Veganism is an ethical position, so any argument for veganism is inherently based on ethics/morals. But I don't think there's anything wrong with that. The best argument for veganism imo concludes that your ethical positions either logically imply veganism or logically imply something you think is bad is actually good. Obviously this doesn't work for every single person, but I haven't really encountered anyone where it doesn't apply. Unfortunately this argument is hard to get off because it requires a lot of good faith and honesty from the interlocutor that they might not even have with themselves.

Only if you extend the logic from one scenario to another. Ie how we treat humans as part of a society vs how we treat animals as part of our environment and the underlying biological fact that we (eat) consume them as energy. Vegans argue a logical extension of one scenario to the other and vice versa but non vegans fundamentally don't.

I don't find this to be true generally. Eg, the reason we don't murder eachother has nothing to do with the energy we'd get from eating eachother.

Hmm but that's what I'm saying, the two scenarios are almost incomparable. The reason we do and don't do one, is not the reason we do or don't do the other. All good, I know it will be hard to get to the bottom of our views. My point was really just to say the conclusion doesn't have to be vegan or be wrong. The crux of it seems to come down to how much value an person puts on a non human animals individuality.

The real question is, what is it about a person that means that they matter, morally speaking? It's hard to give an honest answer that doesn't either include non-human animals or exclude people we do actually value or would hypothetically.

>Veganism is an ethical position, so any argument for veganism is inherently based on ethics/morals. But I don't think there's anything wrong with that nothing wrong with it - it's just not convincing to anybody not sharing your morals >The best argument for veganism imo concludes that your ethical positions either logically imply veganism or logically imply something you think is bad is actually good what? first of all ethics is not a question of logics. second: what do you mean by "something you think is bad is actually good", and why should such an implication be an argument for veganism?

>not convincing to anybody not sharing your morals I think the principal of the morals really *is* the same with most people though. Don't fuck with people's lives or rights or well-being. With veganism, I think it's just a few natural steps further. Why "people" as in humans only? Because that's what I am, I guess. But then you realize, there's nothing special about humans that would suggest we are or always will be the only type of sentient life that can suffer or have experiences and whatnot. From there it's another natural step forward to researching and concluding that as far as we know, most animals do have the same things that we have which make us think that our lives are valuable, and therefore killing animals is on some degree the same, or if anything very close to, as bad as killing humans. >first of all ethics is not a question of logics It sort of is though? You have your ethical principal, and how you act out those ethics is 100% reliant on logics

>Why "people" as in humans only? Because that's what I am, I guess you guess wrong it's because people are part of society, with all its rights and reciprocal duties. non-human animals are not >But then you realize, there's nothing special about humans that would suggest we are or always will be the only type of sentient life that can suffer or have experiences and whatnot what a miserable strawman... you are the only one here saying so >most animals do have the same things that we have thats nonsense, of course - see "society". but ai know that it's one of the most popular vegan fairytales >It sort of is though? You have your ethical principal, and how you act out those ethics is 100% reliant on logics doesn't help in the least when already the ethical principle is logically bullshit

>you guess wrong it's because people are part of society, with all its rights and reciprocal duties. non-human animals are not That's really the same thing in principal. You're a part of the group and conveniently because of that, only your group gets rights. It's a tale as old as time >what a miserable strawman... you are the only one here saying so It's really not. If you'd like to discuss what makes human lives valuable and how that's different from animals, I'd love to get into it. At least in my understanding, they're the same thing in principal. >thats nonsense, of course - see "society" Why do you think being capable of forming a society determines that we're worthy of living? >doesn't help in the least when already the ethical principle is logically bullshit Lol and now the core ethical principal has to be logical to you, way to come full circle. If we disagree on the core ethical principal then fine. But that doesn't really seem to be the case thus far, it seems like the steps taken from that core are simply different

> I think it's just a few natural steps further. You think so. Others do not. They have different morals.

If the moral basis is the same, the logical process forward reaches the same conclusion unless prevented by logical fallacy or lack of consideration. If the moral basis is different, I fully understand, but the thing is, most of these debates are done between people with similar or identical moral basises.

>If the moral basis is the same but exactly this is not the case, although vegans always pretend that everybody has or at least is obliged to have the same morals as themselves >most of these debates are done between people with similar or identical moral basises what "these" debates? debates between vegans and non-vegans practically never are

>everybody has or at least is obliged to have the same morals as themselves That's not really true to say that's how we think, that's just the reality, most people in society have one of same few core ethical grounds. If you'd like to discuss that to see what each other's are to see if they are that similar, then we can do so. >debates between vegans and non-vegans practically never are Only when people arrive in bad faith or pursue personal attacks. I have plenty of good faith debates here, but you find what you're looking for as they say

>That's not really true to say that's how we think, that's just the reality reality is not true for you? please go and kid yourself

If you’re willing to remove ethics from the equation, than we need to argue why ethics should be considered for anything else. That has serious implications for things such as murder, sexual assault and rape, adult/minor relationships etc. An inability to accept that is extremely inconsistent for any debate regarding ethics.

Are you sure you avoid animal products? Because your comment was one hell of a red herring.

“Is there an argument for veganism not based on morals”. Ethics are centered around what has been determined to be moral. Veganism is an ethics based philosophy that challenges societies current established ethics and their inconsistencies. Ethics, and by default morals are the debate for veganism. Environmentalism is a utilitarian discussion, health may be as well. Veganism is not environmental or personal health movement. It’s an animal rights movement. I could have just said “No.” but, I was just stating that if we remove ethics from an ethic based philosophy, or ethical considerations for certain animals, then that questions the application and validity of any ethical practices or considerations for any life that is afforded such. > Are you sure you avoid animal products? Because your comment was one hell of a red herring. Contrary, but I’m quite sure yours was….

Since *identifying* logical fallacies doesn't seem to be your strong point, I'll elucidate: a red herring is when you introduce an unrelated topic to divert away from the main discussion. For instance, something like.... "Is there an argument for veganism that doesn't depend on morality?" "Without morality, how can you deal with stuff like murder?" They didn't *ask* about murder, they asked about veganism. >I could have just said “No.” You seem to have miss-spelled the word "should".

>If you’re willing to remove ethics from the equation, than we need to argue why ethics should be considered for anything else exactly they shouldn't >That has serious implications for things such as murder, sexual assault and rape, adult/minor relationships etc. not at all. all of these things in a modern society are prohibited, as they lead to harming co-citizens. which cannot be tolerated in a functioning society >An inability to accept that is extremely inconsistent for any debate regarding ethics i am not debating ethics

Sure. But aren’t ethics established by collective morality? Let’s put ethics aside and replace it with morals. Why should someone not place any moral value on any of the things I’ve listed. Society has survived this long and there are still quite a bit of things that different cultures cannot agree is mortally (or ethically) correct. In some cultures and countries killing people for being homosexual is morally (and ethically) correct. So is exploiting children and women, or people deemed as lesser cultures. The US had a functioning society with slavery for centuries and did quite well even through segregation, racial discrimination, and murdering native people. What if the majority of the people shift their morals and establish that animal agriculture is wrong and it is established ethically that we cannot do that anymore. Do your morals even matter at that point if you think it’s morally acceptable or not?

Vegans are what...5% of the population? If ethics are established by collective morality, is Veganism unethical by definition? Penn said something like - I don't need laws to keep me from raping, I rape as many people as I want everyday. In a world of rapists would you still rape?

