Arguments for ethical veganism

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
NindriIndri
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:15 am
Diet: Vegan

Arguments for ethical veganism

Post by NindriIndri »

Hello!

I hope I've come to the right place - I've gotten myself into an online debate with an omnivore, who claims that ethical veganism is in itself contradictory and hypocritical and I need some help with, firstly, understanding his position in the philosophical sense and secondly, if possible, refuting it or at least showing inconsistencies in his thinking (if there are any, of course). I have tried searching for similar threads on here but the search function doesn't work well for me (keeps saying the keywords are too common) and the few I did find, I did not fully understand because they get very "philosophical" very fast and I don't know how to apply that information to my specific case.

While I have a university degree, I have never dealt with philosophy and I am therefore unfamiliar with this type of reasoning and the terminology. I realize this is probably not a place for philosophy 101, but nevertheless, I hope some of you can take a look. Also, the debate was not in English, so I can't paste his replies here directly, there are about 30 A4 pages of this debate in total and I really can't translate it all. The guy is half-literate, constantly using derogatory words for vegans (brainwashed illogical idiotic hypocrites who moralize instead of doing what they believe), but I haven't been able to refute his philosophical arguments. I'm pretty sure he found his "silver bullet for vegans" somewhere online and didn't come up with it on his own, but I don't want to assume that. He also generalizes a lot (all vegans love Gary Yourofsky who compares animals slaughter to Holocaust, therefore, they are all crazy, all vegans eat imported exotic foods, all vegans are hippies...), is extremely rude, condescending and he insists I should keep quiet until I "do as I say".

Background of the debate: it happened below a news report about a march that our vegan society organized for the occasion of World Animal Day. When I joined the debate, I approached the subject very generally, mostly speaking about environmental impacts and health issues, I didn't even mention veganism for ethical reasons or the benefit of animals but I did say that we should minimise harm to our planet (and all that's on it). He took this as an invitation and started ranting.

This is what I have gathered from his posts (this is a compilation of over 50 posts, so please bear with me if some ideas are repeated but differently phrased and if some seem incoherent):

1. Vegans are hypocrites because we don't reduce our footprint to the full extent possible within our ideology (i.e. we should all move away from civilization and live as forest-dwellers) yet we demand others change their behavior. He makes several examples, one of them with wooden furniture: a tree had to be cut down and therefore at least some animals were harmed or lost their habitat, but vegans only limit their "sensitivity" to what they eat/wear and ignore it when it suits them (when we drive a car, when we buy a computer or furniture...). The way of life in the 21st century hurts animals period, so why are we getting our panties in a bunch just over the animals hurt in the production of food, cosmetics, and clothes, he asks.

2. Vegans are hypocrites because animals die in the production of plant-based foods. I tried arguing that this is not intentional but he claims that since there is a reasonable expectation for the loss of life, my argument is invalid.

3. His "vegan silver bullet":
a) ask a vegan if animals die in the production of plant-based foods. Don't challenge the utilitarian "less harm" argument they will present.
b) ask them if from a) follows: if there was a meat-based diet which would harm fewer animals than a plant-based one (e.g. a person can live off a boar for a year, whereas more animal lives would be lost for the production of plant food during that time), would they be morally obliged to live on this diet and eat meat? The vegan has to say "yes", otherwise he is in contradiction with a).
c) From this follows that killing animals for food per se and eating them is not immoral and ethical veganism is nonsensical.
When I mentioned that although such a diet may exist, it is not sustainable for all humans, to which he replied that this should not worry me personally because not all humans or even vegans would follow suit. I should live by my own moral standards and go live in the forest.

4. He doesn't believe veganism to be morally superior to any diet or lifestyle because it is in our (vegans') interest (he dismisses the interests of animals), just like an omnivore's diet is in their interest. When another person mentioned that by this logic, genocide, racism, pedophilia etc. could also be justified, he argued that these would be in conflict with the human's interest to survive and that if any person argued in favor of them, they would risk becoming the victim themselves, which no person in their right mind would agree to. Nazis can be morally consistent if they concede that they too can be victims of genocide. He argues that morality is based on people's interests, not those of other beings (animals, plants).

5. He argues that all humans act in their self-interest (and that there is nothing wrong with that). He adds that every living being does the same, not just humans. He also says that we are making a mistake in our reasoning about empathy and altruism, focusing on effect instead of cause (i.e. if someone else benefits from my selfish actions, we call it altruism/empathy and if not, they can be called "selfish" but there is essentially no difference between them from the doer's point of view)

6. When environmental issues were brought up, he agreed that the current state of the world is not optimal but added that it has nothing to do with animals or veganism - we need better air, soil, water because of humans and that to disguise this human interest as care for animals or environment is erroneous and hypocritical.

