We're all fake vegans. Except Francione. According to Francione.

[brimstoneSalad]

He does seem to adhere to some form of virtue ethics, with some added inconsistent consequentialist arguments when they happen to support his views. Though he seems more preoccupied with how certain actions reflect on his character and moral fiber.

I think you hit the nail on the head there.

He does apparently have some kind of "ecological veganism" idea, where he sees humans and animals/the wild as having different domains, where humans have no responsibility for animal well being and should not interfere.
I think he discussed it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5O4xypPurs wherein he appealed to it as a useful framework while social justice is not (false dichotomy much?).
It strikes me as the prime directive in Star Trek; probably some kind deontological/virtue ethic thing where the only measure is some dogmatic personal ethic of non-intervention (that is, only with concern for some kind of personal purity, not in actually helping to relieve suffering; this may derive from his Buddhist roots?).

But then, bizarrely, he advocates for species conservation efforts, which is hardly non-interventionist. Presumably because it makes him feel good?

I have found no real consistency in his ponderings. I think he's right to reject the social justice foundations, but what he offers isn't better, and he clearly deviates from it when it suits him.

The movement is probably better off if voices like ABLC and Francione, for as much as they have in common, all fade into obscurity and more pragmatic consequentialist voices rise to the top.

[brimstoneSalad]

Elsewhere (in her video comments) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX7SsytgySU

He definitely is more deontological, but I don't even see how the categorical imperative applies here. What would happen if everyone on earth ate those fries? Zero increase in animal product consumption. So even if you apply Kantian deontology to his argument, it still makes no sense.

To my knowledge, Francione has explicitly stated a few times that he subscribes to deontology.
In essays like this where he advocates deontological protections and criticizes utilitarianism (which he dishonestly represents as all consequentialism): http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1054&context=bts
And in conversations on social media. I think he did in a conversation quoted somewhere on this forum, but I'm not sure where.
Can anybody help me out with some more links?

That said, I think you're very much misunderstanding the categorical imperative and the moral authority deontology claims. I know it's hard to understand, and in fact if you understood it easily or intuitively, I would worry for your mental health.

What would happen if everyone on earth ate those fries? Zero increase in animal product consumption.

Your brain still went back to consequences here. You forget, they don't care about consequences. The categorical imperative strives to identify contradictions (it does so poorly).

A great example I saw somewhere (and now can not find) probably explains this better than I have:

Being fashionable is wrong, because if everybody were fashionable then nobody would be fashionable, so it contradicts itself. You can not possibly be fashionable and will that being fashionable should be universal, because then you would not be fashionable.

This is related to Kant's notion of a perfect duty. It's really that mind numbingly stupid:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Perfect_duty

According to his reasoning, we first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions when we attempt to universalize them. The moral proposition A: "It is permissible to steal" would result in a contradiction upon universalisation. The notion of stealing presupposes the existence of private property, but were A universalized, then there could be no private property, and so the proposition has logically negated itself.

In general, perfect duties are those that are blameworthy if not met, as they are a basic required duty for a human being.

Also see the most famous example, being that it's wrong to lie to a murdere about the location of his or her would be victim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Lying_to_a_murderer

Read some of that article. Or maybe don't... this shit is straight up Lovecraftian insanity fuel.

My point, I suppose, is that you basically fail from the get-go if your goal is to make sense of deontology. It's nonsense. The only common thread is appeal to dogma and absolutist rules without consideration for consequence.

[ModVegan]

That said, I think you're very much misunderstanding the categorical imperative and the moral authority deontology claims. I know it's hard to understand, and in fact if you understood it easily or intuitively, I would worry for your mental health.

My understanding of the categorical imperative is "always act in such a way so as that, it would still be acceptable if it were to become a universal law" (I took Kant more than ten years ago, so forgive me if it sounds rather rough). Anyway, i.e., you can't steal from someone unless you think it would be okay for everyone to steal all the time, or, as in the case you mention of lying to a murderer about the location of his intended victim, you can lie, but only if always lying in that instance would be an acceptable universal law. People interpret Kant VERY differently (I will confess that I've basically only studied Critique of Pure Reason - and that was a long time ago - but pretty much every Kant scholar seems to have a different view of what he's actually trying to say).

Anyway, I think it's fair to say that Francione's ideas go beyond the categorical imperative, since, like I said, if every person on earth were to eat those fries, it wouldn't increase demand for animal products, and thus pasts the rules test (universal law) for the categorical imperative. That is, unless, like Francione, you have some sort of moral objection to the impurity of animal products that goes beyond reason.

