Brief Introduction

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

I'm currently a non-vegan but I hope to test my point of view to its limits and, hopefully, I will come out a more knowledgeable person.
Though I don't think we are morally obliged to be vegan, I am far from a self-described 'carnivore' and understand the beneficial implications of eating less meat than the average 21st Century Englishman.

I look forward to engaging with vegans on this site

[Red]

Welcome DaBankas, it's good to see some more views from the opposing side.

Why do you believe we are not morally obliged to be vegan?

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

To put it simply, I am unconvinced of the arguments pro-vegan arguments, and the ones that I do think hold some weight (e.g environmental, health) aren't of the magnitude that would *compel* us to be vegan.

Of the arguments I have heard given by ethical vegans, it ultimately either rests on a gut feeling or is the product of the society they were born into and the foundation of which is simply taken as a brute fact.

[Red]

To put it simply, I am unconvinced of the arguments pro-vegan arguments, and the ones that I do think hold some weight (e.g environmental, health) aren't of the magnitude that would *compel* us to be vegan.

Of the arguments I have heard given by ethical vegans, it ultimately either rests on a gut feeling or is the product of the society they were born into and the foundation of which is simply taken as a brute fact.

Well, we'd like to discuss these with you, feel free to start a thread or two on these issues so we can address your concerns.

[brimstoneSalad]

To put it simply, I am unconvinced of the arguments pro-vegan arguments, and the ones that I do think hold some weight (e.g environmental, health) aren't of the magnitude that would *compel* us to be vegan.

Do you mean hypothetically environmentally benign animal products like sustainable fishery?
It of course compels us to abandon our current agricultural practices when it comes to animals, which is incredibly wasteful.

Of the arguments I have heard given by ethical vegans, it ultimately either rests on a gut feeling or is the product of the society they were born into and the foundation of which is simply taken as a brute fact.

Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe there are some things that are actually wrong and not just based on gut feeling or social conditioning?

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

Do you mean hypothetically environmentally benign animal products like sustainable fishery?
It of course compels us to abandon our current agricultural practices when it comes to animals, which is incredibly wasteful.

Yes, topics of this variety I find worthy of accepting because they don't rely on any ethical framework. They are empirical claims.
I don't think the only conclusion we must draw is that we stop eating fish. Surely, under particular circumstances we can continue to eat those same fish - albeit in much smaller numbers - and still not risk dwindling our stock.

Other arguments about animal agriculture follow a similar vein. They are sliding scales or cost-benefit analyses of how much we value each variable.

Are you a moral relativist, or do you believe there are some things that are actually wrong and not just based on gut feeling or social conditioning?

I will admit to practicing a leap-of-faith when it comes to personal ethics. There are many things which I adhere to which I can offer no philosophical justification for. I certainly have passions of the heart which sway me as almost any other person does. I have felt the sense of "peer-pressure" from the rest of my country over my life.

The difference between these articles of faith and this vegan discussion is that here I am trying to put ethical views under a microscope. I am quite content for a vegan to continue as they were (after all I don't claim we are obliged *to* eat meat) however I do think it's an overreach to claim the rest of society (who don't share the same prejudices) should become vegans themselves.

[brimstoneSalad]

Do you mean hypothetically environmentally benign animal products like sustainable fishery?
It of course compels us to abandon our current agricultural practices when it comes to animals, which is incredibly wasteful.

Yes, topics of this variety I find worthy of accepting because they don't rely on any ethical framework. They are empirical claims.
I don't think the only conclusion we must draw is that we stop eating fish. Surely, under particular circumstances we can continue to eat those same fish - albeit in much smaller numbers - and still not risk dwindling our stock.

That's what I said though?

Other arguments about animal agriculture follow a similar vein. They are sliding scales or cost-benefit analyses of how much we value each variable.

Not really. Fishing provides a novel source of calories. With animal agriculture the calories come from crops we have grown and could have grown for ourselves instead.

Growing cows or chickens on farms doesn't really provide any benefit.

Pigs can at least in theory eat things like garbage and human excrement and gain weight on that, so you might be able to make some kind of argument for that, but that's not what they're fed on today. Aside from cellulose itself as a source of calories from enteric fermentation, all animal grade foods are fundamentally something you could easily process into human nutrition. And cellulose should not be converted by way of enteric fermentation due to methane production and the current climate crisis. Your better bet if you want food from cellulose is to use fungi to do the job.

I will admit to practicing a leap-of-faith when it comes to personal ethics. There are many things which I adhere to which I can offer no philosophical justification for. I certainly have passions of the heart which sway me as almost any other person does. I have felt the sense of "peer-pressure" from the rest of my country over my life.

The difference between these articles of faith and this vegan discussion is that here I am trying to put ethical views under a microscope. I am quite content for a vegan to continue as they were (after all I don't claim we are obliged *to* eat meat) however I do think it's an overreach to claim the rest of society (who don't share the same prejudices) should become vegans themselves.

