This is an argument I thought of when I just had decided to go vegan some months ago. I've since seen others use a similar argument (it's a pretty obviuos argument so no surprise there) with some minor differences.
Basiscally the one I thought of has the following structure:
1. Assume we can quantify taste-pleasure. A typical steak would then have the taste-pleasure value of a 100. A vegan mockmeat alternative would be <100.
2. Now assume you have the option of creating one of two steaks A and B. Both steaks will be identical except for one aspect: their history. Steak A will be made from a cow that suffered and died within factory farming. Steak B will be made in a lab. Which steak do you create?
The carnist has three availible answer (as far as I can tell). Steak A, Steak B, or "it doesn't matter". If they choose steak A that means they actually prefer the suffering and death of the cow over no suffering and death (since all else is held constant). If they say it doesn't matter, what they've said is equivalent to "suffering and death of the cow has absolutely no moral signifance to me" (again, since all else is held constant). The follow-up question would then be: "And if there's a steak C which has the taste-pleasure of 200, but it will be made by literally torturing the cow. Would you choose steak C over the other steaks?". I think they would have to say yes.
If they choose steak B, then the follow-up would be to reduce the taste of steak B ever so slightly. Steak A still has a taste-value of 100, but now steak B has the taste-value of 99. Which steak is now the prefered choice?
The point with the argument is to force people to quantify exactly how little loss in taste-pleasure they're willing to sacrifice to avoid the suffering and death of the cow. Obviously they can't accept a steak with the taste-pleasure of vegan mockmeat because then why not go vegan? So at some point between the taste of 100 and the taste of vegan mockmeat (say 90) they must choose option A. But it seems intuitively contradictory that someone would reject the loss of say 2 units of taste-pleasure to avoid some suffering in one case but simultaneously reject a gain of 100 units or more in taste-pleasure by accepting more suffering.
I've had some success with it in real life. What do you all think? Have you tried something similar yourselves? Are there ways of improving it?
labmeat hypotheticals
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:16 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Jebus
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: labmeat hypotheticals
This is certainly better than "Name the Trait."
The meat eaters I know wouldn't allow me the minute or so I need to explain the mind game unless I could figure it out the phrasing so that the "vegan hook" came at the end. However, let's assume that a particular meat eater would agree to participate in the game. Wouldn't those few minutes be better spent explaining the health, ethical, and environmental benefits of veganism? This might be an either/or fallacy but I don't have good experiences with meat eaters' attention spans.
The meat eaters I know wouldn't allow me the minute or so I need to explain the mind game unless I could figure it out the phrasing so that the "vegan hook" came at the end. However, let's assume that a particular meat eater would agree to participate in the game. Wouldn't those few minutes be better spent explaining the health, ethical, and environmental benefits of veganism? This might be an either/or fallacy but I don't have good experiences with meat eaters' attention spans.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:16 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: labmeat hypotheticals
If there's a question of time limitation then yeah, it's probaby best to begin by the things you mentioned, and in particular by talking about all the harmful things that factory farming does to humans.Jebus wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:48 pm This is certainly better than "Name the Trait."
The meat eaters I know wouldn't allow me the minute or so I need to explain the mind game unless I could figure it out the phrasing so that the "vegan hook" came at the end. However, let's assume that a particular meat eater would agree to participate in the game. Wouldn't those few minutes be better spent explaining the health, ethical, and environmental benefits of veganism? This might be an either/or fallacy but I don't have good experiences with meat eaters' attention spans.
- Commissaris
- Newbie
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 5:50 pm
- Diet: Vegetarian
Re: labmeat hypotheticals
Hmmm, how do I visualize this:
DeadMeat (DM)
MockMeat (MM)
Taste (T) 0-100 with 50 amounting to 'average' taste pleasure I suppose
Target chooses product based on relative Taste value alone, we're assuming cost is not a factor
So you'd use this:
T:MM > T:DM = Target chooses MM
T:MM = T:DM = Target chooses MM (talking them into the more ethical choice should be manageable)
T:MM < T:DM = Target chooses DM
Then you start asking if they'd be willing to give up some taste for the ethically superior choice. A hypothetical Target might conclude:
T:MM 80 vs T:DM 100 = Target chooses MM, so they're willing to accept a 1/5th reduction in taste to make the ethical choice.
