Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 3359
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments

Post by Sculptor1 » January 23rd, 2021, 8:44 am

Ishkah wrote:
January 6th, 2021, 5:28 am


Hey all, I‘m working on a video script of a comedy ethical dialogue. So it's ethical arguments to encourage a big lefty political youtuber into seeing the moral responsibility in going vegan, dressed up in a funny way so he'll watch when he's live-streaming.
I think it would be much funnier if you set aside your rather childish prejudices and did a sketch on RIGHT WING vegetarianism
You could start with Hitler and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1193
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments

Post by Count Lucanor » January 23rd, 2021, 2:21 pm

Ishkah wrote:
January 23rd, 2021, 5:22 am
Count Lucanor wrote:
January 22nd, 2021, 11:08 pm

No, you presented a bunch of arguments for vegetarianism, not for veganism. Socialism? Other than putting that label, I don't see anything that would allow to identify socialist views in these arguments.
Oh my holy Jebus, all I’m trying to ascertain Is what you hope to achieve from this conversation.

I was explaining how in my initial post, I presented a bunch of arguments indexed 1-3 and asked for feedback.

You appear not to have read any of it and just knee jerk reacted to a misunderstanding of the title.
I'll grant you one thing: I refused to read ALL of that long initial post and focused only on what I was interested: the awkward association of socialism with veganism, the fact that you were actually presenting arguments for vegetarianism, not veganism, and the manipulative, sophistic nature of the arguments, constructed as practical reasons to convince people of the need to impose veganism, while in reality the motivations are entirely different.
Ishkah wrote:
January 23rd, 2021, 5:22 am
I never argued one needs the other, as I said in my initial reply to you “So there’s many reasons someone could desire to be part of both political campaigns, including simply desiring to act on more than the one principle in life.”
Still I find such contingent association awkward, since they are not just different political campaigns, but entirely different approaches to social action. One might be a legitimate political stance, while the other looks more like a religion or a cult.
Ishkah wrote:
January 23rd, 2021, 5:22 am
Count Lucanor wrote:
January 22nd, 2021, 11:08 pm
Those prohibitions are generally agreed rules: not causing harm to other people's lives of property, respecting their freedom, their dignity, etc.
Right, and many people believe it would be good to extend some of those rules to animals,
I wish them good luck with their advocacy, but they are still far from convincing that many people as to make it a collective social goal, so that it becomes sensible to put it into laws.
Ishkah wrote:
January 23rd, 2021, 5:22 am
which is why we have laws against some bloodsports like dog fighting and badger baiting, or animal welfare laws.
You mean in some places. I tend to agree with reasonable regulations against unnecessary cruelty, which have risen from the process of domestication of animals and the projections people make of their human issues over the natural kingdom, especially when people start treating the pets they own AS if they were persons, even though they are not. That is fine, as this is their private life and their personal possessions, but that does not extend to the rest of society and to all human relations with animals.
Ishkah wrote:
January 23rd, 2021, 5:22 am
And why in 500 years or so we might see a majority vote on a law granting collective legal rights to non-human animals to have a refuge in dense wildlife habitat where they aren’t subject to human cruelty. With the few exceptions where the law is overridden by right to self-defence or special dispensation from the government for example to practice some scientific testing to cure diseases, as well as breed and keep guide dogs for the blind.
This natural utopia doesn't seem to care about animals on which humans cannot easily project themselves. Poor arthropods, among others not lucky enough to resemble mammals, will end up being discriminated.

User avatar
Ishkah
Posts: 75
Joined: September 21st, 2020, 9:20 am
Favorite Philosopher: Saul Newman
Contact:

Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments

Post by Ishkah » January 23rd, 2021, 5:18 pm

Ishkah wrote:
January 23rd, 2021, 5:22 am
And why in 500 years or so we might see a majority vote on a law granting collective legal rights to non-human animals to have a refuge in dense wildlife habitat where they aren’t subject to human cruelty. With the few exceptions where the law is overridden by right to self-defence or special dispensation from the government for example to practice some scientific testing to cure diseases, as well as breed and keep guide dogs for the blind.
This natural utopia doesn't seem to care about animals on which humans cannot easily project themselves. Poor arthropods, among others not lucky enough to resemble mammals, will end up being discriminated.
Has nothing to do with fetishising what’s natural, anthropomorphising, reducing suffering or reducing discrimination.