[brimstoneSalad]

Anyway, i.e., you can't steal from someone unless you think it would be okay for everyone to steal all the time, or, as in the case you mention of lying to a murderer about the location of his intended victim, you can lie, but only if always lying in that instance would be an acceptable universal law. People interpret Kant VERY differently (I will confess that I've basically only studied Critique of Pure Reason - and that was a long time ago - but pretty much every Kant scholar seems to have a different view of what he's actually trying to say).

Kant avoided commenting on thought experiments, because he claimed that such applications of intuition are not useful, or something like that (at least to me it's obvious that it made his systems look absurd, and his academic language was better at obfuscating that).

But, in the case of lying to the murder, this is not up to interpretation: This is one of the criticisms Kant responded to in his lifetime, so we can take it straight from him. He agreed with the critic that it's wrong to lie to a murderer; his proclamations on ethics were not context dependent, and not relative to the consequences, specific or general.

So, if we're to take Kant as any kind of authority on his own systems, that's an unavoidable example.

My understanding of the categorical imperative is "always act in such a way so as that, it would still be acceptable if it were to become a universal law" (I took Kant more than ten years ago, so forgive me if it sounds rather rough).

It's not about it being acceptable, it's about it being logically consistent. You're framing it like the golden rule, but Kant disagreed with that.

You can't steal, because if you willed others to steal from you it would not longer be stealing. It would make stealing while willing such a thing logically impossible, according to Kantian reasoning. It's not coherent or based in anything we would regard as logical, it's more tautological and word games.

It has nothing to do with the outcomes being unacceptable.

Anyway, I think it's fair to say that Francione's ideas go beyond the categorical imperative, since, like I said, if every person on earth were to eat those fries, it wouldn't increase demand for animal products, and thus pasts the rules test (universal law) for the categorical imperative. That is, unless, like Francione, you have some sort of moral objection to the impurity of animal products that goes beyond reason.

The thing is that, for Kant, any wrong is absolute; whether it's a pound or a molecule, and the same for Francione. As long as the act was deliberate.

The trouble for Francione is that we should know that anything and everything is contaminated with molecules of animal products. But alas, this is the fate of deontology generally: it is not applicable to reality, because it is just a stringent and absolutist system.

[inator]

The movement is probably better off if voices like ABLC and Francione, for as much as they have in common, all fade into obscurity and more pragmatic consequentialist voices rise to the top.

I don't know... Francione is truly starting to sound like a nutjob, that's quite evident to many by now. ABLC, maybe precisely because of the ambiguity of his message, comes across as a bit more sophisticated to those who don't take the time to deconstruct everything he says. He's certainly not always rational, but i get the impression that he values rationality. I still don't know how he derives his approach, maybe he could start with justifying that and then maybe he'll notice flaws in his logical steps.

Either way, as his message is not particularly abolitionist, I don't think he's doing much harm. His approach to activism is quite pragmatic. The problem lies more in his style prone to drama and self-victimization. I sometimes have trouble looking past his mannerism in order to get to the actual content, but I guess it gets him views... All in all I get the impression that he's quite convincing to many people, and the ideas he propagates aren't as flawed as to cause vegans to recidivate. It may cause a bit of confusion, but I don't think that one guy thinking that pets are not ok will turn many people away from veganism. Maybe that's just my impression.

I think he discussed it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5O4xypPurs wherein he appealed to it as a useful framework while social justice is not (false dichotomy much?).

Sure, there are arguments other than social justice to be made within the framework of veganism as a socio-political movement. He raises good questions often enough, though. I usually hear him out when he lays out a certain problem, but often have to fast-forward through his proposed solutions.
In the end he's a welfarist (at least in terms of activism), anti-violence, mostly pro-science, and has a pragmatic approach to vegan activism, so all in all I think he's on the slightly more productive side of veganism.

He does apparently have some kind of "ecological veganism" idea, where he sees humans and animals/the wild as having different domains, where humans have no responsibility for animal well being and should not interfere.