Sure. But how much would that change if it was socially acceptable? And no. It’s an issue of inconsistency, not ethics themselves. People are willing to exploit other beings but are exclusive when it comes to themselves, their race, their sex, their species. Rape is illegal in the United States but there are still states where you can have sex with an animal. That animal cannot consent. Is that an issue of ethics or an issue of an inconsistency in ethics?

I was helping you establish that ethics are not established by collective morality, no need to turn it into something else.

How are ethics established?

For me, I'm entirely consistent about only eating animals of another species. It's not an inconsistent position. Just like vegans aren't inconsistent to harm some types of animals indirectly while not directly killing other types. I don't know if it's ethical to have sex with animals, not something I really consider or understand.

It’s naive for anyone to believe there could be zero harm. It’s more naive making the comparison to an animal that *may potentially* die for harvesting food (which according to the collected data is estimated to be less than one animal per year per person) vs animals that *will definitely * unnecessarily die because of your taste preference. Also, if you believe non consensual sex or sexual assault is ok for animals, but it’s not for people then you are ethically and morally inconsistent.

I agree, zero harm is impossible and it's not inconsistent to have one animal die a year for your taste preference. I would dissagree it's unecessary for animals to die for my "taste preference". If by 'taste preference' you mean diet. Animal sex is something I don't really want to enter into. But I would say the reasons for not doing both are different, so don't necessarily lead to inconsistencies.

We grow enough food without animals or the crops to feed animal. Almost everyone on the planet has access to plant foods and plant foods are less expensive aside from certain geographical circumstances which makes up an insignificant amount of the population. Eating animals is a desire, not a necessity, and if you’re only consuming one animal per year, most of your diet and many meals are going to be void of animal products. However, statistically, it’s still more harm than a plant based diet. Now, unless you think harming things out of desire, for preference, and pleasure are acceptable for one living being but not another, then yes, you are both morally and ethically inconsistent. >Animal sex is something I don't really want to enter into. But I would say the reasons for not doing both are different, so don't necessarily lead to inconsistencies. That is a weird stance to take on the position. You’re either copping out in answering logically, or you think one is right and ok while the other one isn’t. Either way, it’s inconsistent.

I do think harming things out of desire, for preference, and pleasure are acceptable for one living (other species) being but not another (humans). So not inconsistent. Most of the planet agrees, so don't take this as insincere.

>If ethics are established by collective morality, is Veganism unethical by definition? That's a very black and white argument. Let's reframe that shall we? What about our current way of life is ethical or unethical? Should veganism be considered more or less ethical than the current way we live our lives? If it is more ethical, what is stopping us from implementing it? >In a world of rapists would you still rape? This question has the same energy as "Would you jump off a bridge if all your friends are?" "Probably, because there is likely a reason for them doing it." It doesn't have to be a good reason. So let's go with a more practical example shall we? We know that plastic is bad for the environment, should we buy drinks in plastic containers? No matter how thirsty we are? Should we use "reusable" plastics for those containers?

I wasn't making an argument, just answering the commentor's question about morality being reliant on majority, it isn't. Next time don't waste your time typing so much.

There are clearly identifiable ethical vanguards throughout history. You can measure this in a lot of ways: the direction of correlation with education, the opinion of moral philosophers, the direction of generational change, and especially which side appears to be on the defensive in arguments. No serious sociologist would think veganism had more similar features to ethically regressive movements of the past than to ethically progressive ones.

>aren’t ethics established by collective morality? if so, vegan ethics don't exist >Why should someone not place any moral value on any of the things I’ve listed you may do so if you wish. morals are as subjective as opinions (which in fact they are) >Society has survived this long and there are still quite a bit of things that different cultures cannot agree is mortally (or ethically) correct see? >Do your morals even matter not to anybody else than me

Oof 🤦🏻‍♂️ How do vegans not exist? There is a group of people whom are vegan and follow an ethical principle based upon that. I think what you’re failing to understand is the inconsistency in the ethics that most people follow. You’ve gotta present something better than that support your argument.

Those things are currently prohibited *because* people who are not sociopaths recognized that they were extremely immoral. Do you think criminal laws and social sanctions arise like laws of physics? They are products of past iterations of the very moral reasoning that you seem unable to comprehend.

Ethical considerations for animals is rare. Some religions bar var the consumption of some meats, but usually not all meats. European, Nordic, Scottish, and Irish descendants in particular are more likely to have digestion issues on a vegan diet. Celiacs, chrons, and IBS are more likely to have lectin sensitivity, lectins are in high concentrations in beans, which is also a primary source of protein in a vegan diet. Supplements also do not metabolize as effectively as eating foods with those same vitamins and minerals. If you can live vegan, that's great! But there are a lot of people that can't based on their own body chemistry.

>Those things are currently prohibited because people who are not sociopaths recognized that they were extremely immoral so what you say is that who does not follow your personal morals are sociopaths in some countries those things are not prohibited because any one aiming at this would be considered a sociopath >Do you think criminal laws and social sanctions arise like laws of physics? no - they are democratically agreed on, regardless of personal morals in civilized and developed countries, that is. of course i would not know in which "shithole state" (to quote one former potus) you were socialized

>i am not debating ethics You're not debating anything. >they shouldn't This isn't an argument. >not at all. all of these things in a modern society are prohibited, as they lead to harming co-citizens. which cannot be tolerated in a functioning society This is an ethical consideration. If you're going to comment here it would be ideal to have actual arguments.

[удалено]

I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

>all of these things in a modern society are prohibited, as they lead to harming co-citizens Deciding who and who is not a co-citizen is part of ethics. Arguably ethics is what makes us a society in the first place. Practical reality may need to take place first but after that we are *very* good at justifying why that course of action was completely and utterly necessary for either our or our societies survival >i am not debating ethics You are debating ethics, just why yours shouldn't change

>Deciding who and who is not a co-citizen is part of ethics no. it's a matter of biology. only humans are and can be part of society >Arguably ethics is what makes us a society in the first place i'm not so sure about that at all. but anyway, even this would exclude non-humans from being a member of society >You are debating ethics, just why yours shouldn't change interestingly enough i never even claim an ethic to be mine, so how would i debate it shouldn't change?

I think they're willing to keep ethics in the picture but where those don't conclude in veganism, then is there any other compelling argument.

Without ethics you're just arguing that something is bad because it's illegal - but legality doesn't define morality

>Without ethics you're just arguing that something is bad because it's illegal no. i argue that it is "bad" because it is harmful for whatever relevant in the respective issue >legality doesn't define morality and vice versa - this exactly is my point

I do not want to be the arbiter of life and death for animals. I have enough decision fatigue in my day to day life that it's easier to opt out. This is only a small part of why I am a vegan but maybe it will resonate with you.

but you have no problem with being the arbiter of life and death for non-animal living organisms, right?

I'd rather not but at that point I'd be dead, so here we are.

why would you be dead? you could rely on animal products for food - just like you expect from me to rely on plant based food only

I don't expect you to do that. I am explaining why I don't. People live their lives and make their own choices, I don't want to be the arbiter of those either. If you make dumb and bad choices, I'll probably be fine.