It would likely emerge simply from a desire to see animals free from being born into a life of confinement and early death who are unable to express their capabilities in the wild. And would follow from an argument against unjustified killing like so:

If the wonder that we experience in viewing wild animals is not ‘how similar to us they are’, but their ‘real opportunities to do and be what they have reason to value’ and one sufficient reason we grant this freedom at least to a basic extent to humans is they have a desire to achieve what they find valuable then; the fact non-human animals experience this desire too means we ought extend these freedoms to animals.

Further explanation of this capabilities approach by its originator Martha Nussbaum:
The basic moral intuition behind the approach concerns the dignity of a form of life that possesses both deep needs and abilities; its basic goal is to address the need for a rich plurality of life activities. With Aristotle and Marx, the approach has insisted that there is waste and tragedy when a living creature has the innate, or basic capability for some functions that are evaluated as important and good, but never gets the opportunity to perform those functions. Failures to educate women, failures to provide adequate health care, failures to extend the freedoms of speech and conscience to all citizens, all these are treated as causing a kind of premature death, the death of a form of flourishing that has been judged to be worthy of respect and wonder. The idea that a human being should have a chance to flourish in its own way, provided it does no harm to others, is thus very deep in the account the capabilities approach gives of the justification of basic political entitlements.

The species norm is evaluative, as I have insisted; it does not simply read off norms from the way nature actually is. The difficult questions this valuational exercise raises for the case of non-human animals will be discussed in the following section. But once we have judged that a central human power is one of the good ones, one of the ones whose flourishing defines the good of the creature, we have a strong moral reason for promoting its flourishing and removing obstacles to it.

Dignity and Wonder: The Intuitive Starting Point

The same attitude to natural powers that guides the approach in the case of human beings guides it in the case of all forms of life. For there is a more general attitude behind the respect we have for human powers, and it is very different from the type of respect that animates Kantian ethics. For Kant, only humanity and rationality are worthy of respect and wonder; the rest of nature is just a set of tools. The capabilities approach judges instead, with the biologist Aristotle (who criticized his students’ disdain for the study of animals), that there is something wonderful and wonder-inspiring in all the complex forms of animal life.

Aristotle’s scientific spirit is not the whole of what the capabilities approach embodies, for we need, in addition, an ethical concern that the functions of life not be impeded, that the dignity of living organisms not be violated. And yet, if we feel wonder looking at a complex organism, that wonder at least suggests the idea that it is good for that being to flourish as the kind of thing it is. And this idea is next door to the ethical judgment that it is wrong when the flourishing of a creature is blocked by the harmful agency of another. That more complex idea lies at the heart of the capabilities approach.

So I believe that the capabilities approach is well placed, intuitively, to go beyond the contractarian and utilitarian views. It goes beyond the contractarian view in its starting point, a basic wonder at living beings, and a wish for their flourishing and for a world in which creatures of many types flourish. It goes beyond the intuitive starting point of utilitarianism because it takes an interest not just in pleasure and pain, but in complex forms of life. It wants to see each thing flourish as the sort of thing it is.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1193
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments

Post by Count Lucanor » January 23rd, 2021, 7:46 pm

Ishkah wrote:
January 23rd, 2021, 5:18 pm
This natural utopia doesn't seem to care about animals on which humans cannot easily project themselves. Poor arthropods, among others not lucky enough to resemble mammals, will end up being discriminated.
Has nothing to do with fetishising what’s natural, anthropomorphising, reducing suffering or reducing discrimination.