7. He argues that the only way to be truly vegan is to commit suicide (and thus cause zero harm to animals and environment).

8. When someone mentioned that animal foods and products are not necessary for human existence, he replied that neither is civilization, infrastructure, computers, cars...

9. When asked whether he would eat a dog or a cat, he replied that it is not in his interest to do so at this time, but he might change his mind in case of a famine. He has no issue with any animal being used for whatever but he does discriminate himself, at least in peaceful times. He grants the right to live to his dog, but not a pig because it is so in his interest.

10. He compares any "less harm" arguments with Hitler and Stalin, saying that if by that logic we see Hitler as more moral than Stalin because he killed fewer people.

11. Plants are beings just like animals and vegans are guilty of speciesism.

12. He needs no other justification for eating animals other than that they taste good.

13. He would agree to improve animal welfare as long as he gets a steak on his plate. He's OK with lab meat (if it suits his then-interest and if it looks and feels the same as a cadaver).

14. He claims veganism is unsustainable for the entire human population (without studies) and an omnivore diet is best. He concedes that changes have to be made.

15. The definition of veganism is undefined and relative (apropos the "as far as is possible and practicable"), therefore useless. Just because we set our moral standards a bit further than omnivores, that doesn't mean jack squat. If killing animals in the interest of human beings is immoral, we are all immoral. If killing animals is not immoral, no one is immoral.

16. The only formulation he finds acceptable is "it is inadmissible to kill an animal, unless it is objectively in our interest". Killing a cow for food is thus allowed because this is objectively in our interest, killing her for any other reason which is not objective, is not.

17. He cites Meat: A Benign Extravagance as a great source of alternatives to environmental impacts of factory farming.

18. When I said his way of life (his interests) may interfere with the interests of future generations, he called me an "emotional blackmailer" and added that the key is to change current agricultural practices, not do away with eating animals. He also thinks vegans are fearmongerers.

19. When asked about animal testing, he said it is not in his interest that they perform these tests, but he will not interfere, just like he doesn't interfere when people are being killed in Syria (although this is likewise not his interest).

This about sums it up. He didn't disclose any details about his way of life, but he made up a lot of "what if" scenarios when asked about it. Not sure what his philosophy is, other than that he values moral consistency above all. In short, he knows what's going on and doesn't give a shit because it has no immediate impact on him, and that's his motto I guess. That, and really, viscerally hating ethical vegans.

Any input would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. :)
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Arguments for ethical veganism

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Hi NidriIndri, welcome to the forum, I hope you'll post an intro.
NindriIndri wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:44 pm 1. Vegans are hypocrites because we don't reduce our footprint to the full extent possible within our ideology (i.e. we should all move away from civilization and live as forest-dwellers) yet we demand others change their behavior. He makes several examples, one of them with wooden furniture: a tree had to be cut down and therefore at least some animals were harmed or lost their habitat, but vegans only limit their "sensitivity" to what they eat/wear and ignore it when it suits them (when we drive a car, when we buy a computer or furniture...). The way of life in the 21st century hurts animals period, so why are we getting our panties in a bunch just over the animals hurt in the production of food, cosmetics, and clothes, he asks.
You may want to read this thread:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3471

Veganism is doing what is practicable, and it's one specific thing that reduces harm considerably with very little cost.
We literally can not all go out into the woods to live, and there's no reason to believe that would cause less suffering.
Minimalism is a noble pursuit in addition to veganism, and many vegans are also minimalists. Veganism is one thing to do to reduce harm, it does not claim to be the only thing.

NindriIndri wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:44 pm 2. Vegans are hypocrites because animals die in the production of plant-based foods. I tried arguing that this is not intentional but he claims that since there is a reasonable expectation for the loss of life, my argument is invalid.
The thread I linked above covers that. It not being intentional is not a good argument. That the loss of life is much less from plant agriculture is. Veganism doesn't claim to be perfect. It's about reducing harm in a practicable way through one particular lifestyle change.

NindriIndri wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:44 pm b) ask them if from a) follows: if there was a meat-based diet which would harm fewer animals than a plant-based one (e.g. a person can live off a boar for a year, whereas more animal lives would be lost for the production of plant food during that time), would they be morally obliged to live on this diet and eat meat? The vegan has to say "yes", otherwise he is in contradiction with a).
It's called the lesser evil.
Arguments like this have been made for rope grown oysters, which are probably not sentient.
It's not a realistic argument when applied to larger fauna.
NindriIndri wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:44 pm c) From this follows that killing animals for food per se and eating them is not immoral and ethical veganism is nonsensical.
When I mentioned that although such a diet may exist, it is not sustainable for all humans, to which he replied that this should not worry me personally because not all humans or even vegans would follow suit. I should live by my own moral standards and go live in the forest.
We want to model behavior that other people can follow. It is actually important that virtually everybody could do it, and also important that you're present in society to inspire them to do so.