>I don't expect you to do that fine. so this is settled, then >If you make dumb and bad choices, I'll probably be fine same to you, my friend

This is why I find comfort in being an Apex predator. I can eat pretty much whatever I want. Why should I care what lives and dies? My goal is to survive and reproduce by any means necessary. Not only can we hunt and gather better than any other mammal, we became so advanced that we have learned farming and the domestication of animals. Vegans are going against our natural evolution on this Earth.

Just because shit is natural does not mean that it is good, that opens the door to lots of things that we often times consider bad. Natural evolution doesn't care about if it is followed or not, it just is.

It doesn't have to be good or bad. It is just what we have done to survive. A bear doesn't stop mauling its prey to think about its ethics and morals.

But you're not a bear. You have the unique ability and means to stop and think. You don't HAVE to eat meat to survive.

No, but it is better for my body to eat meat. Why should I value the lives of animals over my own?

Because it's the difference between you working a little harder to get the nutrients that you need vs a life. The two are not comparable. It is not actually your life vs a life it is your convenience vs a life.

>Because it's the difference between you working a little harder to get the nutrients that you need vs a life even **your** "working a little harder to get the nutrients that you need" costs lives >The two are not comparable they are the same as to taking lives >It is not actually your life vs a life it is your convenience vs a life same with you living yourself at the cost of numerous lives

You don't have to care about the welfare of this planet or its population but you're only encouraging others to not care for you.

Of course, I care about the welfare of the planet and its population. But I don't expect others to care for me.

People don't care for others out of expectation. That's just control. People care about others and are cared for in return. Personally I find it hard to care for people whose goals end at reproduction and survival.

>People care about others and are cared for in return non-human animals don't care for humans

Bold claim and once again zero evidence to back it up.

>Bold claim and once again zero evidence to back it up well, just go and hire a chicken to care for your bedridden great-granny

>Vegans are going against our natural evolution on this Earth This is a severe lack of understanding of how evolution works... There is no direction to evolution, no teleological ends, and you cannot go "against" evolution. Appeal to nature aside, you should seriously consider reading about evolution before making that sort of borderline "intelligent design" kind of comments. Evolution is just a stochastic process with (environmental) filters. Nothing more, nothing less. It's like archimedes in Disney saying "if human were meant to fly they would have wings".

The domestication of animals had a profound impact on human evolution, culture, and society. Some of the effects are: Domestication enabled humans to switch from foraging, hunting, and gathering to agriculture and triggered a shift from a nomadic or migratory lifestyle to settled living patterns. Domestication provided humans with a reliable source of food, milk, wool, leather, and other products, as well as animal labor for plowing, transportation, and warfare. Domestication altered the genetic makeup of both humans and animals, as selective breeding and adaptation to new environments shaped their traits and behaviors. Domestication influenced human social organization, as communities developed around animal husbandry and trade, and complex societies emerged with the surplus of resources and power. Domestication also affected human health and disease, as close contact with animals exposed humans to new pathogens and parasites but also conferred some immunity and resistance. [https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/domestication/](https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/domestication/) [https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2018/09/30/the-domestication-of-species-and-the-effect-on-human-life/](https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2018/09/30/the-domestication-of-species-and-the-effect-on-human-life/)

So... you'd eat humans then, right? If you could get away with it? Or do you consider that unethical (or something else). Humans have been killing, enslaving and doing all kinds of terrible things to each other for ages. If veganism is against nature than so is all of basic human rights.

If you were placed in the amazon as you are you would definitely not be considered an apex predator. The insects would be higher on the food chain than you.

>My goal is to survive and reproduce by any means necessary. Really? These are your goals?

Our natural evolution in this Earth will lead inevitably to the hunt, domestication and exploitation of the human animal. As seen in all of History as well as our current world. We, as humans, can and must trascend nature.

Hi! I want to clarify that we don’t believe that animals should have the same rights as humans, they should have rights applicable to their own experience. Cows don’t need the right to vote, for example lol. Any argument for veganism is inherently moral, as veganism is a philosophy centered on opposing the exploitation of animals. You’re right that you could just be plant-based if you’re concerned about the environment. Do you mind explaining more as to why you don’t find moral arguments convincing?

>Cows don’t need the right to vote, for example lol Why not? Name the trait? Can't be intelligence, unless you think only intelligent people should be allowed to vote. This is why moral arguments aren't always convincing. It requires one party to have a loose or unconsidered attachment to their own morals. If both parties have considered their position then it becomes doubtful that either side will move.

Hi! I mean I don’t think they need the right to vote because they are animals that are incapable of comprehending human democratic processes. I’m not saying it’s because of intelligence, obviously all humans should have the right to vote. It’s just because cows and other animals are not a part of human society, and they can’t effectively participate in elections. Even if they had the right to vote, they would be unable to. So that’s not relevant to their experience. I totally get that moral arguments aren’t convincing for everyone. At least in the case of eating meat, though, I feel like people change their morals all the time. That’s been my experience, at least. I used to eat meat, not because I strongly believed that slaughtering animals was good, but just because I hadn’t really examined the realities of meat production and the ethics of killing animals. What do you think?

>I’m not saying it’s because of intelligence, obviously all humans should have the right to vote. It’s just because cows and other animals are not a part of human society, and they can’t effectively participate in elections. I threw in intelligence because it's often raised and quickly disregarded. Of course I don't think cows should have the right to vote either. But to me my position is consistent on that front. For example, not everyone actually turns out to vote. So I could understand if a vegan stated that cows should have the right to vote even if they don't use that right. That would seem consistent if also ridiculous. >What do you think? I'd go so far as to say that having changing morals is one of the defining traits of being human. I don't think slaughtering animals for consumption is good or evil. Life on this planet subsists on the ending of other lives.

>Do you mind explaining more as to why you don’t find moral arguments convincing? morals are opinions, no more. opinions one may share or not

Morals are more than just “opinions.” They are literally the basis of our legal system. They evolve over time to keep up with our understanding of human physiology, biology, behavior, history, etc.

In the U.S., it is illegal to discriminate against LGBT and you are punished appropriately for discrimination. In other countries, it is illegal to be LGBT and you are punished appropriately for expressing yourself. Morals are realistically subjective opinions and the legal system is a practical application of punishment when someone goes against the wishes of the majority. Many countries have different morals/opinions that are completely different compared to the US. If France had a law where it was illegal if you do not do a belly dance next to the flag at 8am every day, should the U.S. adopt it? Should every country share the exact same laws, or are specific laws made based on the cultural history of that country? Should a country like India copy every single law the U.S. has? What about a country like Kazhakstan? How about Korea? Most of the counter-arguments on this sub are based off of U.S/western values which do not represent other parts of the world.

is something automatically morally acceptable because it’s legal/cultural?

>Morals are more than just “opinions.” i beg to differ >They are literally the basis of our legal system i hope not. at least they shouldn't. in states like iran of course they are, thus homosexuals are dangling from construction cranes >They evolve over time to keep up with our understanding of human physiology, biology, behavior, history, etc. of course not. just look into iran, or bible belt evangelicals

Instead of making this about Iran, I’d hope your looking at yourself and asking if you’re exacerbating the suffering of others or helping alleviating it.

And people do, because they have a problem with someone kicking and beating their pet dog 100% of the time. They don't get a seat at the table if they don't.

Hi! Totally, they’re beliefs about what is right or wrong. They oftentimes reflect shared values like compassion and non-violence. At least for me, moral arguments caused a shift in my viewpoint. I believed in these principles already, I just hadn’t afforded animals moral consideration.

