Brief Introduction

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

Are there any human acts that you find admirable or reprehensible?

Are there any humans that you admire because they live their lives trying to reduce the amount of reprehensible acts and/or increase the amount of admirable acts?

If so, do you feel any personal desire to act more like the people you admire?

Yes to all. However these are based on my preferences and inclinations therefore I need additional reason to make universal statements.

A two thousand year moral order which still exists in my moral community is worth more than a new one - all else being the same.

Why so?

Because there are an infinite number of possible alternatives which could replace the status quo. Rushing into a change is never a good decision.
A maxim which has been believed for thousands of years implies there has been some lasting relevance which has maintained it for so long.
Reason can trump this inclination but that's why I specified 'all else being the same'.
This is based on 'common sense' and not on morality. I'm not saying you must follow this principle but this explains why I choose to side with one way of life rather than another.

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

Please go back and read my post.
I have explained why the government cannot simply regulate it, as the issues with animal agriculture are inherent, and I have asked you some questions.

No, they cannot really be mitigated/eliminated, because the demand is too high and the profit margin too narrow.
There are too many land animals farmed, and too many crops that have to be grown for them.

Government can impose limits on production/consumption. Subsidies can be removed. Taxes levied. I'm no economic determinist. Governments can control the agricultural policy of their subjects.
You then continued to argue that current consumption rates are unsustainable. I trust you that they are. This doesn't mean that eating meat is inherently wrong. To borrow an analogy:

I get that you want to know about the morality of animals, but when it comes to being vegan, environmental damage and risk of pandemics are a major part, and it's not dismissable by simply asserting the same over simplistic thing over and over - which is like saying:

'I don't care about driving my truck all day everyday, the government can regulate emissions'.

It would be to say we are morally obliged to drive an environmentally friendly vehicle. I disagree. I think this falls closer to being described as a virtue than the kind of command such as 'thou shalt not murder'.
To underline what I said earlier, I am not dismissing the environmental damage, I'm saying its a question of degree. This would not mean we necessarily have to go 'vegan'. That is an arbitrary line. I could be more or less strict with my environmental ethics. For instance water hungry plants may be deemed a waste compared to more robust alternatives etc.
The reason I moved away from this environmental discussion is it doesn't concern the specific problem of animal killing and therefore veganism as a specific category.

[Jebus]

these are based on my preferences and inclinations

How did you arrive at these preferences and inclinations? Simply by intuition or is there any reasoning behind it?

A maxim which has been believed for thousands of years implies there has been some lasting relevance which has maintained it for so long.

The lasting relevance is that human compassion includes a very small circle while humans are low on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. On average, as humans climb the hierarchy the circle of compassion grows. This has been the trend and will likely continue to be the trend. We can see this both in history and in current socioeconomic comparison.

[thebestofenergy]

Government can impose limits on production/consumption. Subsidies can be removed. Taxes levied. I'm no economic determinist. Governments can control the agricultural policy of their subjects.

Those do not address the problems inherent with animal agriculture.
What they do is they incentivize or force people not to buy animal products, by making them less accessible for people.

And hence my questions, that you haven't yet answered, and instead gone a full circle:

'So you're advocating for a reduction in animal products consumption?

How much do you think they would have to be reduced so that there are no more negative consequences for humans? You realize it would have to be the vast majority of it to significantly reduce global warming and risk of pandemics, which would still be there more than simply eating plants.

And how would you even arrive at a fair conclusion between what's best for humans in terms of severely diminishing animal products consumption, vs. how much people want to eat animal products?
Does improving the quality of lives of the workers in slaughterhouses and reducing global warming and the chances of global pandemics justify depriving humans of their favorite food?'

Also, I find it ironic that you arrived at a conclusion where governments would impose limits on consumption as being the solution (which would not be feasible), but you not being vegan yourself to reduce the demand.
Why is that?
If you believe animal products should be reduced, are you doing it yourself? And to the extent where you're consistent to fit the questions asked above?