Most of the rest of Western society does share those views of animal moral value and the wrongness of unnecessary animal suffering if you look at surveys, they're just being inconsistent or are mistaken in believing meat is necessary for health (in contrast to dietetic consensus).

But that aside, let's be clear, which value are you more asserting here:

"I may not agree with what you are doing, but I'll defend to the death your right to do it" or

"I will protest you merely telling people not to do things you don't want them to do, but will proceed to not only tell but also force (on threat of violence) people not to do things I don't want them to do"

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

Growing cows or chickens on farms doesn't really provide any benefit.
...
Your better bet if you want food from cellulose is to use fungi to do the job.

This assumes a narrow utilitarian lens. Not only is it a leap to assume we must follow utility, it also ignores the utility of the social element of cuisine and the sense of belonging which traditional practices brings.

Most of the rest of Western society does share those views of animal moral value and the wrongness of unnecessary animal suffering if you look at surveys, they're just being inconsistent or are mistaken in believing meat is necessary for health (in contrast to dietetic consensus).

Aren't you selectively choosing the West as a target for your investigation? Aren't there a multitude of complex social factors which could give rise to this view that are of little philosophical importance? Is the fact that humans have rarely had trouble with animal killing until now a counterpoint?

But that aside, let's be clear, which value are you more asserting here:

"I may not agree with what you are doing, but I'll defend to the death your right to do it" or

"I will protest you merely telling people not to do things you don't want them to do, but will proceed to not only tell but also force (on threat of violence) people not to do things I don't want them to do"

I am saying someone who proclaims others should be ethically compelled to follow a vegan diet must give sufficient reason to do so, otherwise I will point out the logical failure.
Presumably the latter part of the second choice concerns my belief in extant laws? If so, this is more than my own opinion. Social contract theory is enough to justify current constitutional arrangements.

[brimstoneSalad]

This assumes a narrow utilitarian lens.

It's not at all narrow when you understand the extensive harm to human beings and the existence of replacements including cellular agriculture.

Not only is it a leap to assume we must follow utility,

Like a leap in assuming we should minimize our risk of extinction, and reduce human suffering.
It's not a leap for any sane human being, it's a very safe assumption for anybody who isn't a psychopath.

it also ignores the utility of the social element of cuisine and the sense of belonging which traditional practices brings.

Replacements are suitable with respect to cultural culinary practice.

Switching the source of protein doesn't mean burgers are gone, nor fried chicken, nor anything else of supposed cultural import.
The only difference is the higher efficiency, lower amount of environmental harm, and less animal suffering.

Are you talking about the psychopathic anti-vegan subculture who WANT to consume the products of suffering even if plat sourced alternatives are indistinguishable because they enjoy the idea that their food is the product of profound animal suffering and are indifferent to the human suffering that comes with that?

If we were to weigh the perverse fetishized vore/sadistic gratification of possibly thousands of psychopaths against the suffering of millions of people from the effects of climate change and pandemics, I suspect we would find the former is not a priority. Perhaps you disagree, but thus is the importance of objective morality in settling these matters.

Aren't you selectively choosing the West as a target for your investigation?

I presume we are at least culturally speaking products of the West here, so no.
In less developed countries quality of life is such that there's not much consideration given to animals short of the highest social classes, this is a product of the psychology of circumstance -- a failure to consider, rather than careful consideration resulting in the belief that animals don't have moral value.

Aren't there a multitude of complex social factors which could give rise to this view that are of little philosophical importance?

The probability of that is low and should not be assumed to be the null hypothesis. As I explained elsewhere, consensus (and particularly growing consensus) of both population and expert opinion is not conclusive but should indicate to us where the more probable conclusion leads lacking any other indication.

Is the fact that humans have rarely had trouble with animal killing until now a counterpoint?

Not at all. It was only around the middle of the last century that B-12 was widely known of, and was only synthesized in the 70s.
Older generations grew up with the *then* correct knowledge that animal products were necessary for health for this and other reasons of unknowns that are no longer relevant.

Modern knowledge of nutrition has made veganism possible, the best we had before then was vegetarianism consuming large amounts of dairy (a practice which is complicated on a large scale).

But that aside, let's be clear, which value are you more asserting here:

"I may not agree with what you are doing, but I'll defend to the death your right to do it" or

"I will protest you merely telling people not to do things you don't want them to do, but will proceed to not only tell but also force (on threat of violence) people not to do things I don't want them to do"

I am saying someone who proclaims others should be ethically compelled to follow a vegan diet must give sufficient reason to do so, otherwise I will point out the logical failure.