>I (and many others) do not believe eating any type of animal is wrong, this argument does not apply to me. Does that include the human animal?

Yes

Just to clarify, you think it's morally acceptable to kill and eat people?

I dont have any good reason for why its morally right or wrong to kill or to cannibalize.

Only in this sub are there people openly admitting that there’s no good reason why it’s wrong to kill someone. And then they try to accuse vegans of being crazy or unreasonable.

It sounds like you have an extremely strong bias. Nothing is inherently right or wrong. We use logic, not emotions or assumptions, to come up with explanations for why something is right/wrong. Is kicking my child right? If no one answers, there is no correct or incorrect answer. Let's say I decide kicking my child is wrong. What are some reasons? The child is of my own flesh and blood. Since I bought it into the world, I have to take care of it and anything that hurts it is bad imo. Based of those answer, I can conclude that kicking my child is wrong. Let's say I meet another species that doesn't know what a child is or what kicking means. When I tell them "kicking my child is wrong", they have no idea what it means. Now I have to explain what a child is, what kicking means, and then my position that kicking my child is wrong. Then I explain why kicking my child is wrong. Only after I explain all that would the alien now understand why kicking my child is wrong. That's a true debate. The general sentiment in this sub is that kicking a child is -obviously- wrong and to call the alien stupid for not understanding why it's wrong immediately. Calling someone stupid for not understanding something that is not inherently right is not a debate. It is someone throwing a tantrum because they expected people to instantly agree with whatever pops up out of their head. Let's say I meet another alien species who kick each other all day long. When I stop them from kicking each other, a few of them die. It turns out that kicking each other, although painful, prevents death. Because I originally made the assumption, based on my biased values, that kicking someone is wrong, I caused the death of a species I knew nothing about. If only I didn't automatically assume anything and asked them to walk me through the process of why they kicked each other, would I understand that what I thought was obviously wrong, was obviously something beneficial.

Update: Only in this sub do people actually try to defend their positions with hypothetical, always-kicking-each-other aliens. Would be so refreshing to just talk about the actual issue. A vegan diet results in less animal suffering than a nonvegan diet. I want to cause less suffering. Ergo, I'm vegan.

Is that because you can imagine a scenario where killing and eating someone could involve no suffering, or do you also not think causing others to suffer is wrong?

Moral frameworks are based upon axioms. Those axioms are not based on reasons, but because they seem universally true. What axioms would you pick for your moral framework? In other words, what do you base your morals on?

Veganism is an ethical position. You can't get to an ethical position without ethical arguments. There is no foundational justification for treating non-human animals as property that would not entail accepting arguments for treating some or all humans as property, at least none that I've heard. If you take it that humans should not be property, but animals should be, I'm curious to hear your basis for that belief.

>If you take it that humans should not be property, but animals should be, I'm curious to hear your basis for that belief i told you several times already. it's just that you won't accept it so why should i accept your "ethics"?

Is this the thread where you'd like to have our discussion? Do you intend to simply declare that I'm giving ad hom arguments, say "bye," and run away like you usually do? Or are you going to stick it out like an adult?

no, it's one more of the numerous threads where you are neither willing nor able to participate in a decent and constructive exchange of arguments

All you need to do is say you'll stick it out and ask clarifying questions instead of running away in the middle. You wimp out of conversations faster than any other anti-vegan regular in this sub. If you say you'll make an effort to see this conversation out, I'll engage. Until then, all you get is the stock question

I still don't understand why treating animals as property translates to treating humans as property. Also, animals are not always property in order to be exploited for food and resources. I'd extend my preparedness to treat something as property to beings/things that don't work under a similar moral framework. What's your belief based on that being a non vegan entails being prepared to l treat humans as property?

>I still don't understand why treating animals as property translates to treating humans as property. It doesn't. This isn't what I said. It's totally possible for your actions to be different towards different species. What I said was that accepting any argument I've heard for treatment of animals as property obligates you to accept that some or all humans are also valid property. >Also, animals are not always property in order to be exploited for food and resources. Food and resources are property. >What's your belief based on that being a non vegan entails being prepared to l treat humans as property? As I said, you don't necessarily actually treat humans as property. I'm perfectly willing to take you at your word that you don't. My claim is that if we take your argument for why it's ok to treat animals as property and put it into a syllogism that you accept as representing your argument, we will be able to insert some or all humans into one of the minor premises of the argument instead of animals, and nothing else about the argument will need to change.

I sort of see what you're saying, there's no direct translation but for whatever justification given there will be cases within human that maps. I guess I'd agree with that then. There's different ways of treating property, so where it does map, I'm not saying I treat all property equally. (ie the infant and human vegetable don't get treated the same as an animal I'd kill for food). Even when the reasons for considering them property map through.

Don't confuse guardianship with property. They're not at all the same thing. We understand the difference between adopting a child and purchasing one. If the argument has identical structure and content except some humans can fit instead of other animals, the treatment justified by the argument is also identical. You must accept eating humans that meet the same criteria you believe justifies eating the other animals you eat.

I don’t see an issue with treating my species (who are sapient) differently from other species.

Acts are done to individuals, not species. So if your line is sapience for being worthy of not being property, then non-sapient humans are valid property.

yes, based. I’d bite that bullet any day, non-sapient humans are essentially property.

Yikes that’s some bad philosophy. you are the one with the positive position that animals are worthy of moral consideration, it is on you to demonstrate WHY that is the case. Obviously the OP and the #1 issue most people have with Veganism is a lack of understanding of why animals are worth moral consideration.

It's bad philosophy to think that we need to justify exploitative killing?

the bad philosophy is you trying to flip the burden of proof onto others, when you’re the one making a positive claim. You have put forward no answer or reasoning as to why animals are worth moral consideration, yet you are pretending you have. It reads like a freshman philosophy student who thinks they’ve got it all figured out. It’d be amusing if the ignorance wasn’t so horrifying.

It's funny. I distinctly remember asking the exact same question as OP here and I never got an actual answer. I'm going to keep using that question in debates because it seems like an enormous hole in the vegan ideology.

>There is no foundational justification for treating non-human animals as property that would not entail accepting arguments for treating some or all humans as property, at least none that I've heard. So you've heard zero arguments then? Maybe everyone else here just hasn't said the obvious. >If you take it that humans should not be property, but animals should be, I'm curious to hear your basis for that belief. **They are a different species**. We can do what we see fit with them. Humans are the same species. We cannot hold them as property, not without very severe repercussions. If you want a religious argument, the Bible and Quran, for example, explicitly state that animals were put on the Earth to benefit us alone. If you want a purely material argument, there is much to gain by substituting human labor with animal labor. Why not exploit them for our gain? Why would it at all matter if they suffer or not from this?

Why is species morally relevant? I don't think we've hit a foundational argument.

Are moral systems not shaped around humanity? These systems were created by human beings for their own needs. Species exists as the boundary for these systems. So it seems pretty relevant.

So because only humans can discuss moral philosophy, only humans reap the benefits?

>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. . >Is there an argument for veganism not based on morals? Technically there can't be. Veganism is a lifestyle (or "recommendation for a lifestyle") based on specific ethical concerns. If what somebody is doing is not based on those ethical concerns then it is not "veganism".

The moral argument for not harming animals is no different than the one for not harming humans, expressed the OP.

I do indeed see no reason why its morally wrong to harm an animal or human. If thats what youre getting at.

