Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7991
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments
- Ishkah
- Posts: 97
- Joined: September 21st, 2020, 9:20 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Saul Newman
- Contact:
Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments
The guy I'm responding to thinks Kant's indirect principle - that you shouldn't treat animals without dignity for it being a form of self-harm to yourself - can be applied to consuming animal products donated or rescued from supermarkets when products reach their best before date.
I take the position that all disgust reactions to eating any animal or person after death is simply a cultural atitude and can be good or bad depending on it's effects. That the thing we need to be focusing on is encouraging people to boycott animal products so as not to keep funding the breeding and killing of animals and that this is a distratction, as it can actually be good form of animal rights advocacy in rare circumstances. Like how I explain in the story analogy, where you have a food stall of vegan soup and freegan (free + vegan [an animal products boycott]) rescued bread with whey in it from cows milk:
The vegan sign provoked lots of interesting conversations about the ethics of breeding and killing animals. While the freegan sign got people talking about a further layer, asking; how could it be ethical to harm animals when often it doesn’t even go towards feeding people? Which provoked another conversation about the evils of producing such an energy intensive product like meat to just become food waste while people are starving around the world.
So in formal logic terms, this is his argument below, then my main one back, though I offer others in the previous post:
A1) Kant’s Indirect Principle Against Advocating For Freeganism (Unsound)
P1) If I accept Kant’s axioms then I accept the indirect principle established in the groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals
P2) If I accept the indirect principle established in the groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals then I would agree that treating non human animals without dignity would harm myself
P3) If I accept the indirect principle established in the groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals then I have a moral duty to not harm myself
P4) If I agree that treating non human animals without dignity would harm myself and that I have a moral duty to not harm myself then I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity
P5) If I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity then I should reject consuming animal products (as it is the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)
P6) If I should reject consuming animal products then I shouldn’t promote freeganism (as to do so would constitute promoting self-harm)
P7) I accept Kant’s axioms
C) Therefore I should be against freeganism
A3) Refutation of P5 of A1 through rejecting the utility of culturally specific disgust reactions
P1) Non human animals don’t experience a worse quality of life worrying about whether they’re going to be eaten by other humans after they’re dead
P2) In some cultures being eaten by animals after you’re dead is seen as a positive, for example in Tibet, having your energy transferred into that of a bird is seen as a beautiful thing or green burials where your body can more easily become nutrients for both animals and plants.
P3) It probably will be a better world when everyone is vegan and we’re all disgusted by thrown out animal products, in the same way as if no one ever felt pressured by sexist beauty standards to shave their legs again, but it’s not comparable to cannibalism where you’re causing worse quality of life in other humans by normalizing it or normalizing the standard that women should have their genitals mutilated as neither the choice to shave your legs or eat thrown out animal products causes harm to anyone.
P4) P3 entails if I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity then I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)
P5) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity
C) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity, and I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)
-
- Ishkah
- Posts: 97
- Joined: September 21st, 2020, 9:20 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Saul Newman
- Contact:
Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments
[yid]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MXkpCVgU_M[/yid]
And this is the guide I give in the comments:
Through consquentialism it's easy to come to the conclusion that the ethical issue is breeding and killing of animals, cutting short their interests to experience wellbeing. And that if non-human animals aren't experiencing worse quality of life worrying about whether they’re going to be eaten by other humans after they’re dead, then there's no ethical issue to freeganism.
Through deontology however, you might think you should reject consuming all animal products on principle as you feel it is the antithesis of treating animals with dignity.
So the arguments I'd suggest you use on such a person is firstly you could use a simple comparison to argue the way the person is applying dignity is a category error, by saying something like:
"
It probably will be a better world when everyone is vegan and we’re all disgusted by thrown out animal products. And it would be great if no one ever felt pressured by sexist beauty standards to shave their legs again!
But at the end of the day, it’s not like cannibalism, where you’d be causing worse quality of life in other humans by foretelling a gruesome ending. And the same goes for normalizing the standard that women should have their genitals mutilated. Both ideas are barbaric, and rightly rejected.
Neither the choice to shave your legs or eat thrown out animal products necessitates violating anyone’s rights, so I don't really see why people ought not do it.
"
And in formal logic terms:
*A1) Rejecting the utility of culturally specific disgust reactions*
P1) Non-human animals don’t experience a worse quality of life worrying about whether they’re going to be eaten by other humans after they’re dead, humans do.