It would likely emerge simply from a desire to see animals free from being born into a life of confinement and early death who are unable to express their capabilities in the wild.
This is clearly, undoubtedly, a psychological projection of human affairs into the affairs of brute nature. While some of that projection could be well justified, and we could and should regulate our behavior towards animals in the sense that how we treat them works at the same time in our humanization process, promoting a total ban on animal products for a pure idealization of animalhood and pretending that animals can be free agents just as humans, goes well beyond a rational and compassionate approach to the subject.
Ishkah wrote:
January 23rd, 2021, 5:18 pm
And would follow from an argument against unjustified killing like so:

If the wonder that we experience in viewing wild animals is not ‘how similar to us they are’, but their ‘real opportunities to do and be what they have reason to value’ and one sufficient reason we grant this freedom at least to a basic extent to humans is they have a desire to achieve what they find valuable then; the fact non-human animals experience this desire too means we ought extend these freedoms to animals.
Animals simply do not conceptualize in the abstract their desires, they don't have reason and values other than innate brute instincts. All talk about their potential and opportunities to construct their historical being is 100% human talk, pure human projection.
Ishkah wrote:
January 23rd, 2021, 5:18 pm
Further explanation of this capabilities approach by its originator Martha Nussbaum:
The basic moral intuition behind the approach concerns the dignity of a form of life that possesses both deep needs and abilities; its basic goal is to address the need for a rich plurality of life activities. With Aristotle and Marx, the approach has insisted that there is waste and tragedy when a living creature has the innate, or basic capability for some functions that are evaluated as important and good, but never gets the opportunity to perform those functions.
What deep needs of the animal? There is no such thing, except human projection of their own needs. While the argument works for the human form of life, it does not work for every other species. What are the needs and potential capabilities of the parasitic worms that infect humans? Are we supposed to grant them immunity on the basis of their dignity as a life form?
Ishkah wrote:
January 23rd, 2021, 5:18 pm
The same attitude to natural powers that guides the approach in the case of human beings guides it in the case of all forms of life.
Another way of saying projection of human affairs into natural affairs.
Ishkah wrote:
January 23rd, 2021, 5:18 pm
So I believe that the capabilities approach is well placed, intuitively, to go beyond the contractarian and utilitarian views. It goes beyond the contractarian view in its starting point, a basic wonder at living beings, and a wish for their flourishing and for a world in which creatures of many types flourish. It goes beyond the intuitive starting point of utilitarianism because it takes an interest not just in pleasure and pain, but in complex forms of life. It wants to see each thing flourish as the sort of thing it is.
Flourishing? It would be flourishing from the standpoint of humans, since animals, and nature in general, don't care about anything, nature has no purpose and goals, it simply is. And the entire history of nature is a massive statement about the inevitability of death and extinction.

User avatar
Ishkah
Posts: 75
Joined: September 21st, 2020, 9:20 am
Favorite Philosopher: Saul Newman
Contact:

Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments

Post by Ishkah » January 23rd, 2021, 8:31 pm

More complex forms of life have more and more complex capabilities to be blighted, so they can suffer more and different types of harm. That is what is meant by flourishing beyond pain & pleasure.

Your ability to misread text and throw up a 100 tangents is impressive, so will have to end it here.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1193
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments

Post by Count Lucanor » January 24th, 2021, 11:58 am

Ishkah wrote:
January 23rd, 2021, 8:31 pm
More complex forms of life have more and more complex capabilities to be blighted, so they can suffer more and different types of harm. That is what is meant by flourishing beyond pain & pleasure.
So you end up confirming what I've been arguing, "more complex forms of life" = those who resemble humans.
Ishkah wrote:
January 23rd, 2021, 8:31 pm
Your ability to misread text and throw up a 100 tangents is impressive, so will have to end it here.
You mean perhaps my ability to cut through the impressive amount of cultish nonsense.

User avatar
Ishkah
Posts: 75
Joined: September 21st, 2020, 9:20 am
Favorite Philosopher: Saul Newman
Contact:

Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments

Post by Ishkah » January 25th, 2021, 3:19 am

Alright I regret insulting you, I wish this could have been a lot more productive and will try to learn from what went wrong.

I won’t try and retrieve a central theme to this thread as I don’t think there is one, so will just give my broad position on veganism, so it’s clear what foundation I’m working from.