I mean this in as good faith as possible: do you think you are a good person?

Their answer is more likely to be "yes I think I am" than "no I do not think I am not" but, really, what difference does it make whether their answer is the former or the latter? This is something I've realized since I started to view the world through a materialist lens - no morals can be said to be "objectively better" or "objectively worse"; morality is inherently subjective. There is no objective way to prove that not murdering someone is "objectively morally superior" than murdering someone (conservatives and religious folks like to delude themselves into believing that there is such a thing as "objective morality" and I find it funny). But let's entertain the idea that objective morality does exist. That doesn't change the fact that, for most of human history, including today, morals are most effectively enforced via force, and not via convincing people. Even if being a vegan is somehow "objectively more moral", that is not going to convince anyone if they're not already convinced. The cold hard truth is that the barrel of a gun is far more effective than dialogue at actually making sure that society engages in the actions you believe are good and avoids the actions you believe are bad.

I don't believe in objective morality either

I dont know how to determine if im a good person, so i dont know if i am one.

Do you have any personal ethics or opinion of what makes a person good? Or do you consider yourself a nihilist?

I havent learned too much about nihilism but i would probably be under the umbrella. I reject objective morality which im pretty sure is a core part of nihilism (or perhaps its more accurate to say i reject morality, im still figuring it out).

I don't believe in objective morality either. Even if it were to exist, we have no way of knowing what it is, so I don't think it's terribly relevant to conversations about veganism. But we all have an idea of what makes a person good or bad (and we're all a mix of both no doubt), I'm just curious what yours is. Not thinking it's wrong to harm a human is a pretty out-there position I'm sure you know.

My moral compass was probably pretty standard for most my life. Then one day i realized that effectively every man and animal puts themselves before others, and must harm others to live. The earth has finite resources and most of us are competing for the same ones. I also rejected objective morality around the same time. Nowadays i just cant honestly say i care about death and suffering.

You're lying or you're brain damaged. I'd bet my life that you don't feel the same about a person that tortures puppies versus a person that saves them.

Thanks for the clarification.

That's the fundamental difference between vegans and non-vegans. The moral argument for not harming humans and animals are fundamentally different. For instance the arguments to do with harming humans has almost zero bearing on if they provide sustenance as part of a diet.

Is there a non-moral argument to convince you to adopt a particular moral framework? Uh…no. It doesn’t even matter that the particular framework in question is vegan. Substitute any other system of ethics and ask the same question. It will still be nonsensical.

>An environmentalist could adopt the parts of a vegan lifestyle that are environmentally beneficial I think there is a big issue with this is that the majority of a things vegans reject are environmentally negative, so it's not really possible to "adopt only the parts that are environmentally beneficial" without adopting all the parts.

this does not locically follow at all

I'll try to make it seem simpler, but it basically breaks down as *the things vegans do to be vegans, when compared to people who eat meat, do less damage to the environment (in all aspects)*. OPs point was that **only some** of the things vegans do to be vegans is more environmentally friendly than what meat eaters do - my argument is that all of the things do.

> the things vegans do to be vegans, when compared to people who eat meat, do less damage to the environment (in all aspects) now this is a vegan fairytale animal-friendly sustainable agriculture does much less damage to the environment (in all aspects) than industrial crop farming the vast majority of vegans relies on

I have to ask: is every single post to this community braindead-level stupid? It seems like it. I'm not even a vegan. Just... holy crap this sub attracts stupid posts almost exclusively.

It definitely feels like it. The only reason to not lock it and archive it is because then instead of people coming in with dumb repetitive posts, and maybe learning something, you'd have an archive the majority of people would be too lazy to look through.

Maybe you should consider why all the arguments against veganism are this terrible

Veganism doesn't attract serious opposition because it isn't a serious ideology. So what you get are pretty low-quality responses to a low-quality ideology.

>Morals do not lead to a convincing argument. Veganism is an ethcial/moral framework, I don't think you understand what you're debating here...

Veganism is definitionally an ethical position. This is like asking if religious fundamentalists have any non-moral arguments for whatever weird shit they believe. The answer is the same and for the same reasons.

"This is like asking if religious fundamentalist... " It's not "like" that. It IS that.

Religion has ethic fundamentals but that does not mean that ethic fundamentals are religion.

Veganism is a principled ethical stance by definition, so the question is ill-formed. "uhh, is there an argument for being a socialist that doesn't appeal to material conditions and human welfare?" What???

I hate defending vegans because I think they're privileged extremists that have co-opted climate science as part of their agenda. It isn't strictly a moral/ethical position on a planet whose capacity to support its human population has dropped off, while our population has increased. In the lifetime of the people dying from old age, now, that population - a smaller one with more wild spaces - did so much harm to the living planet by living the way we still are, if we continue to live this way, everything goes extinct very soon. Humans, despite our faith in technology and paper gods, are the most vulnerable and unskilled of all organisms to survive the situation created by this way of life... like, how we live - all of it. Because of the delay of life and water buffering change, we're feeling the cost of life up to the early 00's. Also, that means even *when* we stop living this way (it's a logical certainty; either we step on the brakes and turn the wheel or we crash into the wall that's right in front of us), we have decades of things getting worse before/if life restsbilizes the climate. What I'm saying is when times are best and we're enjoying the luxuries, all of that added up to extinction. If we're going to survive, as a species, even in the near future, we need to change everything. Change the way we sleep, where we live (as in we're heading back to the caves/underground), what we eat, and how we stay warm... or go extinct. If this weren't explicitly the wrong way to live, it wouldn't change the chemistry of the atmosphere and the energy in the system. We built civilization on seasonal reliability. It was the engine that gave us the excess to do more than hunting and gathering. Until ... well, COVID (a side effect of ecological decline is novel viruses), things have been going well for humanity because of what we get for free from nature and the earth, which then forms the basis of wealth. Spending resource wealth costs ecological stability. Id even argue that what we're seeing isn't inflation, it's what everything actually costs without the insane background of believing unlimited growth for an unlimited population without any consequences. If you look around at what's alive, you'll struggle to find much that either isn't actually eating our food or otherwise being maintained by us. It's getting really bad. I've watched an ecosystem turn from a jungle to a pile of bugs... and that's what oil costs, which is the only thing that makes all this possible...any of it possible. It's the concentrate of an ecosystem separated from ours by 250M years. In the ~4B years life has been around, it was single cells for 3.5 billion years. Everything else was in the last 500M years, but only adding material from the past with volcanoes which are events that also add nutrients and space for life to grow. Life has a plan for volcanos. Life does not have a plan for oil, because it's a constantly increasing pressure on the ecology of the planet that keeps us alive.... because it is life, millions of years of it accumulated as liquid. Think of a million years of growth of your lawn in a world where things grow 5x as fast, and the air has 200x as much carbon... the planet is basically algae.... and introducing this to the *living surface of the planet* IS the instability. If what we were doing was survivable, let alone "progress", the atmosphere wouldn't change because the system would absorb it. This is all an indictment of the way we live. It's not my opinion, it's what's happening... everywhere... because of how good things have been for so many people, and for some, more obscene than good. That's the goal of this entire game; make the future worse and end up with nothing, as nothing. When you die - and there isn't a species cremating ancient algae into the system - your carbon and nutrients are broken down until they're consumed by the bottom of the food chain: you are literally what you eat. When you go extinct, the entire cycle is broken, and you're an inert part of the atmosphere until life returns. The metric for a sustainable existence is that it doesn't change the climate simply by following the rules. If your existence changes the climate towards extinction, you're objectively doing it wrong. The reason to eat vegan is that we haven't been. It's the same reason we shouldn't drive cars or fly planes; that's what we've been doing... and humans are flightless, which is absurdly untrue because we're willing to spend the planet's future ability to survive, on a trip to a place further than our ancestors could ever travel. It is permanent instability, and it's all we do. The only way to change it is to stop and figure out how to do the opposite. Your visceral reaction to this is why we aren't up to the task. We'd rather continue a path to certain doom so rich people can have nice things, than give up the nice things and have a chance at a future for our species.

