for my second and final thought.
If we are to use logical consistency–IF it exists–as the basis of harmful actions between animals and humans, then ALL ETHICAL VEGANS are REQUIRED to be anarchists. Being logically consistent to animals is one thing, but if a vegan also wears the badge of statism, knowingly or unknowingly, then his logical consistency must be called into question.
If you believe that we shouldn’t dominate (forcing one’s will over another) animals by way of harm or murder, then to be logically consistent with this, it MUST also follow through to humans.
Also, consider the non-aggression principle:
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principleThe non-aggression principle (or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance which asserts that “aggression” is inherently illegitimate. “Aggression”, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening the use of any and all forcible interference with an individual or individual’s property.[1] In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violent self-defence. The NAP is considered to be a defining principle of natural-rights libertarianism.
Not sure what anarchy and statism are? Then check out these videos from my channel:
Larken Rose: What Is Anarchy?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiNYKxRlJoM&t=17s
Larken Rose: Are You A Default Anarchist?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSEwGGC2z_0
Larken Rose: The Psychology of Statists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrmpRJ2J-do
Larken Rose: Statism As A Religion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUkU_dGJZxA
Larken Rose: Exploring The Statist Mentality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJgri5DPXaQ
My YouTube channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/AMP3083[/quote]
____ Some replies AMP gave in the Comment Section ___
If the definition of a vegan world means that the majority of the population are vegan, then I'm fine with that.Your Average Youtube Intellectual wrote:The vegan world does not mean that no animal murder is happening, it simply means that killing animals for unecessary means such as meat and clothing is regarded as inhumane and condemned by most (ideally all) cultures. Also, the fact that there are atrocities happening to humans has no bearing on people's opinion on the morality of murder.
Read the rest: Statism has nothing to do with veganism, which is an individual philosophical stance. I felt like you are going for "You can never be vegan because you taxes pay for meat and dairy subsidies", which is bullshit because you could use the same argument against a pro-lgbt Saudi citizen that he's paying for the murder of homosexuals. You don't have to be an anarchist to be a vegan, however we can still work to abolish animal agriculture as 'statists'.
A vegan world means most people are vegan. It means that not consuming animal products and not using animals are the norms instead of eating their flesh and wearing their skins being the norm.
To my knowledge, there isn't a clear definition of what a "vegan world" means. Whatever the case, the point I was making is referenced from the "logical consistency" argument produced by Ask Yourself or Vegan Gains.
The notion that statism is irrelevant with veganism is ignoring the logical consistency argument. Statism doesn't have to be about veganism, but you do have to be logically consistent with other humans, right? Veganism also extends its compassion over to people. Also, statism and anarchy go beyond the issue of taxation.
1) Is it possible for humans to stop harming/killing ANIMALS for whatever reason? (minus accidents)
YES - I am powerless to argue. There's no continuity for a real discussion of any substance from this point because time will tell if that's true or not.
NO - Then obviously you are admitting that people will continue to kill animals for any reason (food is not the only reason).
2) Is it possible for humans to stop harming/killing HUMANS for whatever reason? (minus accidents)
YES - I am powerless to argue. There's no continuity for a real discussion of any substance from this point because time will tell if that's true or not.
NO - If you answered Yes to Question 1, then saying No to this question is a violation of logical consistency.
If you have better ideas or find any error on my part, let me know, I'm open to hearing them.
Also consider the non-aggression principle which is advocated by most anarchist/voluntaryists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)
You're right, the first part of my blog is directed more to those who hold an extreme view (also mentioned in the blog).Your Average Youtube Intellectual wrote:AMP3083 , Thanks for the rezponse. I mean my definition of the vegan world is THE definition of the vegan world. I wonder if anyone thinks that advocating for vegansim is to create a utopia where no sentient beings die except of natural causes and accidents. So your whole blog is an argument against a hypothetical vegan.
The answer to your first question is a no, but not for whatever reason. Killing an animal in self defence would be acceptable, killing to survive could be acceptable. These could happen in a vegan world. I doubt anyone would say that a vegan world doesn't exist because someone starving on a stranded island killed a bird. The fact that you might need to kill animals in certain contexts doesn't justify killing them for food when there are alternatives readily available.
The answer to your second question is also a no. We should strive for a world with no wars, executions, brutal gang fights, etc., but there would always be the odd murder case. This doesn't justify killing people for petty reasons.
Finally, I don't know why I bothered to answer these questions because it would not expose a logical inconsistency whatever the answers are. You are asking a possibility. I can believe in the possibility of anything for whatever reason. Your questions should have been:
1) Do you believe that we have a moral obligation to strive for a world where animals are not killed and made suffer needlessly?
2) Do you believe that we have a moral obligation to strive for a world where humans are not killed and made suffer needlessly?
Different answers to these questions would expose a logical inconsistency.
BTW I could have given yes to both of your questions in a theoretical standpoint. It doesn't matter though, as I explained. Logical consistency doesn't have to do with what you believe possible is. Inconsistently believing in different posibilities is not a logical matter.
I'm not interested in the justifications for these killings, there will always be arguments, disagreement and grey areas surrounding justifications.
I'm also not interested in moral obligations. Ask Yourself said it himself that morality is a "human construct", so if that is true, then couldn't we construct morals any way we want? Ethical vegans construct morals in a way so that they PREFER animals should not be killed for food, sport, clothing, etc. Other people disagree with this construct and they go about their life eating animals, wearing fur and hunting, because that's the way they PREFER their moral construct. Which brings me to my next point.