P2) IF there exists healthy human cultures in which humans being eaten by non-human animals after they’re dead is seen as a positive (for example in Tibet, having your energy transferred into that of a bird is seen as a beautiful thing or green burials where your body can more easily become nutrients for both animals and plants) THEN healthy human cultures in which non-human animals are eaten by humans is also likely possible
P3) There exists healthy human cultures in which humans being eaten by non-human animals after they’re dead is seen as a positive
P4) If non-human animals don’t experience a worse quality of life worrying about whether they’re going to be eaten by other humans after they’re dead, humans do AND healthy human cultures in which non-human animals are eaten by humans is likely possible THEN even if it’ll be a better world when everyone is vegan and we’re all disgusted by animals products (in the same way as if no one ever felt pressured by sexist beauty standards to shave their legs again), that doesn’t mean that it’s not morally permissible to consume some of those animal products at the moment (i.e. it’s not comparable to cannibalism where you’re causing worse quality of life in other humans by normalizing it or normalizing the standard that women should have their genitals mutilated as neither the choice to shave your legs or eat thrown out animal products necessitates violating anyone’s rights)
P5) IF (even if it’ll be a better world when everyone is vegan and we’re all disgusted by animals products, that doesn’t mean that it’s not morally permissible to consume some of those animal products at the moment) THEN (IF I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity THEN I should not reject consuming animal products [as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity])
P6) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity
C) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity, and I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)
–
Or secondly without even challenging their gut disgust reaction to thinking it would be treating the animal without dignity you could try something close to a consequentialist argument:
A2) *Tom Regan’s worse-off principle for advocating for freeganism*
P1) If I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity then I should promote freeganism on rare occasions where it’s an effective advocacy tool at encouraging people to stop buying animal products because the principle that I should avoid very minor self-harm in the disgust it brings to mind when advocating shouldn’t override the principle that it’s immoral to pass up easy opportunities to encourage people to stop buying animal products (which leads to the breeding and killing of animals) because I wouldn’t want to live in a world in which everyone passed up on those opportunities, so I should act according to that maxim by which I can at the same time will that it should become a universal law
P2) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity
P3) P1 entails if I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity then I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)
C) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity, and I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)
–
Or thirdly you could you could try challenging the necessity of the disgust reaction:
A3) *Kant’s Indirect Principle For Advocating For Freeganism*
P1) If I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity THEN I should promote freeganism on rare occasions where it’s an effective advocacy tool at encouraging people to stop buying animal products because although killing an animal isn't treating the animal with dignity, eating an animal to prevent waste is, because you’re eating food that would otherwise have been thrown out, so less food needs to be produced, causing less harm to the environment AND if it had gone to the landfill it might have gotten eaten by maggots which can survive on any food like rotting vegetables, but it would be much less dignity than you could show the animal by putting that energy to use in achieving happy flourishing yourself and setting an example for others.
P2) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity
P3) P1 entails if I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity then I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)
C) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity, and I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)
–
Or fourthly you could try nudging them away from deontology with a kind of virtue ethics argument a la W.D.Ross:
*A4) W.D.Ross’s principle of prima facie duties for advocating for freeganism*
P1) If I accept W.D.Ross’s theory of prima facie duties THEN I accept any felt obligation is a prima facie duty, though it can be overridden depending on the circumstances by another one, that doesn’t mean that the original obligation disappears, it simply means that it's defeasible and it usually continues to operate in the background.
P2) If I accept any felt obligation is a prima facie duty, though it can be overridden depending on the circumstances by another one, that doesn’t mean that the original obligation disappears, it simply means that it's defeasible and it usually continues to operate in the background THEN I accept when I have a felt obligation that talking positively about the consumption of animal products is disgusting and would be an act of self-harm to myself AND I learn about people using freeganism as an effective advocacy tool in turning people vegan who wouldn’t otherwise have considered it, such that I now feel a stronger felt obligation to do the same that the duty to do the latter is overriding, but I’m going to work extra hard to advocate for veganism such that I can know I’ve contributed to a future world in which no one needs to talk about the positive effects of consuming animal products, because the initial obligation still operates in the background even though it was overridden.
P3) I accept W.D.Ross’s theory of prima facie duties
P4) P2 entails if I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity then I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)
P5) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity
C) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity, and I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)
–
- Ishkah
- Posts: 97
- Joined: September 21st, 2020, 9:20 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Saul Newman
- Contact:
Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments
- Ishkah
- Posts: 97
- Joined: September 21st, 2020, 9:20 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Saul Newman
- Contact:
- Ishkah
- Posts: 97
- Joined: September 21st, 2020, 9:20 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Saul Newman
- Contact:
Re: Niche vegan socialist arguments and counter-arguments
Here's a better summary:
Basically some incredibly niche philosophy arguments encase you ever feel the need to defend rescuing animal products that have gone past the best before date like bread with whey in it from shops for free and eating it yourself or sharing them out:
Firstly it can be great animal rights advocacy in rare circumstances like so; by setting up a Food not Bombs stall in the town centre and putting up a vegan sign in front of a big pan of vegan stew and a freegan sign infront of rescued bread. The vegan sign can provoke lots of interesting conversations about the ethics of breeding and killing animals. While the freegan sign can get people talking about a further layer of if it is true that harming animals for their meat, milk and eggs was necessary to feed the population, how come so very much meat, milk and eggs ended up rotting in supermarket skips instead? Which can provoke further conversation about the evils of producing such an energy intensive product like meat to just become food waste, while people are starving around the world.
Secondly non-human animals we farm don’t experience a worse quality of life worrying about whether they’re going to be eaten by other humans after they’re dead, humans do as a species norm.
Thirdly there exists healthy human cultures in which humans being eaten by non-human animals after they’re dead is seen as a positive, for example in Tibet, having your energy transferred into that of a bird is seen as a beautiful thing or green burials where your body can more easily become nutrients for both animals and plants. So then, healthy human cultures in which non-human animals are eaten by humans is also likely possible.
And fourthly, even if it’ll be a better world when everyone is vegan and we’re all disgusted by animals products (in the same way as if no one ever felt pressured by sexist beauty standards to shave their legs again), that doesn’t mean that it’s not morally permissible to consume some of those animal products at the moment i.e. it’s not comparable to cannibalism where you’re causing worse quality of life in other humans by normalizing it or normalizing the standard that women should have their genitals mutilated as neither the choice to shave your legs or eat thrown out animal products necessitates violating anyone’s rights or causing harm to anyone.
-
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023