Convince me to go vegan

[vdofthegoodkind]

So far, all arguments I've come across for veganism have either been arbitrary, fallacious, and/or kind of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' kinds of arguments (i.e naming problems that could easily be solved by other less "extreme" means such as reductarianism, vegetarianism, etc).
I'm curious if maybe people on a forum called "philosophical vegan" can do better than the people I've come across so far...
So my question to you is: why should I go vegan?

[DarlBundren]

Hi, welcome to the forum.

There are so many paths that lead to veganism that I think it'd be easier for us to start from the reason why you are NOT vegan. For instance, you say that many of the arguments you've come across so far would have led to less radical options like vegetarianism and reducetarianism. Still, as far as I can tell, you've not given up meat. Why?

[vdofthegoodkind]

I would label myself a 'reducetarian' already given how much I've reduced my animal product consumption compared to when I was a kid and had never thought about it yet. Pretty much exclusively drink soy milk these days, compare to drinking exclusively cow milk when I was a kid. Eat mockmeats multiple times a week. etc.

That I haven't given up animal products completely is because I like them and haven't heard a convincing argument to give them up, I would say. So again I ask, why should I go vegan?

[DarlBundren]

I would label myself a 'reducetarian'

Glad to hear you’re trying to reduce your animal products intake. We definitely welcome any attempt to lead a more moral life.

Now, back to your question.

That I haven't given up animal products completely is because I like them

Unless you are a moral subjectivist, “it’s OK because I like it” is not a good argument. For one thing, you could justify all sort of irresponsible behaviors with it. A rapist probably likes to rape, a robber likes to steal. Morality is not a matter of whether you like something or not, it’s a matter of acting on reason. Ethical truths are truths of reason.

IF there are no good reasons for treating someone differently, discrimination is arbitrary.

In the discussion at hand, we should compare your desire to eat meat (because you like it) with that animal’s desire to live. The question is: are you unjustifiably placing your interests above that animal’s comparable interests? The answer is yes. Your taste buds don’t worth as much as that animal's desire to live. Provided that you can live a healthy life without eating meat, morality asks you to take a further step and become vegan.

[vdofthegoodkind]

Now, back to your question.

That I haven't given up animal products completely is because I like them

Unless you are a moral subjectivist, “it’s OK because I like it” is not a good argument. For one thing, you could justify all sort of irresponsible behaviors with it. A rapist probably likes to rape, a robber likes to steal. Morality is not a matter of whether you like something or not, it’s a matter of acting on reason. Ethical truths are truths of reason.

IF there are no good reasons for treating someone differently, discrimination is arbitrary.

In the discussion at hand, we should compare your desire to eat meat (because you like it) with that animal’s desire to live. The question is: are you unjustifiably placing your interests above that animal’s comparable interests? The answer is yes. Your taste buds don’t value as much as that animal's desire to live. Provided that you can live a healthy life without eating meat, morality asks you to take a further step and become vegan.

Everything you just said would still be applicable to me if I were to go vegan. Take for instance rice, vs pasta vs potatoes. Those 3 types of crops are pretty much nutritionally equivalent and I could live an equally healthy life just sticking to 1 single one of them for every dinner for the rest of my life.
Is it unjustifiable to place my interest in having the luxury to choose between these 3 types of crops as my carb source at dinner above that of the lives of all the extra animals that will be killed compared to if I had just stuck to the most land-efficient (->correlated with pesticide use) one of the three? Ofcourse it's not justifiable.

Now extrapolate that line of reasoning for any and all plantfood crops that are nutritionally equivalent and have different land-efficiencies. It's thus not an argument for veganism, but an argument for something much more restrictive than veganism. (let's say a diet that only allows give or take 30 different types of the most land-efficient plantfoods, so you can still easily meet all nutritional requirements necessary for health).

The only thing veganism differs from my current lifestyle with respect to this argument is thus the extent to which I would be guilty of this type of morally unjustifiable behavior. And only differing in extent means this argument you just presented would therefore fall in the 'arbitrary' category.
Next please

[DarlBundren]

Everything you just said would still be applicable to me if I were to go vegan. Take for instance rice, vs pasta vs potatoes. Those 3 types of crops are pretty much nutritionally equivalent and I could live an equally healthy life just sticking to 1 single one of them for every dinner for the rest of my life. Is it unjustifiable to place my my interest in having the luxury to choose between these 3 types of crops as my carb source at dinner above that of the lives of all the extra animals that will be killed compared to if I had just stuck to the most land-efficient (->correlated with pesticide use) one of the three? Ofcourse it's not justifiable.