You're not pointing out any logical failure, you seem to be making an assertion that animals have no moral value until proven otherwise which is precisely the wrong assertion to make and one that carries its own burden of proof.
You have selected the wrong null hypothesis, the logical failure is your own.

And then you go on to assert your own mandates without any evidence at all:

Presumably the latter part of the second choice concerns my belief in extant laws? If so, this is more than my own opinion. Social contract theory is enough to justify current constitutional arrangements.

You can shout assertions as loudly as you want, that doesn't make them true. Social contract and Randian-esque theories of ethics are not well regarded, and you've done nothing to substantiate those claims with logical argument.

The rational agent, who is only self-interested, will only superficially agree to certain social contracts for obvious reasons. That doesn't protect other rational agents who are not powerful enough to negotiate a standing in that contract (e.g. women, children, minorities), and that does not bind those within the contract to abide by it when ensured they won't be caught violating it. It's a cost benefit calculation involving risk of being caught, the punishment if caught, and profit from the violation.

Social contract is not morality, and if you think it is you've fundamentally misunderstood the definition and purpose of morality. It's not appropriate or intellectually honest to redefine words and concepts to suit your agenda without disclosing that, and you know that if you are upfront in defining morality as "Doing whatever is best for me at the time based on rational calculus without any scruples", IOW "rational selfishness" people will rightly laugh you out of the room.

I'm using the common definition of morality; one that transcends arbitrary human laws and extends beyond the selfish most explicitly to consideration for others in spite of or even against what would otherwise be to your own benefit. You can advocate for humpty-dumptyism if you want, but you need to do that honestly and that has to be your first premise before you start to talk about morality.

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

Not only is it a leap to assume we must follow utility,

Like a leap in assuming we should minimize our risk of extinction, and reduce human suffering.
It's not a leap for any sane human being, it's a very safe assumption for anybody who isn't a psychopath.

If reducing human suffering comes at the expense of animal suffering, this is something to weigh up. To attribute importance to preservation of the human species is a nebulous concept which is different from the previously mentioned pleasure/pain calculus. Do the humans alive now count more than the hypothetical humans in the future? If so, by how much? Should we let our relative ignorance about the state of the future affect this decision? All of these involve value judgments. This is the point I was making. You were being reductionist in posing the problem in that fashion. Claiming there is virtually no upside to eating meat is naïve.

I am saying someone who proclaims others should be ethically compelled to follow a vegan diet must give sufficient reason to do so, otherwise I will point out the logical failure.

You're not pointing out any logical failure, you seem to be making an assertion that animals have no moral value until proven otherwise which is precisely the wrong assertion to make and one that carries its own burden of proof.
You have selected the wrong null hypothesis, the logical failure is your own.

To make an analogy, I am the agnostic who lacks the knowledge to conclude God is not real but who is under no obligation to go to Mass and is unwilling to accept Pascal's wager. I am not convinced the threshold has been passed to oblige me to be vegan and voices his concern that there are people who are suggesting others have this obligation to do so without sufficient reason.
If I have misspoken earlier, I retract. This, however is the position I am in.

And then you go on to assert your own mandates without any evidence at all:
...
You can shout assertions as loudly as you want, that doesn't make them true. Social contract and Randian-esque theories of ethics are not well regarded, and you've done nothing to substantiate those claims with logical argument...

The difference of course is that I'm an inheritor of all that has come before me and can use conservative principles to accept these liberal freedoms.
Contrast this with a novel ethical position that has only recently gathered traction. Do you not think it's understandable (and wise) to apply more scrutiny to a belief system that has not long been fabricated versus the very foundation of a working society?

There are undoubted holes in the many theories used to justify liberal democracy. However, I think this is far too estranged from the discussion of veganism I shan't go any further. Suffice it to say I struggle to justify many of the things I take for granted in the day-to-day functioning of my country without having a leap of faith in liberalism/social-democracy/Christianity etc.

Social contract is not morality, and if you think it is you've fundamentally misunderstood the definition and purpose of morality. It's not appropriate or intellectually honest to redefine words and concepts to suit your agenda without disclosing that, and you know that if you are upfront in defining morality as "Doing whatever is best for me at the time based on rational calculus without any scruples", IOW "rational selfishness" people will rightly laugh you out of the room.

I'm using the common definition of morality; one that transcends arbitrary human laws and extends beyond the selfish most explicitly to consideration for others in spite of or even against what would otherwise be to your own benefit. You can advocate for humpty-dumptyism if you want, but you need to do that honestly and that has to be your first premise before you start to talk about morality.

This is what I was getting at before. That morality is inherently objective so assumptions must be taken out. You happen to be assuming utilitarianism which is based on the assumption that pleasure/pain are the determinants of what is good/bad. This is based on the assumption that because our pleasure feels good when we experience it and pain, the reverse, we must construct our moral system in this manner. I reject this as the foundation of a possible moral position.