We know many academies of nutrition say we can be healthy being vegan:
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease. Vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements.

- Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets
And overwhelming evidence suggests almost all animals are conscious beings, capable of having positive and negative experiences:
The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an organism from experiencing affective states. Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.
- The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness
So I advocate we not cause suffering to non-human animals, for them and us.

And that on a spectrum of biological complexity we are doing greater and different harm to pigs by forcing them to live their whole lives in a shed with a concrete floor, rather than being able to express their capabilities roaming the forest, than we are to chickens of lesser intelligence.

But that the solution to both is to let all animals who are raised in the wild and know how to survive be allowed to express their capabilities to their full extent allowing for an emotional flourishing beyond low level gratification like taste pleasure.

And that we let the domesticated animals we’ve bred to limit their capabilities and experience higher risk of numerous health problems like mastitis, being egg bound, etc. To simply go extinct with no one breeding them to be eaten. So that their wilder common ancestor species can flourish with more land freed up including buffalo, mouflon, wild jungle fowl and wild boar.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1193
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments

Post by Count Lucanor » January 25th, 2021, 7:41 pm

Ishkah wrote:
January 25th, 2021, 3:19 am
Alright I regret insulting you, I wish this could have been a lot more productive and will try to learn from what went wrong.
Peace. I want to be tough on veganism, not on vegans or vegetarians.
Ishkah wrote:
January 25th, 2021, 3:19 am
I won’t try and retrieve a central theme to this thread as I don’t think there is one, so will just give my broad position on veganism, so it’s clear what foundation I’m working from.

We know many academies of nutrition say we can be healthy being vegan:
And yet you can also be unhealthy being vegan. If you drink lots of sugary and alcoholic beverages, smoke tobacco, eat too much tortilla chips fried in palm oil, and live a sedentary life with little exercise, you're still strictly a vegan, but unlikely to get healthier. On the other side, you can also be healthy with an omnivorous diet, which means that better nutrition has more to do with the way food is processed and diet planning, than with the prime source of food.
Ishkah wrote:
January 25th, 2021, 3:19 am
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes.
There are many opinions on the pros and cons of each type of diet, either vegetarian, vegan or omnivorous. I have no reason to believe any of such opinions holds the incontestable truth about nutrition issues, but I expect people freely making up their own minds and making their life choices. A diverse, pluralistic society, which I hold as the ideal every society must strive for, allows the coexistence of all these views, even when they are in dispute with each other. It seems OK that vegans will want to convince other people to go vegan using arguments about health, or that omnivores do the same. What I don't find OK is that vegetarians, vegans or omnivores try to eliminate the choices available to the other people that do not subscribe to their lifestyles.
Ishkah wrote:
January 25th, 2021, 3:19 am
Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage.
That is disputable. It seems that it only becomes an argument when we compare any form of exploitation of natural resources with the production of cattle meat, which is vastly inefficient, but there are plenty of other meat sources that do not require extensive land use. Plant-based diets do not eliminate crops, so the environmental impact of agriculture is not really reduced.
Ishkah wrote:
January 25th, 2021, 3:19 am
Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease. Vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements.
This is just a comparison between healthy, planned approaches to vegetarian/vegan diets vs unhealthy, unplanned approaches to omnivorous diets. Since omnivorous diets are the natural human tendency and the majority of people is omnivorous, it follows that they are also the diets most people take for granted and exercise little care in their planning. It makes sense that a minority of people that have gained concern about health and nutrition will move away from customary eating habits, but that is not necessarily reduced to vegetarians/vegans, there can be healthy lifestyles without sacrificing the consumption of meat and other animal products. Because of the 95%/5% proportion between omnivores and vegetarians, it is more likely to find junk food among the options of the majority, but that does not prevent junk food to become more frequent as vegetarian options get more popular. In fact, that is actually happening:
Why vegan junk food may be even worse for your health