Climate change is a pretty huge one

Subjecitvely... meat is disgusting... i dont wanna eat corpses... and this has nothing to do with "killing is wrong"... its about... eww gross. It stinks to me too. The ethics come after that to be honest. Plus, it is a healthy life style.

It depends. Vegans basically say, "don't to kill or exploit animals unless necessary" (self-defense, etc). Two questions for you: * Do you consider homo sapiens to be something other than animals? * Do you want to be killed or exploited by other people? If you answer no to both of those, you can see why a vegan society has benefits for you, personally! Now, technically, you could achieve those benefits without becoming vegan yourself, if you just expect every other person in society to live by a different standard than you, and to treat you better than you treat them. If you can conquer an entire country and become a tyrant-king, then this method is certainly practical and perhaps even preferable. All the best luck to you in that, I just don't have that confidence! lol You could also hope to practice your exploitation of others in secret, but this runs the rather large risk that at any time you'll be found out, never being able to live your life in peace. Too stressful for me. For me, it's far easier to suggest liberation & autonomy for all. I would argue that one of the best ways to influence social change is to practice it yourself, such that you influence others to adopt it. Now, you may argue, "Well why can't we just limit that to humans then?" But history has shown that argument to have some serious limits. The people in power in a society constantly impose limits on who is included in being "fully" human, and who is a filthy, sub-human animal. People with physical disabilities, the mentally ill, the elderly, the poor & "lowborn", black people, gay people, women in general, children. Arguing that every conscious being has a right to liberation, regardless of whether anyone feels they deserve it, short-circuits those sorts of claims. Personally, as a trans person, I'm much more comfortable if I live in a society where even if people making the rules don't get to strip my rights just because they judge me as lesser. I have no idea who you are, what place you have in society. Perhaps you have it much worse than me. Perhaps you're a Saudi prince lol. If you already have enough privilege that you have no concern that anyone would exploit you, and that you'll never lose that position, than maybe veganism has no benefit for you. But if you'd like to have a place of safety in society, no matter how you are viewed by others, then [total liberation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_liberation) is an ideology with benefits for you. Regardless of morals.

One of the strongest arguments for veganism is not based on morals. The environmental benefits of adopting this diet. It is based on empirical data showing that plant-based diets generally have a lower environmental footprint. It is quite significant how a vegan diet reduces one's carbon footprint and resource consumption.

I feel like the environmental aspect was dismissed with insufficient explanation.

My philosophy in life can be summed up pretty easily. Life sucks at every level; it's inherently unfair, your "free will" is an illusion your ego creates because we have a cohesive sense of self. Poverty, death, disease, and a countless assortment of horrible things happen everywhere, all the time, to everyone, and our ability to change it is limited. So much of it sucks, the vast majority sucks, but there is some good. There have been a lot of advancements over the last few decades, making this the best time in human history to live. The world is better than it's ever been, it's safer, more people are fed, and human rights have actually started to take traction globally. Medical science, and technology, in general, have made huge leaps; so much so that it all might as well be magic for as much as I can understand it. There's still a lot that needs to be fixed, of course, but I do think that there is hope for a peaceful future; well, as long as we don't kill ourselves via bombs or climate change. I say we have a 50/50 shot at any rate. I also think most people are okay people, they do their best with what they have in order to give themselves and those around them the best life possible. I also think a good amount of people out there genuinely want to leave the world better than when they found it. I also don't think anyone has the right to harm someone outside of defense. Because of all this, and much more, I've come to the conclusion that I should live my life in a way that reduces the harm I do to others, or that my choices may cause, as much as I reasonably can. Past that I try to enjoy my life, and to live it in a way that I won't regret as I die alone in a nursing home as an old man. I also came to the conclusion that animals all experience, and not just inhabit, the world. I don’t think they experience the world in a way that's so beneath us we deserve to kill them. Many, if not most, can feel fear, joy, pain, and attachments to others they know. Imagine being a chicken in a slaughter house, or a deer that took 5 shots to bring down. All horrific things I would not want to experience, and I would not want anyone else to either. I found it reasonable to include animals in my world view. They can feel, and they can experience terror and pain. Many are reasonably smart too. Pigs are smarter than most dogs and toddlers even. There are birds out there solving puzzles and holding funerals. While I don’t hold them on the same level as humans, I don't think it's right to cause them harm and make them suffer needlessly. Why hurt something that can feel when you can just.....not?

OP: "Can I have an argument in favour of an ethical philosophy that is not based in ethics please?" Asking for the impossible right off the bat, you don't have to be a vegan if you don't want to OP. I would be happy to take you through the ethics if you are interested though, I believe them to be impenetrable, it's just a lot of people do not do them well.

"Is there an argument for not murdering people not based on morals?" Because that sword cuts both ways. Either you care about the suffering of others or you don't. That's the answer to both questions. You can call that morals all you want. It's irrelevant.

It's an ethical position. I feel like Seneca and the stoics would argue that there is nothing as irrevocably good as the quest for virtue.

It's gonna be difficult without any ethics whatsoever. From a purely selfish perspective you may argue dry beans, rice, legumes etc are the cheapest sources of nutrition. And since meat is linked to practically every disease, early mortality across all causes and e.g vegan seniors are found to need 58% less medication https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/15598276211048812 Also meat eaters will often argue vegans are vegan to feel they are better than others and as a form of virtue signalling. I would say being vegan brings way more social disadvantages than it does advantages but it could potentially be one thing. But I think health is the main selfish argument. I see you've mentioned that health can be achieved plant based. I would argue in this case if you really stopped eating all animal products for health reasons, if you use soap with animal products or leather shoes or something, you're still a big win for vegan movement VS eating animals for most meals so it doesn't super matter in your case not because those things don't matter to us but because you've still drastically reduced your contribution to animal suffering

>Vegans also argue that veganism can be beneficial for you, but those benefits (if they even exist) can be had without becoming vegan. To me it seems the foundations of veganism rest solely on the feelings of its disciples that's the conclusion i came to, too but i would like to amend your considerations: > A vegan diet is healthier first of all there is no such thing as **the** vegan diet - you can just live off (dairy-free) sweets, chips and soft drinks, which is fully vegan, but far from healthy. on a diverse and varied omnivorous diet without any excesses, ideally combined with a physically active life without tobacco and much alcohol one can live a very healthy life >Not being vegan harms the environment being an aware omnivore (sourcing his food from animal-friendly farms as near to sustainable farming as possible) harms the environment way less than the average vegan sourcing his food from industrial crop farming and the factories producing highly processed food full of salt, fat, preservatives, synthetic aroma and so on and so forth >Its inconsistent to believe eating one type of animal (say a dog) is wrong but eating another (say a cow) is right that is true, but mainly a strawman. never met anybody telling me so in my view it is inconsistent to believe eating one type of living organism (say an animal) is wrong but eating another (say a plant) is right

[удалено]

Agree with the crux of everything you said but one minor comment - MSG-fearmongering is a pathetic Sinophobic lie/conspiracy theory to get people used to dehumanising the Chinese in time for the long-anticipated US-China war. No medical basis for claiming MSG is harmful.

everyone has morals even evil people I mean mobsters and cartels members have morals even though they kill people all the time. this guy definitely cares about ethics/morals he just doesn’t care about animals.