I wouldn’t say that pasta, rice, and potatoes are nutritionally equivalent. Also, the amount of suffering caused by animal agriculture vs the hypothetical amount of suffering caused by eating both potatoes and rice is not even remotely comparable.

That aside, vegans already try to choose the most ethical options we have at our disposal. Your argument is simply that there might be other ways to be “even more” ethical in addition to being vegan. Nobody has ever denied this. Morality is a continuum, not a binary decision. A vegan who likes to cause car crashes is less moral than a meat-eater who gives 10% of his money to charity.

Now extrapolate that line of reasoning for any and all plantfood crops that are nutritionally equivalent and have different land-efficiencies. It's thus not an argument for veganism, but an argument for something much more restrictive than veganism. (let's say a diet that only allows give or take 30 different types of the most land-efficient plantfoods, so you can still easily meet all nutritional requirements necessary for health).

Again, first of all, we should really compare these hypothetical plant food crops and see how nutritionally complete and ecologically sustainable they really are. There’s a lot of nonsense floating around the internet.

But, as I have said: 1) the amount of animals killed when growing plants is not comparable to the animals killed for food. ( Animals eat plants, by the way) 2) This argument only says that there may always be room for improvement. It’s not an argument against veganism at all. It’s an argument in favor of being a sensible consumer – something that we all try to be.

The only thing veganism differs from my current lifestyle with respect to this argument is thus the extent to which I would be guilty of this type of morally unjustifiable behavior.

Yes, it’s a continuum. But, again, you are comparing things that are very different in magnitude.

And only differing in extent means this argument you just presented would therefore fall in the 'arbitrary' category.

No, because we already accept that being moral doesn’t stop at avoiding to eat animals.

[vdofthegoodkind]

I wouldn’t say that pasta, rice, and potatoes are nutritionally equivalent.

I said "pretty much" and made it clear it was in the context of staple food/carb source during dinner. Obviously there are SOME differences between pasta, rice, and potatoes nutritionally speaking.
Aside from that it's just an example. I don't think you would disagree with the claim that there exist loads of pretty much nutritionally equilent plantfoods in a standard vegan diet that have different land-efficiencies and corresponding kill counts due to pesticides and whatnot. Or would you?

Also, the amount of suffering caused by animal agriculture vs the hypothetical amount of suffering caused by eating both potatoes and rice is not even remotely comparable.

We were talking about whether or not the interests of taste for a human trump the interests of life for a nonhuman animal. Whether that is 1 life or a gazillion lives is not really relevant to the topic now is it?
Aside from that you are conflating modern day animal agriculture with the type of animal agriculture that my type of reducetarianism would allow.
We sure as fuck wouldnt be growing soy and grain to feed to livestock in the type of animal agriculture that is compatible with my level of reducetarianism. The amount of suffering caused for food acquisition would not be substantially different at all between a world where everyone was a reducetarian like me and a world where everyone was vegan like the standard vegan in western society.

That aside, vegans already try to choose the most ethical options we have at our disposal. Your argument is simply that there might be other ways to be “even more” ethical in addition to being vegan. Nobody has ever denied this. Morality is a continuum, not a binary decision. A vegan who likes to cause car crashes is less moral than a meat-eater who gives 10% of his money to charity.

No, my argument is not that there might be other ways to be "even more" ethical in addition to being vegan. My argument is that veganism is nothing but an arbitrary reducetarian type diet, not fundamentally different from vegetarianism, pescatarianism, or any other forms of reducetarianism.

Again, first of all, we should really compare these hypothetical plant food crops and see how nutritionally complete and ecologically sustainable they really are. There’s a lot of nonsense floating around the internet.

You do realize that "most landefficient" goes hand in hand with "ecologically sustainable" right? As for nutritional completeness... Two simple questions: Do you need all plantfoods that are available in a modern day supermarket to have a nutritionally complete diet? Do all those plantfoods have different land efficiencies?
I'm guessing you're gonna answer 'no' and 'yes' respectively to those two questions. So by answering like this, you are acknowledging the vegan diet can be further optimized.

But, as I have said: 1) the amount of animals killed when growing plants is not comparable to the animals killed for food. ( Animals eat plants, by the way)

Again a 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater' type argument. And a repeat of what I said earlier about you conflating the type of animal agriculture we have today with the type of animal agriculture compatible with my level of reducetarianism.

2) This argument only says that there may always be room for improvement. It’s not an argument against veganism at all. It’s an argument in favor of being a sensible consumer – something that we all try to be.

It is of course not an argument against veganism itself. It was never intended as such. I thought I made it quite clear it's an argument against your argument FOR veganism.