Ishkah wrote:
January 25th, 2021, 3:19 am
And overwhelming evidence suggests almost all animals are conscious beings, capable of having positive and negative experiences:
I'm pretty aware that sentience is not limited to humans, not even to mammals. Yet, the kind of sentient experience found in humans is not the same as the rest of species. We not only have affective states and intentional behaviors, but enjoy a high level of abstract thought, language and symbolic processing that produces a different relation with nature and with ourselves. As Habermas once said, a fly behaves in a certain way, a human acts in a certain way.
Ishkah wrote:
January 25th, 2021, 3:19 am
So I advocate we not cause suffering to non-human animals, for them and us.
I find the projections of our own suffering into the animal kingdom permissible, but not to absolute limits. We would like to minimize the suffering of animals, but never make it equal to human suffering. Human interests have the priority, and we must ensure our priorities are rational, sensible, but that includes our freedom to act according to our needs and resources.
Ishkah wrote:
January 25th, 2021, 3:19 am
And that on a spectrum of biological complexity we are doing greater and different harm to pigs by forcing them to live their whole lives in a shed with a concrete floor, rather than being able to express their capabilities roaming the forest, than we are to chickens of lesser intelligence.
I'm pretty sure pigs are more concerned about eating and having sex than about "expressing their capabilities". That is entirely a human projection, a baseless one. I would be glad pigs get as comfortable conditions as practical matters allow it, so I'm not against regulations to minimize animal suffering, especially physical pain, but a ban purely on the basis of suffering I don't find it justifiable. There is lots of suffering and lack of compassion in the wild among those same animals, without they being held morally accountable, because intuitively we know they cannot be raised to the same standard and treated equally as if they were humans.

User avatar
Ishkah
Posts: 75
Joined: September 21st, 2020, 9:20 am
Favorite Philosopher: Saul Newman
Contact:

Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments

Post by Ishkah » January 26th, 2021, 3:26 am

Count Lucanor wrote:
Ishkah wrote:And that on a spectrum of biological complexity we are doing greater and different harm to pigs by forcing them to live their whole lives in a shed with a concrete floor, rather than being able to express their capabilities roaming the forest, than we are to chickens of lesser intelligence.
I'm pretty sure pigs are more concerned about eating and having sex than about "expressing their capabilities". That is entirely a human projection, a baseless one.
Ability and desire to have sex would be an example of a capability many domesticated animals never get to express. Same with getting to search out the food they like most like truffles.
Count Lucanor wrote:I would be glad pigs get as comfortable conditions as practical matters allow it, so I'm not against regulations to minimize animal suffering, especially physical pain, but a ban purely on the basis of suffering I don't find it justifiable. There is lots of suffering and lack of compassion in the wild among those same animals. . .
The difference is, animals chose to risk great pain for great pleasure like goats traversing a sheer cliff edge for tasty mineral salt. Having to live a life being fenced in is always going to be a net negative as they desire to roam, form their own social relationships and not be rounded up and driven to a slaughterhouse with the screams and smell of death.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1193
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments

Post by Count Lucanor » January 27th, 2021, 10:33 pm

Ishkah wrote:
January 26th, 2021, 3:26 am

Ability and desire to have sex would be an example of a capability many domesticated animals never get to express. Same with getting to search out the food they like most like truffles.
Ishkah wrote:
January 26th, 2021, 3:26 am

The difference is, animals chose to risk great pain for great pleasure like goats traversing a sheer cliff edge for tasty mineral salt. Having to live a life being fenced in is always going to be a net negative as they desire to roam, form their own social relationships and not be rounded up and driven to a slaughterhouse with the screams and smell of death.
These ideas of animals having aspirations and self-determination entails the attribution of teleological processes to nature, which is of course wrong, not consistent with our scientific knowledge of how nature operates. And even if we attributed to animals such level of agency as you describe, it would never equal human agency, something we don't need to argue much, since even those who promote animal rights causes agree that animals themselves can't act in anyway in pursue of them, they cannot show any interest to claim and exercise such rights autonomously. They are incapable of doing it and are completely dependent of humans doing the fight. You'll never see a cow in court.