I get that you want to know about the morality of animals, but when it comes to being vegan, environmental damage and risk of pandemics are a major part, and it's not dismissable by simply asserting the same over simplistic thing over and over - which is like saying:

'I don't care about driving my truck all day everyday, the government can regulate emissions'.

It would be to say we are morally obliged to drive an environmentally friendly vehicle. I disagree. I think this falls closer to being described as a virtue than the kind of command such as 'thou shalt not murder'.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, I didn't mean it as a command that we shouldn't drive a truck ever.
You're arguing against a strawman.

My point is that laying the responsibility on the government and not caring - such as saying 'the government can regulate' - leaves you without responsibility for anything you want to do.
It's a bad argument, where you can make plenty of reductio cases to demonstrate how bad it is.

In the case of the truck, we should take responsibility and reason how much we should/shouldn't drive the truck ourselves, not naively leaving it in the hands of the government to fix our mistakes and the damage we cause.
Same with animal products. Personal responsibility is key.

To underline what I said earlier, I am not dismissing the environmental damage, I'm saying its a question of degree. This would not mean we necessarily have to go 'vegan'. That is an arbitrary line.

Do you know what arbitrary means?
How is veganism an arbitrary line?

(leaving out morality for animals, and even any health argument)

P1. Environmental damage and risk of pandemics are significantly bad for humans.
P2. Humans are important.
C1. Environmental damage and risk of pandemics are significantly bad.

C1. Environmental damage and risk of pandemics are significantly bad.
P3. Animal products production causes significant environmental damage and risk of pandemics.
P4. Animal products production is definitely not a necessity for humans.
C2. Animal products production is significantly bad (veganism).

There is nothing arbitrary in that conclusion.

The ratio of consumption of animal products over the environmental damage/disease chance, is unjustifiable at any degree.

Eating 1 steak per year to have X amount of pleasure with your taste buds, and causing Y amount of damage to our future.

Or eating 200 steaks per year to have 200X amount of pleasure with your taste buds, and causing 200Y amount of damage to our future.

Y is significantly higher than X, so whether you divide both of them or multiply, Y outweighs X.

Of course, reducing animal products consumption makes it better than doing nothing, because Y diminishes. But that's the point - the more you diminish X, the more Y diminishes, the better it is.
And we are not living in a world where the amount of cows farmed are so low that Y is negligible, as that world would require that X would be a negligible amount too, so that people would eat very, very minimal amounts of animal products, or that the very vast majority of people would be vegan - as long as neither of these two are true, P3. is correct.
And as long as P3. is correct (and it is), going vegan to reduce P3. as much as possible is the least harm you can do to humans, with environmental damage and pandemics being the greatest existential and well-being threat for humans and their future, and with animal agriculture being at the forefront by far for both.

I could be more or less strict with my environmental ethics. For instance water hungry plants may be deemed a waste compared to more robust alternatives etc.
The reason I moved away from this environmental discussion is it doesn't concern the specific problem of animal killing and therefore veganism as a specific category.

Yes, you could be more or less strict. However, certain things are needed and/or almost negligible.
When it comes to animal agriculture, it's the most harmful practice to date, and it doesn't compare with watering plants. It quite literally is screwing over our future.

And yes, it does concern veganism as a specific category.
With veganism you reduce the harm done to animals as far as practicable, and environmental damage and risk of pandemics is definitely something to take into consideration with the well being of animals (both human animals and non-human animals).

[teo123]

This says nothing about the morality that is inherent in the act of killing/harming animals.

And isn't it a red-herring here? What you are effectively doing is arguing for eating meat, by replacing the meat industry that exists with some vaguely imagined unicorn that does not cause animal suffering and environmental damage, and arguing for that unicorn instead. Meat, as it is produced today, causes a lot of evil, and living in a phantasy does nothing to change that. To the contrary, it makes it worse by distracting people from problems that need to be solved. And I say vaguely imagined unicorn because it is vaguely imagined. On that ideal farm, what is to be done about poisonous plants? Have you thought about that?

I eat meat because I don't believe in the moral obligation to be vegan. I am happy for my government to put these restrictions on animal practices for the benefit of humans but I reject the conclusion that I should be morally compelled to never harm an animal. This has been my position since the start of the thread. Please read it in its entirety.