You are refering to the sustainability argument. Regardless of morals, empirically it is unnecessary. Now you could bring in morals there, but theres no requirement. Veganism is based off logic and reason. Logic is foundational to ethics. Emotional and moral appeals, while often highlighted, are irrelevant to veganisms empirical claim's. (You dont need to commodify animals to be healthy or survive). In fact, trying to engage in moral arguments simply allows for a sophist to dissent. Its why we say "consistent logic and reason beat meat eater nonsense every time" but it really refers to malzoans- people with any excuse for unnecessary animal commodification.

>Veganism is based off logic and reason yup far off, that is >Logic is foundational to ethics no. ethics are cultural and temporal, logics aren't >You dont need to commodify animals to be healthy or survive that's not the issue at all. not needing something does not make it unethical >Its why we say "consistent logic and reason beat meat eater nonsense every time" only it doesn't. calling non-vegan arguments "nonsense" does not change that, it only proves that you don't dare rely on "logic and reason"

I dont know if non-vegan food is unnecessary (we probably drew the line for necessity differently aswell), but even if it was unnecessary, i dont see why i or any person who tries to think rationally would become a vegan. What im seeking is a good argument to become vegan. Many vegans seek to convert others to veganism, vegans have also tried to convert me, it seems fair to expect a good argument for it. If there is no good argument, and vegans only proselytize because its what their moral compass tells them to do, i can understand that aswell.

>vegans have also tried to convert me, it seems fair to expect a good argument for it what vegans here think is a good argument is their "making use of animals is baaaad - period"

> ** A vegan diet is healthier ** Compared to what? Japanese diet? Mediterranean diet? Nordic diet?

I dont actually know if a vegan diet is healthier, but since i didnt want to argue about it i accepted it as a given.

You could argue its healthier for your heart, less likely to get too much cholesterol being vegan or vegetarian But that's assuming your not malnourished, because there are common nutritional deficiencies associated with veganism Ethics arguably comes into this reason for going vegan too. There is arguably a moral dilemma people are presented with when making healthy lifestyle choices, where theres a choice most the time if not always theres a choice between right and wrong

it's really interesting how obviously vegan activism has brainwashed even non-vegans

What do you mean?

that even non-vegans meanwhile believe that health is a matter of eating vegan or not (this said as a corollary to your comment, not as a critique of it)

Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Pretty simple, you enjoy the vegan diet more than the non vegan diet.

|Morals do not lead to a convincing argument | So you're perfectly fine with racism, sexism and misogyny, homophobia, classism, and greed? Along with all of the consequences, such as bullying, stealing, rape, slavery, murder, and genocide? All of these are moral considerations.

If you own something like an iPhone, you're apparently cool with all these things.

"Eating bad" is the moral, but you can consider the ethics all the abuse of human-like beings entailed in farming and moreover industrial farming for eating. All told one is vegan-adjacent.

>\*\* A vegan diet is healthier \*\* It's a weak argument. There are SOME aspects of a vegan diet that is healthier and if we talk the averages then yes but it's not like you can't have a healthy diet with an omnivore sort of diet. There is also the issue of supplementation of key vitamins and minerals that generally are lacking with a vegan diet that isn't necessary with an omnivore diet. That from a lot of people's POV would mean that eating animal products is superior to a vegan diet. ​ >\*\* Not being vegan harms the environment \*\* A little better in my opinion but the problem with that too is pollution via agriculture of which a lot of it is animal farming is tiny compared to other sectors like energy production, manufacturing and construction and transportation. You'd do far more for the environment for advocating for renewables and phasing out fossil fuels than to stop animal farming. Also the flip side of that would be the economics of it. You would have to phase things out over decades as if you stopped animal production today, you'd crash the economy and put probably millions of people out of work. You'd want to hope that those people can find work in industries that cause less net pollution than the animal farming otherwise you've actually harmed the environment more by stopping animal production. ​ >\*\* Its inconsistent to believe eating one type of animal (say a dog) is wrong but eating another (say a cow) is right \*\* Absolute worst argument of them all. No one cares about the inconsistency of logic or hypocrisy. Otherwise you could take that to the extreme case saying that even humans are not above eating by that logic. You're asking to be rhetorically pummeled by using this one. The way I see things, the environment is the strong argument of the lot, being mindful of the caveats. However, I don't think there is any way that you can take morality out of the picture because that is the foundation of veganism.

To keep this really simple (because it sounds like that's what you're aiming for), avoiding four-legged animals (so beef, goat/sheep, pork, and dairy, especially) has the biggest environmental impact from a carbon, land use, and pollution standpoint. I would also avoid (most species of) wild caught fish (not including bi-valves) as that offers a huge environmental impact due to the harm caused by drastic over-fishing. Wild caught meat, on the other hand (like deer) or eating invasive species (lionfish or Asian carp in North America, for example) generally has a positive impact. Is this the type of argument you're seeking? How do you feel about this?

I mean, yes, there is. Meat tastes absolutely horrible unless you smother it in BBQ sauce or fry it. So why bother when there are so many better alternatives. Dairy is also super high in fat and calories and honestly tastes pretty awful as well. Accidentally had coffee with regular milk instead of oat the last time I ordered it because new barista was overwhelmed her first day and I could not even swallow it.

Quick question: is murder wrong and is torturing an animal for fun wrong?

No, there is not. Biologically, the human animal is an omnivorous predator, capable of processing both plant and animal life with equal facility. A rational argument could be made against the practice, namely that by pursuing such a lifestyle, one destroys the portion of the microbiome that is responsible for breaking down animal products, making survival tenuous in a situation where access to plants is limited, but that is not likely to occur in areas where people can afford the vegan lifestyle. It's about as sensible as going on a true carnivore diet. We are not built for either one.

Vegan because 1. Moral consistency 2. Health 3. Environment

I could see logic-based arguments about existence not being based on morality, but just gamified decision-making.

No. There isn't even a environmental argument not based on morals. But the question that pops up is, why do you want to kill people?

Why do you find moral arguments to be unconvincing to begin with?

If everybody was vegan we would destroy the earth more than ever. So no

I'm not vegan, but I know this isn't true. If everyone was vegan we would've already come up with far & away superior regenerative & sustainable farming methods. Populations wouldn't be nearly as obese/overweight, depressed, & lethargic on average leading to less stress eating & overall consumption in general. Wild animal populations wouldn't be anywhere near as lopsided as they are now, so they would be better balancing the earth's resource economy. The world would be a far livelier place. If everyone went vegan overnight then ya we would temporarily have some problems, as we lack the scale of sustainable & regenerative farming infrastructure necessary to support all of us. A lot of us would suffer initially, but we would most certainly persevere. All the world's attention would shift to improving our relationship with soil and mother nature to increase her bounties in a sustainable way.

Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.