In my blog, I also question if the logical inconsistency argument (the 'IF' part) does exist between humans and animals. If moral obligations are a human construct and that we can construct them any way we want, then we can say that our moral actions are merely preferences. So, being preferences, I don't see how there is a logical correlation between human murder and animal murder.
Now, if the first part of the blog doesn't reveal any logical inconsistency on the part of vegans, then we can go over the second part about anarchy and statism.
I'm still playing around with these ideas myself, so bear with me. Btw, I'm not going to revise my questions, we'll leave it as it is. I respect your response. Thanks for participating.
The bone I'm picking on is about "logical consistency", as argued mostly by YouTube vegans like Ask Yourself and Vegan Gains.Anthony V wrote:This is pretty stupid. Veganism is about taking personal responsibility for your own actions. If you are vegan you don't kill animals or humans as humans are animals and sentient like cows are before their bodies become burgers. It doesn't matter if everyone around you is killing people or animals it's about you recognizing it's wrong and not partaking in that unnecessary violence.
It's about promoting a Vegan world, as that's obviously an ideal, but is a completely vegan world possible? Well yin yang symbol is a good example with how there's always a little bad within good and always a little good within bad. So is it possible to have a 100% perfect world? No. But as an individual you are responsible for your own actions and the argument that because a 100% vegan world won't happen I won't go vegan is a dumb one. Does that also apply to killing humans? We have a large majority of society that doesn't kill humans, but some do, so does that justify you killing a human? See it's dumb logic
I have no bones to pick on an individual basis. I would even extend these questions to anarchists. Is it possible to have an anarchist world? In my opinion, probably not. I can only imagine a world where pockets of anarchist societies existing. Same thing might happen with veganism.
I want to respond to the part about killing people. In a nutshell, you're essentially saying that people kill other people for different reasons. Well, people kill animals for different reasons.Matt Westmacott wrote:Answer to question; yes being vegan is a ideal, a lifestyle that you have control over (some control), killing people is done by corporations and governments to control a people through fear, manipulation and brain washing.
Thank you for the thoughts, Gage. I honestly would love to live in paradise but it's hard to tell at this point. Maybe not in this lifetime the world population will decrease immensely and violence will be obsolete but that sounds like a boring planet. Maybe paradise is death? Ahh my brain hurts.Gage The Navigator wrote:1) Is it possible for humans to stop harming/killing ANIMALS for whatever reason? (minus accidents)
I mean, i'd really like to think so, but I feel like it'll be consistent with the wheel of karma, as long as we persist in the third-density/dimension, samsara exists here for a reason. Is it possible there are periods of time where there is no harm done to humans nor any other creature? I think it's up for speculation that (on some energetic levels) there could be flux of complete peace, or like, lack of murder? But eventually that cycle would(?) come to an end. Overall I feel as though there could be bouts of time where very little killing is going on, intentionally or "unintentionally" regardless of anything...but entirely? Never in the wheel of life and death.
2) Is it possible for humans to stop harming/killing HUMANS for whatever reason? (minus accidents)
This falls along similar lines in my reasoning, I mean I feel like we'll have to fundamentally change what we define ourselves as, or how we treat our relationship to the external world, and the internal world as a collective, in order for something like that to be achievable, and still it feels like a toss-up on whether or not there'd be one hundred percent success in people choosing to not harm or kill.
P.S. I'm also totally of anarchist mindset, I feel like I was a budding anarchist before I even went vegetarian, but am now definitely vegan, and definitely ready for some anarchist ideals to take hold
Gage The Navigator wrote:Thank you for stimulating a discussion, AMP keep doing you're stuff, it's good work, good service to others here
hahaha it's hard to say really, paradise exists on earth, but because it does, so must it sometimes be a place of torment
and if there's paradise in life, there must surely be paradise in death, but also, maybe, torment?
but is that only if reincarnation exists?? My brain begins to hurt too hahah, it's paradoxical in nature, yet indeterminate by reason alone
Absolutely. I extend these questions over to anarchism too. Like I said to my response to another comment, I can only imagine pockets of anarchist or vegan societies existing scattered around the world.foobargorch wrote:Surely the same goes for voluntaryism or peace on earth or peer to peer economy any other ideal that hasn't yet taken over on a global scale? Not murdering is just a slightly older meme, thankfully it has been trendy for quite a while.
Is that Yes to both questions?Maximilian Plantbased wrote:Humans fall under the vegan definition.
A serial killer causes harm to an animal (other sentient beeing/beeing which shows interests) and therefor acts contrary to the vegan idea.
In a vegan world there would be no killing of a human or animal who wants to live. (minus accidents)
Maximilian Plantbased wrote:Your questions asks for a utopian world. I personally think neither questions are possible to answer with yes, because there will allways be someone neglecting any social contact and/or law.
But if every moral agent would live up to the vegan standard they would neither kill an animal for no good reason nor would they kill a human for no good reason.
EDIT: I think I've missunderstood your questions due to my bad english.
It is rather impossible to not harm any animal or human beeing as it is impossible to know all the consequences of ones action and also some actions are just not avoidable.
There would be no intentional killing of an animal/human that wants to live as long as there are options. (In a utopian vegan world)