Government should put restrictions on animal practices for the benefit of humans? Well, I am quite sure the expansion of government is evil in itself.

[Jebus]

I am quite sure the expansion of government is evil in itself.

Please stop hijacking posts with unrelated topics you are eager to discuss. You do it all the time and it is annoying as hell. You are welcome to start a new topic if you so wish.

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

Those do not address the problems inherent with animal agriculture.
What they do is they incentivize or force people not to buy animal products, by making them less accessible for people.

Given the significance of the harm to humans comes about by animal agriculture's large scale, regulation is important to the question. Rearing one sheep is not going to make a difference to the planet in the same way eating a teaspoon of sugar is not going to damage your health.

How much do you think they would have to be reduced so that there are no more negative consequences for humans? You realize it would have to be the vast majority of it to significantly reduce global warming and risk of pandemics, which would still be there more than simply eating plants.

And how would you even arrive at a fair conclusion between what's best for humans in terms of severely diminishing animal products consumption, vs. how much people want to eat animal products?
Does improving the quality of lives of the workers in slaughterhouses and reducing global warming and the chances of global pandemics justify depriving humans of their favorite food?'

This depends on the ethical theory one wishes to apply. I'm yet to be convinced that any are real. We all have our own views on where the line is to be drawn. If you are concerned with the practicality of choosing where the line is drawn, this problem can be solved politically.
Statesman are given facts about harm to humans through animal agriculture, statesman take this into consideration and balance this with other priorities of the country. They legislate accordingly. The same thing happens with climate change.

Also, I find it ironic that you arrived at a conclusion where governments would impose limits on consumption as being the solution (which would not be feasible), but you not being vegan yourself to reduce the demand.
Why is that?
If you believe animal products should be reduced, are you doing it yourself? And to the extent where you're consistent to fit the questions asked above?

It's entirely feasible for governments to regulate the production of animal products. Maybe we must agree to disagree here but governments have proven capable of limiting production on products many times before.
I'm not overly concerned with personal meat consumption in the same way I'm not particularly interested in buying eco products.

It would be to say we are morally obliged to drive an environmentally friendly vehicle. I disagree. I think this falls closer to being described as a virtue than the kind of command such as 'thou shalt not murder'.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, I didn't mean it as a command that we shouldn't drive a truck ever.
You're arguing against a strawman.

I'm not claiming that's your position on trucks, I'm continuing the analogy with the environmental implications of eating meat. It's an attempt to convince you cutting meat out completely is not morally compulsory in the same way other commonly held moral compulsions are.

My point is that laying the responsibility on the government and not caring - such as saying 'the government can regulate' - leaves you without responsibility for anything you want to do.

I'm not saying I have no share of responsibility for environmental implications but that my share is insignificant. Collective consumption is important and this is the kind of thing governments are good at. Environmental protection law is very common.

To underline what I said earlier, I am not dismissing the environmental damage, I'm saying its a question of degree. This would not mean we necessarily have to go 'vegan'. That is an arbitrary line.

Do you know what arbitrary means?
How is veganism an arbitrary line?

Because we can always do more for the environment. Past a certain line we say it's not worth it. This line will be drawn based on people's individual value judgments. The practical answer to a hard line is a political one.

P1. Environmental damage and risk of pandemics are significantly bad for humans.
P2. Humans are important.
C1. Environmental damage and risk of pandemics are significantly bad.

C1. Environmental damage and risk of pandemics are significantly bad.
P3. Animal products production causes significant environmental damage and risk of pandemics.
P4. Animal products production is definitely not a necessity for humans.
C2. Animal products production is significantly bad (veganism).

The significance of the bad effects is due to scale. This is different from saying the eating of meat (per se) is significantly bad. You've unduly treated a single event as a collective.

The ratio of consumption of animal products over the environmental damage/disease chance, is unjustifiable at any degree.

How so? Is one Inuit's catching of fish unjustifiable? There is a sliding scale here. A line needs to be drawn.

I could be more or less strict with my environmental ethics. For instance water hungry plants may be deemed a waste compared to more robust alternatives etc.