User avatar
Ishkah
Posts: 75
Joined: September 21st, 2020, 9:20 am
Favorite Philosopher: Saul Newman
Contact:

Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments

Post by Ishkah » January 28th, 2021, 1:54 am

Count Lucanor wrote:
January 27th, 2021, 10:33 pm
Ishkah wrote:
January 26th, 2021, 3:26 am
The difference is, animals chose to risk great pain for great pleasure like goats traversing a sheer cliff edge for tasty mineral salt. Having to live a life being fenced in is always going to be a net negative as they desire to roam, form their own social relationships and not be rounded up and driven to a slaughterhouse with the screams and smell of death.
These ideas of animals having aspirations and self-determination entails the attribution of teleological processes to nature, which is of course wrong, not consistent with our scientific knowledge of how nature operates.
Not at all, we’re simply talking about different and more complex types of suffering based on the blighting of different and more complex types of capabilities. And concepts like the hedonic treadmill.

If you feed a dog tastier food than he’s used to, he will be extra happy, and you feed him tastier food again he will be extra happy again, but you try to go back to the second type of food you gave him he will now be unhappy because he’s gotten accustomed to the 3rd type of food.

But you try feeding him tastier food in exchange for never going on walks again, that’ll just make him miserable, because you have to work from the baseline of what his instincts tells him he desires and what his capabilities would allow.

So until lab grown meat comes along we have 3 categories of choices on a spectrum:

1) We can keep buying animal products at near the same rate we are doing, which means confining animals in sheds and so living a life of suffering for our taste pleasure/nostalgia.

2) We can buy animal products as a monthly treat, where we set up herbivore wildlife parks, and pick a few off in exchange for not letting predators eat them alive.

3) We don’t buy any animal products and create large enough wildlife zones with big walls to get to enjoy studying balanced ecosystems, where wolves can take pleasure in a skilful kill and deer respond by not grazing in plain sight by the river, more trees grow back, etc. And people can put their mind and time towards greater pursuits than herding sheep or hunting other sentient beings of equal or lower intelligence to some mentally disabled humans that we love.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1193
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments

Post by Count Lucanor » January 30th, 2021, 5:41 pm

Ishkah wrote:
January 28th, 2021, 1:54 am
Count Lucanor wrote:
January 27th, 2021, 10:33 pm
Ishkah wrote:
January 26th, 2021, 3:26 am
The difference is, animals chose to risk great pain for great pleasure like goats traversing a sheer cliff edge for tasty mineral salt. Having to live a life being fenced in is always going to be a net negative as they desire to roam, form their own social relationships and not be rounded up and driven to a slaughterhouse with the screams and smell of death.
These ideas of animals having aspirations and self-determination entails the attribution of teleological processes to nature, which is of course wrong, not consistent with our scientific knowledge of how nature operates.
Not at all, we’re simply talking about different and more complex types of suffering based on the blighting of different and more complex types of capabilities. And concepts like the hedonic treadmill.
It is one thing to talk about physical pain and even distress, which are basic, innate reactions to stimuli, something all animals share (even ourselves) and talk about existential agony, concerns about the future, life possibilities etc., which is something entirely human. Animals cannot have a life project, they just simply live the here and now and very much as instinctive direct reaction to stimuli from the environment.
Ishkah wrote:
January 28th, 2021, 1:54 am
If you feed a dog tastier food than he’s used to, he will be extra happy, and you feed him tastier food again he will be extra happy again, but you try to go back to the second type of food you gave him he will now be unhappy because he’s gotten accustomed to the 3rd type of food.
But you try feeding him tastier food in exchange for never going on walks again, that’ll just make him miserable, because you have to work from the baseline of what his instincts tells him he desires and what his capabilities would allow.
That an animal's response to certain stimuli can be conditioned by humans doesn't mean the animal cannot learn behavior by itself and survive without humans. Anyway, the dog is already an animal domesticated, owned by humans. Its fate is controlled by humans, so it can't hardly be argued that human intervention cannot interfere with the animal's free development of its capabilities. It is always humans deciding, making the choices and putting the limits to the domesticated animal. Perhaps vegans are against domestication, I don't know, but to be consistent with that philosophy, one should expect that they would advocate that all animals are to be set free in the wild.
Ishkah wrote:
January 28th, 2021, 1:54 am
So until lab grown meat comes along we have 3 categories of choices on a spectrum:

1) We can keep buying animal products at near the same rate we are doing, which means confining animals in sheds and so living a life of suffering for our taste pleasure/nostalgia.
A privilege humans have enjoyed over other species for millennia, and a privilege every predator has always enjoyed over its prey. It may be reasonable to change the habit, but if that cultural consent cannot be reached yet, it cannot be imposed by law now by a minority.
Ishkah wrote:
January 28th, 2021, 1:54 am
2) We can buy animal products as a monthly treat, where we set up herbivore wildlife parks, and pick a few off in exchange for not letting predators eat them alive.

I don't get why, from a vegan point of view, depriving a predator of its natural preys, aligns with the idea of not causing suffering and allowing an animal to develop its natural capabilities.
Ishkah wrote:
January 28th, 2021, 1:54 am
3) We don’t buy any animal products and create large enough wildlife zones with big walls to get to enjoy studying balanced ecosystems, where wolves can take pleasure in a skilful kill and deer respond by not grazing in plain sight by the river, more trees grow back, etc. And people can put their mind and time towards greater pursuits than herding sheep or hunting other sentient beings of equal or lower intelligence to some mentally disabled humans that we love.
Although this romantic utopia might seem attractive to us alienated humans living in modern times, it most likely would mean even more suffering of what humans have endured for the past centuries. It would take such a radical regressive shift towards conditions of life that we were happy to leave behind, that it starts being quite unreasonable. It is true, however, that more moderate forms of exploitation of natural resources are required and that the myth of eternal economic growth is a pernicious one. I would advocate for more modest lifestyles where all the basic needs are guaranteed and there's room to expand for greater pursuits. I don't think you need to go vegan to do that.

User avatar
Ishkah
Posts: 75
Joined: September 21st, 2020, 9:20 am
Favorite Philosopher: Saul Newman
Contact:

Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments

Post by Ishkah » January 31st, 2021, 5:45 am

I'm sorry, I give up again, maybe I've been spoiled by good voice debates on discord where you can just interject with a simple 'that's not what I believe' to prevent miscommunications, but this is just too frustrating.

Final clarifiers; I said we should create some large wildlife parks with big walls to make clear that people would be safe to go about their lives on the other side of the wall. And the second category option was of course not vegan for vegan meaning 'an animal products boycott', it was to get you to think about the morality of a middle ground between the vegan ideal to decide whether half-measures are satisfying enough.

So, where we grant some animals equal or even better quality lives than they have in the wild, but one in which A) Exludes predators pleasure. B) Exludes a balanced eco-system for which is more interesting to study and creates interesting evolution for future generatons. And C) Where we still have people going out and chosing to kill animals for taste pleasure/nostalgia reasons, having to live with the memory and character vice of having caused harm to another sentient being for no good reason.

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 1193
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments

Post by Count Lucanor » January 31st, 2021, 12:32 pm

In the end, it boils down to whether the particular preferences of vegans can be or should be enforced unto the rest of society by political coercion, or not. The answer is, of course, a big NO. Vegan's arguments to justify it simply do not hold water:

- The moral argument fails, because you cannot prove a moral argument as an objective fact. You can prove consensus or lack of it against a given social norm. Most of the vegan's arguments along these lines rest on the assumption that animals have the same status as humans, and while this is a respectable ideal, it meets a bunch of difficulties from the biological and historical point of views, which take us to the unavoidable fact that any measure taken for the fate of animals, is decided among humans, a fact that already puts humans as their masters.

- The practical or utilitarian argument fails, because there are other middle-ground options, which are just as practical. Also it is made obvious that the vegan stance is not as radical as it pretends to be, since they are ready to leave alone other aspects of modern lifestyle, even though modern living as a whole is not compatible with the natural nirvana they say they strive for.

Post Reply

Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021