For all of the ridiculous things PETA does, even they understand this:
https://www.peta.org/living/food/making-transition-vegetarian/ideas-vegetarian-living/tiny-amount-animal-products-food/
It's not about personal purity, it's about social change. One person does very little, it's how we affect each other in society that is much more meaningful. Consequentialism is about the net consequences, and while going to live in the forest may (although I don't think it does) have less of a harm footprint, it also has much less benefit.
NindriIndri wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:44 pm 4. He doesn't believe veganism to be morally superior to any diet or lifestyle because it is in our (vegans') interest (he dismisses the interests of animals), just like an omnivore's diet is in their interest. When another person mentioned that by this logic, genocide, racism, pedophilia etc. could also be justified, he argued that these would be in conflict with the human's interest to survive and that if any person argued in favor of them, they would risk becoming the victim themselves, which no person in their right mind would agree to. Nazis can be morally consistent if they concede that they too can be victims of genocide. He argues that morality is based on people's interests, not those of other beings (animals, plants).
He sounds like some kind of Randian Objectivist, which goes to show he has not thought critically about any of this

He's wrong about children, slaves, etc.
Social contract can easily exclude a disenfranchised class without any greater risk of being excluded personally. Those with power are in control.
If adults decide it's OK to eat children (your own children) if you want, that's just how it goes. If a child becomes an adult, he or she can eat children with no risk of being eaten.
NindriIndri wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:44 pm 11. Plants are beings just like animals and vegans are guilty of speciesism.
Plants are not sentient. They have no interests to violate.
NindriIndri wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:44 pm 14. He claims veganism is unsustainable for the entire human population (without studies) and an omnivore diet is best. He concedes that changes have to be made.
That's just not true. The nutritional suitability of veganism is consensus, and we already produce enough soybeans, corn, etc. to feed the whole world: much used for animal feed now. It's animal agriculture that's inefficient.
NindriIndri wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:44 pm 15. The definition of veganism is undefined and relative (apropos the "as far as is possible and practicable"), therefore useless.
Practicable has a particular meaning, that is capable of being put into practice. It deals with parsimony and consequence.
NindriIndri wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:44 pm Just because we set our moral standards a bit further than omnivores, that doesn't mean jack squat. If killing animals in the interest of human beings is immoral, we are all immoral. If killing animals is not immoral, no one is immoral.
A moral person is one who makes an effort to do less harm. You don't need an arbitrary line.
NindriIndri wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:44 pm 16. The only formulation he finds acceptable is "it is inadmissible to kill an animal, unless it is objectively in our interest". Killing a cow for food is thus allowed because this is objectively in our interest, killing her for any other reason which is not objective, is not.
It's clearly not in our interest environmentally or in health terms, at least in the developed world.
NindriIndri wrote: Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:44 pm 17. He cites Meat: A Benign Extravagance as a great source of alternatives to environmental impacts of factory farming.
That's fine, but we don't farm like that right now.
Is he going tentatively vegan until agricultural practices change?
NindriIndri
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:15 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Arguments for ethical veganism

Post by NindriIndri »

Hi, thank you for the reply and for the help, I will use it in my debate. I'm not sure what's up with this guy - he's all over the place; on one hand he admits that our current practices are detrimental to everyone and he said that he may experiment with plant-based foods for health reasons but I can't get him to move on the ethical side of things - he is still going on about how we are a bunch of hypocrites because we don't live what we preach, how animals and humans compete for resources which is completely natural etc. Maybe I should post one more reply and then just let it go.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Arguments for ethical veganism

Post by brimstoneSalad »

NindriIndri wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:45 am he is still going on about how we are a bunch of hypocrites because we don't live what we preach,
We do as long as we don't 'preach' 100% personal purity.
We live in a non-vegan world, and it's better to be IN the world inspiring people than not. Even radical reducetarians can do good by inspiring others to reduce.
NindriIndri wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:45 am how animals and humans compete for resources which is completely natural etc.
Sure, but we're wasting resources when we farm animal products.
If you're talking about cutting down a forest and building a city or an efficient farm to produce food in a less wasteful way, there's of course an argument for that.
NindriIndri wrote: Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:45 am Maybe I should post one more reply and then just let it go.
It doesn't sound like a productive conversation. I know it can be hard to walk away from though.
Post Reply