When it comes to animal agriculture, it's the most harmful practice to date, and it doesn't compare with watering plants. It quite literally is screwing over our future..
And yes, it does concern veganism as a specific category.

UK sheep farming is not the same as Brazilian cattle ranching. Still further is eating wild venison. Not all meat eating is equal. There may be situations where the importation of a specific plant half way around the world is worse for the environment than fishing from a local lake.
The boundary is porous here. It's not a simple case of 'vegan = good' and 'non-vegan = bad'.

[DaBankasDaBonuses]

these are based on my preferences and inclinations

How did you arrive at these preferences and inclinations? Simply by intuition or is there any reasoning behind it?

It's a common intuition most people have. The weight one puts on this conservative inclination differs greatly though. This precise amount is determined without rationality, I admit.

A maxim which has been believed for thousands of years implies there has been some lasting relevance which has maintained it for so long.

The lasting relevance is that human compassion includes a very small circle while humans are low on Maslow's hierarchy of needs. On average, as humans climb the hierarchy the circle of compassion grows. This has been the trend and will likely continue to be the trend. We can see this both in history and in current socioeconomic comparison.

Interesting stuff. If the radius continues to increase doesn't this mean what is captured in the circle has less relevance to whether there is an objective reason to care for it? As in it would be silly to give moral consideration to everything that exists so a reductio could be used here.
If it does stop growing, how do we know animals aren't on the outside of this circle when full size is reached?

Also, how likely is the truth of objective moral statements altered by the existence of the hierarchy of needs? I could understand that someone may believe its more likely we should treat others fairly because it leads to better chances of procreation and survival of your offspring. But ends which are hard wired into our biology are very different from these hypothetical protected classes of being which may or may not be cared about if certain material conditions far in the future are met.

[Jebus]

Rearing one sheep is not going to make a difference to the planet in the same way eating a teaspoon of sugar is not going to damage your health.

Incorrect. Rearing one sheep does make a difference to the planet and eating a teaspoon of sugar is bad for your health. Just because you are not personally able to detect the impact doesn't mean the impact doesn't exist.

This depends on the ethical theory one wishes to apply.

Why are you even partaking in a debate about morality if you have no personal compass of what is wrong and right (other than how other people have behaved historically).

Statesman are given facts about harm to humans through animal agriculture, statesman take this into consideration and balance this with other priorities of the country. They legislate accordingly.

How I wish that were true.

we can always do more for the environment. Past a certain line we say it's not worth it. This line will be drawn based on people's individual value judgments.

Two questions here:
Are you promoting subjective morality.

Do you understand the continuum between "very bad" and "very good"? I'm not claiming that every action I take is "very good" but I understand when I have chosen an action that was in my personal self interest at the cost of general utility. Can you at least admit that this is the case when you eat meat?

There is a sliding scale here.

Correct.

A line needs to be drawn.

Incorrect.

It's not a simple case of 'vegan = good' and 'non-vegan = bad'.

Correct.

[thebestofenergy]

Given the significance of the harm to humans comes about by animal agriculture's large scale, regulation is important to the question.

I have addressed this in my previous post, towards the end.

Rearing one sheep is not going to make a difference to the planet in the same way eating a teaspoon of sugar is not going to damage your health.

Same thing as above, I have addressed this in my previous post.
It's only true if there is actually 1 sheep being raised in total, but in the current state of things every little bit helps, and it's still a net negative for humans to do (check my Y > X explanation).

How much do you think they would have to be reduced so that there are no more negative consequences for humans? You realize it would have to be the vast majority of it to significantly reduce global warming and risk of pandemics, which would still be there more than simply eating plants.

And how would you even arrive at a fair conclusion between what's best for humans in terms of severely diminishing animal products consumption, vs. how much people want to eat animal products?
Does improving the quality of lives of the workers in slaughterhouses and reducing global warming and the chances of global pandemics justify depriving humans of their favorite food?'