I think he believes that human intervention in the lives of animals should help maintain the continued existence of the species itself, but shouldn't be concerned with the experiences of individuals within the species. Individuals should be autonomous, exist for their own sake, and suffering is just part of life. Perhaps it's some type of naturalistic fallacy. Usually he claims that humans shouldn't be concerned with judging the value of animals' experiences or try to actively intervene in that sense.
I really have trouble with this kind of valuing species over individuals, and I don't see how it can be justified. But it's a recurrent perspective for some reason.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't know... Francione is truly starting to sound like a nutjob, that's quite evident to many by now. ABLC, maybe precisely because of the ambiguity of his message, comes across as a bit more sophisticated to those who don't take the time to deconstruct everything he says. He's certainly not always rational, but i get the impression that he values rationality. I still don't know how he derives his approach, maybe he could start with justifying that and then maybe he'll notice flaws in his logical steps.

The trouble is that valuing rationality without being open to criticism and engaging in reasoned arguments kind of makes it meaningless. He recently closed comments on his videos, and now it's echo chamber patron only.

If I had not corrected my views on any number of things I have been wrong on in the past, I would be just as inconsistent and in practice irrational as ABLC is today. I'm sure I'd be an expert in being ambiguous too.
We should always be growing and learning. If I haven't made a mistake some year, I've probably made the mistake of not being self-critical enough. It's far more likely that of the hundreds of things I've said, one of two of them are at least partially wrong.

The problem, as I see it, is more one of method: he seems to have some kind of underlying narcissism or something that prevents him from making that kind of reflection. I think the same probably applies to Francione and others with this issue.
He also regards himself as a nihilist, and I think he takes that as some kind of shield against having to justify himself. I'm not sure.

You're probably right that he's about as harmless as he is obtuse, but I worry he's trying to form some kind of personality cult in his Patreon echo chamber, as UV mentioned in her video some time ago.
I think the idea that he may be more beneficial than harmful to the movement is a sad reflection on the state of veganism, but maybe right for the time being. Hopefully some more rational voices can rise to the top and change that; I just hate to see him gaining momentum, because it seems to make that less likely.

[inator]

The problem, as I see it, is more one of method: he seems to have some kind of underlying narcissism or something that prevents him from making that kind of reflection. I think the same probably applies to Francione and others with this issue.
He also regards himself as a nihilist, and I think he takes that as some kind of shield against having to justify himself. I'm not sure.

You're probably right that he's about as harmless as he is obtuse, but I worry he's trying to form some kind of personality cult in his Patreon echo chamber, as UV mentioned in her video some time ago.

I agree.
I don't mind him having a voice on youtube at all, sometimes he talks about some interesting stuff. I'm more annoyed by the fact that no one seems to criticize his ideas nowadays. Or maybe I'm not watching the right people. If not to help him self-correct, then at least to highlight his mistakes to his viewers. Especially now that the youtube comments are turned off.

Some probably don't do it because they want to maintain a friendly relationship with him and can suspect that he might react badly if they challenged his views publicly. Others, like UV, sulk because he's not able to take criticism or debate properly. I don't think that's helpful. She could talk about his videos and then just ignore his response if he isn't able to answer to the criticism properly.I understand that she doesn't need the drama, though.
But if everyone is willing to show their support when he needs it, and not criticize his ideas when they should be criticized, then we might have a problem.

[brimstoneSalad]

Others, like UV, sulk because he's not able to take criticism or debate properly. I don't think that's helpful. She could talk about his videos and then just ignore his response if he isn't able to answer to the criticism properly.I understand that she doesn't need the drama, though.

I think it's more that he has basically salted the Earth with her, and she doesn't want to give him any promotion. He got serious views when she promoted his stuff, and it's particularly true if there's a back and forth as with other youtubers.

[ModVegan]

But, in the case of lying to the murder, this is not up to interpretation: This is one of the criticisms Kant responded to in his lifetime, so we can take it straight from him. He agreed with the critic that it's wrong to lie to a murderer; his proclamations on ethics were not context dependent, and not relative to the consequences, specific or general.

So, if we're to take Kant as any kind of authority on his own systems, that's an unavoidable example.

Damn! Your absolutely right, of course. I think I somehow how blocked that out of my memory. I enjoy my cherry picked false memories of CPR so much more!

One of my least fave philosophers of all time (now even more so, since you've destroyed the last false hopes I had for his sanity) - aside from Kierkegaard - who feels me with a seething rage I can barely even explain. If anyone even begins to start talking about the teleological suspension of the ethical, I'm freaking "triggered" (for realz).

[brimstoneSalad]

Damn! Your absolutely right, of course. I think I somehow how blocked that out of my memory.

Like I said, your brain just can't process the idea of an ethical system with literally no regard for consequences at all.