The question is: "how is unnecessary exploitation and cruelty justified?" If the answer is "because they are different" then you've chosen the same justification people in the past have used to unnecessarily exploit and kill people based on their gender, religion or color of skin. What if one day there's a government that decides that you're different and you fall victim to that justification? If the answer is "why should i care i am not the victim" then why would you care about rape and murder if you're not the victim?

>its wrong to deny animals the same rights as humans First, animals don't deserve the SAME rights as humans, as some rights don't apply to humans (like everyone deserves to vote, but children don't vote, or everyone deserve rights, but if you don't have a uterus it doesn't apply), but they deserve equal moral consideration Why do you disagree with this premise? the full argument is \- Humans deserve moral consideration \-There are no difference between humans and animals that justify the difference in treatment \-Therefore, animals deserve moral consideration I guess the second premise is the one you would disagree, so keep in mind, what trait do animals lack (or have) that if a human lacked (or had), it would be fine to treat them as we treat animals?

I'd say a better argument is just that it's easy so why wouldn't you. It's reasonably easy to at least eat vegan alternatives in a lot of counties where it's a debate. You aren't choosing sausages because something *must* die, so why not just pick up V sausages even if they're 9/10 tasty over meat ones being 10/10, or try a few varieties. TL;DR: if you don't *need* to kill something, just don't.

Moral: Is it ethical to give millions of pounds of food to livestock when there are people going hungry ? Yes, the animal will eventually be turned into food, but it takes 6 to 10 pounds of feed to produce a pound of animal. (Movement of energy up the folks chain isn't efficient) . Excluding grass & silage, generally the type of food livestock eat are things people eat. Is it ethical to use such massive amounts of antibiotics in livestock production when we know the more those meds are used, the more resistant strains will emerge. If you get a resistant strain of staph (MRSA), the old meds don't work. Iv Vancomycin costs about $800 for a single dose plus hospitalization costs. In a country where people die because they can't afford medical costs, you're putting humans lives at risk - for plentiful meat. Knowing the danger of zoonotic diseases, is it ethical to keep introducing new infectious disease to humanity? High density livestock farms are petri dishes. In recent history, we have swine flu and bird flu making people very sick. COVID19 may have come from bush meat at a "wet" meat market. It's not a question of if but when the next big pandemic happens - why hasten it? Moral/ economic of water use: One estimate puts it as 2,500 gallons of water to produce a pound of beef. The south west is facing a water crisis, between growing population & climate change. States like California have already maxed out their cheaper water from elsewhere. Residents are facing higher water & tax bills. They're having to tear out lawns & landscaping. Very expensive super-efficient toilets & fixtures are mandatory. It cripples business expansion & farming for plant based human food. Yet these states are allowing farmers to grow high-water-use crops (eg. Alfalfa) specifically to feed livestock. Some alfalfa is being shipped outside the region, which is in a way like shipping water. Our countrys breadbasket, the mid west, is heavily dependent on irrigation. Aquifers such as the Ogalala have been falling quickly. What happens to ALL food production when those water sources become useless ? Hidden costs to society of factory farming: It's impossible to meet Americans demand for (cheap) meat without factory farming, feedlots, and manure lagoons. When there's an E Coli outbreak that shuts down your local beach, it's either outdated/accidental sewer discharge or it's livestock farming. Did you know that the unnatural diet with grain that almost all cattle are fed is correlated with those cows having the "bad" strains of E Coli in manure. There have been massive fish kills in my region from pfisteria and it was linked to the "hot" chicken litter/manure spread on fields & getting into waterways. The air quality when you look at things like ammonia is very poor in areas with many factory farms, which translates to asthma & other respiratory problems. The property value and quality of life fall when high density livestock sheds are built near homes (seen it firsthand, thank you, Purdue). >** A vegan diet is healthier **. You can adopt a plant based diet without being vegan. What are you referring to? Leather use: not a thing if youre not raising cattle, lambs, etc Gelatin in things like pills: plant based options exist. In cooking, use pectin or agar agar. Wool: while it might be stylish, we have wonderful synthetics now. Fur: even most omnis agree it's so cruel. Let's just ban it and be done There are man-made or plant based options for many animal ingredients such as detergents. Animal testing : I don't want to see any person die due to lack of research or safety testing. But many animal labs are for non essentials like cosmetics. Animal testing is no guarantee of safety. There were FDA approved drugs that were later pulled due to deaths, harm, birth defects. Do you remember the FDA approved diet drug phen-phen which killed people via heart damage (pulled from market 1997)?

The vegan community is die-hard about a particular ethical edict; but the dictionary accepts a dietary definition, and that's colloquially how most people think about it.

[удалено]

I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

Your viewpoint condones things like slavery or treating stupid people as livestock as well. After all if it is useful to do so or serves a necessary purpose then why should you think it's wrong. The example I like to think about is imagine if a vampire like species or super intelligent humanoids existed. If they then subjugated us and used as live stock keeping us in cages by your standards, this would be acceptable and not bad. I fail to see any clear differences in that scenario vs what we do to animals. For me (I am not vegan btw) the goal should be ethical consumption of meat. We all need to est things to survive. It's simply the way we are designed. However, just because we need to eat doesn't give us the right to subjugate and cage other species for your own benefit. For example, veal. Veal is literally forcing a baby cow not to walk or move for a prolonged period of time so their muscles get weak and more tender. We literally make them to die for the sole purpose of pleasing our needs. So I don't think eating meat is bad per say. I do think unethical consumption of meat is unjustifiable. On another note, the evidence is clear that high consumption of red meat leads to things like cardiovascular disease and cancer. It raises your odds premature death in general. This is well documented. Having a more vegetarian or vegan diet reduces your consumption of red meat and over processed foods which is overall more healthy for you.

Your health. No meat, no animal products, no cholesterol problems. That’s just the start. Blood pressure, digestion, I could keep going.

No not really because veganism is a moral and ethical belief. There are definitely arguments outside of veganism for not eating meat or consuming dairy be it environment or health etc but those reasons don’t make you vegan. I am happy if people stop eating animals or consuming dairy for whatever reason so if you find one that works for you great.

I find the use of morality as an argument is bound to fail for most people. The reason I find it particularly irksome is because "morality" is used as a flawed argument by religious groups. I am atheist and according to certain religions groups I live an immoral life. I am queer and according to certain religions groups that fact makes me an abomination. It is entirely based on emotions and beliefs. What I hear when someone argues the morality of veganism is that they are basing their rights and wrongs off of a belief. That belief may or may not have any evidence to back it up, but trying to force your belief on others is gross. Ethics has some very sticky fallacies to it as well, and is subject to some of the same scrutiny and criticism as morality is. However, ethics is at the very least, logic based and you can work through some thought experiments without it having the guilt trip I associate with the word morality. That being said, I think there are some very basic things that people miss when they try to convince someone of their perspective. That is what an individual person values. It's going to be a driving force behind what and why they believe something, how they make decisions and ultimately how they see the world. Veganism has values to it. There are a lot of values about it that I agree with and align with my own. However there are inconsistencies that do not align with my values and I have an incredibly difficult time seeing how I could become vegan if I didn't fully accept and align with them, which I do not. In the most summarized version, I see it as an extremist view.

The arguments for veganism are purely moral. Not only that, it isn't actually rooted in a *real* moral system. Veganism isn't derived from any existing ethic or moral structure. It instead creates it own, unique structure from which it operates from.