This depends on the ethical theory one wishes to apply. I'm yet to be convinced that any are real. We all have our own views on where the line is to be drawn. If you are concerned with the practicality of choosing where the line is drawn, this problem can be solved politically.
Statesman are given facts about harm to humans through animal agriculture, statesman take this into consideration and balance this with other priorities of the country. They legislate accordingly. The same thing happens with climate change.

So, you can't answer.
Or you don't want to.
Which is it?

They are very simple questions to understand, and you keep repeating the same thing over and over.
Are you telling me that if you had to decide one of the options, you would choose nothing and leave things as status quo?

You said reducing animal products is good.
I asked you how you would do it, and how much.
You don't seem to be able to have any answer.
So then, if you don't know, you should rationally accept my conclusion that you can't rebut.

It's entirely feasible for governments to regulate the production of animal products.

What is not feasible is for governments to impose limitations on what people consume and love consuming once it has already been consumed for a long time. That was my point.
Didn't work with alcohol, and would work even less with animal products.

Maybe we must agree to disagree here but governments have proven capable of limiting production on products many times before.

Are you seriously suggesting that forcefully limiting consumption of animal products would be a feasible thing to do?

And why would you even do it?
This goes back to the first questions. If you can't answer any of them, then how can you claim limiting consumption would be good?

I'm not overly concerned with personal meat consumption in the same way I'm not particularly interested in buying eco products.

Yes, I understand that.
And I'm showing you why that's hypocritical.

You're ditching personal responsibility for comfort, when you know very well there would be a positive net for humans if you were to ditch animal products.
You claim to care about humans, but it seems like you do only as far as it doesn't affect your comfort.

I'm not overly concerned with personally owning slaves in the same way I'm not particularly interested in voting against slavery.
I'm not overly concerned with personally stealing in the same way I'm not particularly interested in paying third worlders a fair wage.
I'm not overly concerned with personally killing someone in the same way I'm not particularly interested in preventing others from drinking and driving.

Do you agree with those sentences too?

You have all the reasons to be concerned with personal meat consumption if you care about humans.
The fact that you don't shows you don't really care that much about humans to begin with - contrary to what you claim your moral belief is.

It would be to say we are morally obliged to drive an environmentally friendly vehicle. I disagree. I think this falls closer to being described as a virtue than the kind of command such as 'thou shalt not murder'.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, I didn't mean it as a command that we shouldn't drive a truck ever.
You're arguing against a strawman.

I'm not claiming that's your position on trucks, I'm continuing the analogy with the environmental implications of eating meat. It's an attempt to convince you cutting meat out completely is not morally compulsory in the same way other commonly held moral compulsions are.

And you're still arguing a strawman.

You went:
1. Driving a truck all day every day is bad, just like eating meat is bad.
2. He is therefore comparing not driving a truck, like not eating meat.

What I said is:
1. Driving a truck all day every day is bad, just like eating meat is bad.
2. We should therefore take matter into our own hands and reason if we should continue those practices and by how much.

'It would be to say we are morally obliged to drive an environmentally friendly vehicle.'

That's not the conclusion that would come out of my point, that you disagreed with.

It's an attempt to convince you cutting meat out completely is not morally compulsory in the same way other commonly held moral compulsions are.

No, it's an attempt to make you see that there is personal responsibility and our actions matter, and that we shouldn't just lay it on our government to forcefully fix it for us (if it ever happens to begin with), when we can simply do the change ourselves.

My point is that laying the responsibility on the government and not caring - such as saying 'the government can regulate' - leaves you without responsibility for anything you want to do.

I'm not saying I have no share of responsibility for environmental implications but that my share is insignificant. Collective consumption is important and this is the kind of thing governments are good at. Environmental protection law is very common.

Ah, we finally get down to it.
You claim personal responsibility doesn't matter, and is insignificant.

So you can claim the same with anything else, since you arbitrarily claim it insignificant.

If everybody thinks the way you do, the problem never gets fixed - and humans suffer.
If everybody thinks the opposite way, the problem gets fixed - and humans are better off.
According to your moral belief that humans matter, it should be glaringly obvious which stance fits it more.

Then you claim a collective matters, but a collective is made up of individuals.

And statistically speaking, of course your share matters.