Going over this I suspect you'd run into problems with actually quantifying anything because taste pleasure is so difficult to define, making the discussion pretty abstract. I suppose that's part of the point: showing how absurd it is to weigh that pleasure against doing the right thing. I'd maybe add that this calculus is only likely to matter at the 70-100 T-range because I don't expect a lot of people care if their burger patty has milk powder in it or not because they're not eating that for the taste in itself but rather as the companion to something else. I'm having a hard time imagining the effort being worth it because things get pretty hairy the more specific you get.
In a 'how much taste would you be willing to sacrifice' question format I suspect this'll do pretty well because isolating just the taste aspect might highlight how petty the concern really is. If someone isn't willing to sacrifice 90 Taste the resistance is pretty understandable (from just a human psychology perspective) but if you're talking 0-30 it's kind of silly nowadays because mock meats have become so amazingly taste in the pas few years. For myself I think I might try out asking people if they'd give up DM if I can find them MM (edited thanks to BrimstoneSalad) that's as tasty or tastier than what they typically eat. If they say yes that at least opens up an avenue and might even help them move away from carnist ideology. Interesting approach overall!
That devolved into a big messy ramble really quickly, I'll press 'submit' now.
DeadMeat (DM)
MockMeat (MM)
Taste (T) 0-100 with 50 amounting to 'average' taste pleasure I suppose
Target chooses product based on relative Taste value alone, we're assuming cost is not a factor
So you'd use this:
T:MM > T:DM = Target chooses MM
T:MM = T:DM = Target chooses MM (talking them into the more ethical choice should be manageable)
T:MM < T:DM = Target chooses DM
Then you start asking if they'd be willing to give up some taste for the ethically superior choice. A hypothetical Target might conclude:
T:MM 80 vs T:DM 100 = Target chooses MM, so they're willing to accept a 1/5th reduction in taste to make the ethical choice.
Going over this I suspect you'd run into problems with actually quantifying anything because taste pleasure is so difficult to define, making the discussion pretty abstract. I suppose that's part of the point: showing how absurd it is to weigh that pleasure against doing the right thing. I'd maybe add that this calculus is only likely to matter at the 70-100 T-range because I don't expect a lot of people care if their burger patty has milk powder in it or not because they're not eating that for the taste in itself but rather as the companion to something else. I'm having a hard time imagining the effort being worth it because things get pretty hairy the more specific you get.
In a 'how much taste would you be willing to sacrifice' question format I suspect this'll do pretty well because isolating just the taste aspect might highlight how petty the concern really is. If someone isn't willing to sacrifice 90 Taste the resistance is pretty understandable (from just a human psychology perspective) but if you're talking 0-30 it's kind of silly nowadays because mock meats have become so amazingly taste in the pas few years. For myself I think I might try out asking people if they'd give up DM if I can find them MM (edited thanks to BrimstoneSalad) that's as tasty or tastier than what they typically eat. If they say yes that at least opens up an avenue and might even help them move away from carnist ideology. Interesting approach overall!
That devolved into a big messy ramble really quickly, I'll press 'submit' now.
Last edited by Commissaris on Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: labmeat hypotheticals
FriendEd answered this question that he would prefer the "real" meat with suffering even if taste were identical.
I think it's a good approach, at least to establish that the person isn't a sadist and would in fact prefer less unnecessary suffering and that animals do have at least some moral value.
You mean the other way around?Commissaris wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 4:56 pm For myself I think I might try out asking people if they'd give up MM if I can find them DM that's as tasty or tastier than what they typically eat.
I think it's a good approach, at least to establish that the person isn't a sadist and would in fact prefer less unnecessary suffering and that animals do have at least some moral value.
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:16 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: labmeat hypotheticals
Then logically he'd have to choose the tortured cow alternative, no?brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:40 pm FriendEd answered this question that he would prefer the "real" meat with suffering even if taste were identical.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 356
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2014 7:52 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada
Re: labmeat hypotheticals
Did Friended explain why he chose that option? Maybe it was an emotional aversion to anything he percieves as fake or unnatural. I wonder how he would respond if asked about that, maybe he doesn't understand the all-things-otherwise-being-the-same-point, maybe he just emotionally cares about its natural origins, or maybe suffering is actually a factor in his judgement, but I'm skeptical of that. I'm guessing it was an irrational emotional aversion to its origins, maybe combined with not understanding that it was essentially the same minus the suffering. Then there's the possibility he was being dishonest with his answer to throw your pressing questions off of him. I don't like assuming dishonesty, though.