Yes, it’s a continuum. But, again, you are comparing things that are very different in magnitude.

Like I said before, you're comparing apples and oranges. The magnitudes are not so different when talking about animal agriculture in a world where everyone is a reducetarian to the extent that I am one.

No, because we already accept that being moral doesn’t stop at avoiding to eat animals.

So yeah, arbitrary argument for veganism.

[Jebus]

Is this a joke or a late entry for the idiot of the month awards?

[DarlBundren]

 I don't think you would disagree with the claim that there exist loads of pretty much nutritionally equilent plantfoods in a standard vegan diet that have different land-efficiencies and corresponding kill counts due to pesticides and whatnot. Or would you?

I have already said that (rational) vegans know very well that being ethical doesn’t stop at avoiding to eat meat. Look into the recent “quinoa” and “palm-oil” discussions.

We were talking about whether or not the interests of taste for a human trump the interests of life for a nonhuman animal. Whether that is 1 life or a gazillion lives is not really relevant to the topic now is it?

If you already accept that non-human animals can have moral value ( and that the fact that you like to eat them is not a good argument), then it becomes a matter of gradation. Growing plants and killing animals for food strongly differ in magnitude (fewer and less sentient animals are killed in the former case). And we aren’t even talking about environmental issues. Of course, the less meat you eat, the less amount of suffering you cause. This has never been controversial.

Aside from that you are conflating modern day animal agriculture with the type of animal agriculture that my type of reducetarianism would allow.

I’m comparing options that differ in the amount of suffering they cause. You didn’t even properly define what kind of reducetarianism you are talking about (you just said you don't drink milk and you eat mock meats a couple of times per week), nor you said that you wished the world to adopt it.

The amount of suffering caused for food acquisition would not be substantially different at all between a world where everyone was a reducetarian like me and a world where everyone was vegan like the standard vegan in western society.

Would it be worse though? And if so, why shouldn't we just go vegan?

You may want to start a thread about the kind of reducetariasm you would like to promote ( it has already been done, by the way). As of yet, you have not provided any argument. Vaclav Smil had to write a book in order to show that strict veganism may not be the ONLY way to care about the animals and the planet. And even he acknowledged that it is still the best option at our disposal.

 My argument is that veganism is nothing but an arbitrary reducetarian type diet, not fundamentally different from vegetarianism, pescatarianism, or any other forms of reducetarianism.

It’s different in magnitude. It’s just the most ethical decision of the lot – this doesn’t make the other diets worthless, just less efficient. It’s the difference between a kick in the groin and a slap in the face.

You do realize that "most landefficient" goes hand in hand with "ecologically sustainable" right?

Yes, I was quoting you.

 So by answering like this, you are acknowledging the vegan diet can be further optimized.

Veganism has never been as monolithic as you think it is. Vegans have always tried to choose the most ethical food choices. Again, it’s a matter of gradation.

Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

 I thought I made it quite clear it's an argument against your argument FOR veganism.

And you failed. You made an argument in favor of a strict form of veganism that you are unwilling to embrace. You just assumed I was not ready to acknowledge the fact that plant-based diets can differ in the amount of suffering they cause, but – as I have said – it’s even in the textbook definition of veganism.

So yeah, arbitrary argument for veganism.

Let me get this straight. You think it’s arbitrary because plant-based diets may differ in how ethical they are, something that we all acknowledge and is even in the textbook definition of the term?

Is this a joke or a late entry for the idiot of the month awards?

Other opinions are welcome.

[brimstoneSalad]

Hi vdofthegoodkind, there's a reducetarian option under diet, do you want that changed?

 I don't think you would disagree with the claim that there exist loads of pretty much nutritionally equilent plantfoods in a standard vegan diet that have different land-efficiencies and corresponding kill counts due to pesticides and whatnot. Or would you?

I have already said that (rational) vegans know very well that being ethical doesn’t stop at avoiding to eat meat. Look into the recent “quinoa” and “palm-oil” discussions.

Right. The issues with plants vs. animals as broad categories is that within and between plants there are much smaller differences than between plants and animals, and because of the smaller differences there's a lot more room for margin of error.

The bottom line is that we just don't have a lot of good data on which vegan diet would certainly be the most sustainable while still being good nutritionally.

We DO know that eating large amounts of fresh vegetables/lettuce (unless you grow it yourself) is less sustainable, as is eating a diet based on fruit (because you have to eat so many calories to meet nutritional needs, which is wasteful).

However, from a nutritional perspective is it a good idea to eat a fair amount of fruits and vegetables, rather than a strictly grain and legume based diet. Nuts are also a very healthy addition.
The same argument doesn't apply to meats, with the arguable exception of some kinds of fish.