The current consumption made by billions of humans is fully responsible for a significantly worse future with environmental damage and risk of pandemics for billions of humans.
Your current consumption is fully responsible for a significantly worse future with environmental damage and risk of pandemics for one human.

Or if you consider your share insignificant, so is even more insignificant your taste buds being pleased - thus the former being more important.

Because we can always do more for the environment. Past a certain line we say it's not worth it. This line will be drawn based on people's individual value judgments. The practical answer to a hard line is a political one.

I address this below.
Veganism is definitely worth it, since, as I've explained, animal products are the biggest threat for our future.

If veganism isn't worth, then nothing really is. As nothing comes close to the damage (and individual damage) done by eating animal products.

The significance of the bad effects is due to scale. This is different from saying the eating of meat (per se) is significantly bad. You've unduly treated a single event as a collective.

And I have also addressed this in my previous post.
Please read the post in its entirety.

And yes, if you think math isn't subjective, statistically speaking it matters.

Or would you see no problem with littering your entire garbage outside, joy riding all day, and eating steaks non-stop?
If you individually don't matter, you wouldn't care about people doing any of those things - and therefore you consider recycling useless, as well as caring about emissions useless.

How so? Is one Inuit's catching of fish unjustifiable? There is a sliding scale here. A line needs to be drawn.

Again, I have explained this concept below.

Y is significantly higher than X, so whether you divide both of them or multiply, Y outweighs X

and

we are not living in a world where the amount of cows farmed are so low that Y is negligible, as that world would require that X would be a negligible amount too, so that people would eat very, very minimal amounts of animal products, or that the very vast majority of people would be vegan - as long as neither of these two are true, P3. is correct.
And as long as P3. is correct (and it is), going vegan to reduce P3. as much as possible is the least harm you can do to humans, with environmental damage and pandemics being the greatest existential and well-being threat for humans and their future, and with animal agriculture being at the forefront by far for both.

UK sheep farming is not the same as Brazilian cattle ranching. Still further is eating wild venison. Not all meat eating is equal.

Meat doesn't have to be equally bad to other meat, for all meats to be bad.
All meat can be bad with some meats being worse than others.

What you said doesn't go against my point.

There may be situations where the importation of a specific plant half way around the world is worse for the environment than fishing from a local lake.

Then you should be compelled to not consume that plant.
And in fact, if you are consistent there are non-animal products that are bad enough that you should avoid for the sake of humans, such as palm oil.

By the way, imported food usually results in less emissions.
wiki/index.php/Imported_vs._locally-bought_food

The boundary is porous here. It's not a simple case of 'vegan = good' and 'non-vegan = bad'.

You are making a strawman again.
I never said vegan = good.

I said non-vegan = bad.
That is true regardless of whether vegan = good. Vegan may good, neutral, or bad, but non-vegan = bad just means that vegan = better than non-vegan.

You only have to reason that vegan = better than non-vegan to acknowledge that being vegan is better than eating animals products.

To do that, you only have to show that what pleasure humans get from eating animal products (be it 1 fish from a local lake or 1 cow from mars) minus the pleasure they would get from eating something vegan instead is less significant than the damage caused by the action.
And unless you're in some kind of survival situation (which you are not), it is, as demonstrably true by the fact that humanity is destroying itself over replaceable-by-other-foods taste pleasure, and whether you divide or multiply for individual or collective or smaller amounts, one is clearly more significant.

And yes, an Inuit catching 1 fish may be irrelevant. But that's not you and what you do - nor is it 99% of the world population doing. If you buy and eat fish, I'd bet you buy it from a market - not the entire world population going to fish would be feasible.
And you would have to consider a lifetime of eating fishes, vs. a lifetime of eating something else instead. A lifetime of eating fishes would affect the marine fauna, and the environment as a consequence.
You wouldn't eat 1 fish in your life and be done, just like you wouldn't eat 1 chicken in your life and be done.

So let's start being fair, and consider a lifetime of eating X animal product vs. not doing it.



Since we are talking about how animal products affect humans, do you then care to talk about how animal products nutritionally affect our health?