Also, was the "I'd pick either, it doesn't matter to me" option presented. I'm guessing it was, so unfortunately that makes me think he either wants them to suffer, or he was being dishonest in trying to seem consistent.
Also, was the "I'd pick either, it doesn't matter to me" option presented. I'm guessing it was, so unfortunately that makes me think he either wants them to suffer, or he was being dishonest in trying to seem consistent.
-
- Junior Member
- Posts: 62
- Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:16 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: labmeat hypotheticals
He probably realized the question was a trap of sorts. The only problem with that is that his answer is the worst answer, because it commits him to prefer literally torturing animals to death as long as the taste is increased.Dream Sphere wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:41 pm Did Friended explain why he chose that option? Maybe it was an emotional aversion to anything he percieves as fake or unnatural. I wonder how he would respond if asked about that, maybe he doesn't understand the all-things-otherwise-being-the-same-point, maybe he just emotionally cares about its natural origins, or maybe suffering is actually a factor in his judgement, but I'm skeptical of that. I'm guessing it was an irrational emotional aversion to its origins, maybe combined with not understanding that it was essentially the same minus the suffering. Then there's the possibility he was being dishonest with his answer to throw your pressing questions off of him. I don't like assuming dishonesty, though.
Also, was the "I'd pick either, it doesn't matter to me" option presented. I'm guessing it was, so unfortunately that makes me think he either wants them to suffer, or he was being dishonest in trying to seem consistent.
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10273
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: labmeat hypotheticals
He said he would save that meat for special occasions, and earlier he said that he wants better welfare.Gregor Samsa wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:27 pmThen logically he'd have to choose the tortured cow alternative, no?brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:40 pm FriendEd answered this question that he would prefer the "real" meat with suffering even if taste were identical.
That seems to be part of it. He's also a smoker and talks about smoker subculture, so his eating real meat would be part of his membership in a pro-meat counter-culture.Dream Sphere wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:41 pm Did Friended explain why he chose that option? Maybe it was an emotional aversion to anything he percieves as fake or unnatural.
Yes, that was presented.Dream Sphere wrote: ↑Fri Oct 06, 2017 7:41 pm Also, was the "I'd pick either, it doesn't matter to me" option presented. I'm guessing it was, so unfortunately that makes me think he either wants them to suffer, or he was being dishonest in trying to seem consistent.
It was in the stream. Tim introduced the idea of tortured meat (animal flayed alive, etc.).
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
- Diet: Vegetarian
Re: labmeat hypotheticals
I think
"If they choose steak A that means they actually prefer the suffering and death of the cow over no suffering and death (since all else is held constant)."
is not necessarily true
They may just steak A because they think that cows are better off in a world with more steaks, since otherwise they wouldn't exist.
They may choose steak A because they feel that a lab steak would be a bit wierd, unhealthy, risky or whatever (this sort of means arguably they haven't accepted the "identical".)
Most people don't think in such a way as to quantify things all the time, so would find the discussion strange. If you know someone who is the type of person who is very rational and logical e.g. says "there is an 80% chance I'll be there" then they might be worth trying this sort of thing on.
Other people are more emotional and would be more likely to go vegan because their friend has done it, or because of a graphic image they saw, or a momentary epiphany.
I think understand the person you are talking to and use the best strategy for them. Obviously this won't be possible all the time but is something to keep in mind.
"If they choose steak A that means they actually prefer the suffering and death of the cow over no suffering and death (since all else is held constant)."
is not necessarily true
They may just steak A because they think that cows are better off in a world with more steaks, since otherwise they wouldn't exist.
They may choose steak A because they feel that a lab steak would be a bit wierd, unhealthy, risky or whatever (this sort of means arguably they haven't accepted the "identical".)
Most people don't think in such a way as to quantify things all the time, so would find the discussion strange. If you know someone who is the type of person who is very rational and logical e.g. says "there is an 80% chance I'll be there" then they might be worth trying this sort of thing on.
Other people are more emotional and would be more likely to go vegan because their friend has done it, or because of a graphic image they saw, or a momentary epiphany.
I think understand the person you are talking to and use the best strategy for them. Obviously this won't be possible all the time but is something to keep in mind.