This is why I think minimal pescetarianism has some weight to its defense: mainstream opinion recommends fish of certain kinds twice a week, and it is reasonable for people to accept that if they haven't spent a lot of time understanding why those recommendations are made (DHA etc.).

Despite the larger harm, increasing the proportion of veggies in the diet and eating fish twice a week makes sense on some level (based on uncertainty, for example); it not simply a hedonistic argument.


Now beyond that, we can make GOOD arguments against some specific plant foods that we have data for, and the degree of harm is large enough that it allows the signal to show through the noise. Particularly when those plant foods have superior alternatives.

Normal "Unsustainable" palm oil, for example, is pretty uncontroversially bad, and most vegans seem interested in avoiding it. I've argued "sustainable" palm oil is a marketing gimmick, but I wouldn't be that critical of the ethics of somebody who didn't agree with that. It is a nuanced argument (like the argument against fish).

Likewise on the animal side, rope grown oysters are pretty uncontroversially good for the environment, and vegans are increasingly accepting ostroveganism as morally equivalent. Even if oysters aren't really good for you, they seem to be a sustainable source and because oysters probably aren't sentient it would seem harmless.

We can point at examples like this to show the vegan line itself is arbitrary, and to construct a more consistent position.

But to circumvent that reasoning, call vegan arbitrary, and then arbitrarily eat things you know are harmful without any compelling health argument... I don't think that's the way to go about things either.

I think you should work on codifying your form of reducetarianism, establishing general guidelines based on evidence. There's no need to appeal to anything arbitrary.

Aside from that you are conflating modern day animal agriculture with the type of animal agriculture that my type of reducetarianism would allow.

OK, but if we aren't currently practicing that kind of agriculture, that calls for something like tentative veganism -- or at least tentative fish twice a week palm-oil-free ostrovegan at home & flexible vegetarian while eating socially and there are no good vegan options... ism.

You don't have to fall into arbitrary behavior just because you think the existing labels are not always entirely consistent. You can fix them and build a system you find consistent. I don't think you could argue that should include factory farmed meat, with the possible exception of "whatever grandma cooks on Christmas".

The amount of suffering caused for food acquisition would not be substantially different at all between a world where everyone was a reducetarian like me and a world where everyone was vegan like the standard vegan in western society.

Maybe not, but you can do better still. As we try to do better too. We're not arguing vegan as the moral baseline, we're arguing it as one thing to do.

And if you think that's a slippery slope into becoming a saint, I'd say:
1. What's wrong with that?
and :

2. Not necessarily, because we want to model behavior that other people can actually imagine following (thus the argument for eating vegetarian while out in social situations if there aren't good vegan options, or eating whatever grandma cooks on Christmas).

Vegan strategist had an article on this where he recognized it might be better if it certain social situations if he wasn't as strict, to make veganism more approachable, I can't find it right now.
Even PETA (for all of their bullshit) has an article on this about minor ingredients:
https://www.peta.org/living/food/making-transition-vegetarian/ideas-vegetarian-living/tiny-amount-animal-products-food/

The goal of sticking to a vegetarian or vegan diet is to help animals and reduce suffering; this is done by choosing a bean burrito or a veggie burger over chicken flesh, or choosing tofu scramble over eggs, not by refusing to eat an otherwise vegan food because it has 0.001 grams of monoglycerides that may possibly be animal-derived.

We discourage vegetarians from grilling waiters at restaurants about micro-ingredients in vegetarian foods (e.g., a tiny bit of a dairy product in the bun of a veggie burger). Doing so makes sticking to a vegetarian diet seem difficult and dogmatic to your friends and to restaurant staff, thus discouraging them from giving a vegetarian diet a try (which really hurts animals).[...]

This is not an uncommon sentiment among pragmatic vegans. (It's maybe ironic for PETA because they do a lot of non-pragmatic bullshit, but still the point stands).

You do realize that "most landefficient" goes hand in hand with "ecologically sustainable" right?

It doesn't always. Such as with certain methods of rice production: it's very land efficient, but there's a lot of methane output.
Likewise, when you're growing with trees it's often a little more land inefficient, but it's more sustainable for a number of reasons to do with the root structure and the lifespan of the plant.
There's more complexity than a single variable (although that variable is a very important one). This is why I say there's a lot of noise and not a lot of good data on this.

It's only clear that most animal and a few specific plant foods are uniquely unsustainable. Beyond that there's a lot of unknown.

At this point it makes sense to focus on veganism, or something like it with a few additions or subtractions. While more research is always great, I think we should spend more time promoting what is already clear rather than fretting about the minutiae.