-
I've got some more niche vegan arguments and counter-arguments, so this time it's puritan vegans vs. legal animal rights advocates who sometimes will use rescued animal products as part of their advocacy (freegans = vegan + free)
If anyone knows formal logic and would like to help make the formal arguments valid I end them all with modus ponens, but other premises are probably all over the place.
-
Re; ‘Freeganism Is Evil’ (Vegan Footsoldier vs. Ishkah)
Intro
Yo, so this is a response to Vegan Footsoldiers video entitled 'Freeganism is Evil'. My understanding - extrapolating from his story analogy - was that he believes you can't both be a great human rights advocate and not care about humans interests as a species norm during a humans life time, to then go against them by eating them. And that the same applies to animal rights advocates and animals. But basically I disagree, because animals aren't worrying about events past their death, so they aren't suffering a worse quality of life imagining maybe they'll be eaten by humans after they're dead.
He also wrote in the comments he uses Kant’s indirect principle to justify calling freeganism immoral, so I’ll flash up on the screen my formal refutations of that for anyone curious.
But the point of this video is I’d just like to tell a story analogy back, because I think narratives as intuition pumps are useful.
So here we go...
-
The Story
Once upon a time a girls genital mutilation ring was discovered in London, this jarringly unethical group of families and surgeons had forced children to have their clitoris's chopped off and it had been in the news that multiple children had been subjected to the practice, but due to an undertrained and inarguably incompetent police force they had yet to be prosecuted.
After it came to light what had been transpiring the people of Great Britain were horrified, they shuddered at what was one of the most ethically repugnant operations continuing to exist in Great Britain.
The surgeons, the elders and parents responsible who had been able to cause unquantifiable tragedy during its short existence thankfully all were arrested by the police. In the courtroom they all admitted guilt and were each sentenced to prison.
Justice! Justice! The repulsed crowd of onlookers shouted as the perpetrators were escorted in handcuffs out of the courthouse and stuffed into the police vehicle. Two human rights activists stood together gravely feeling a sense of deep tragedy for the victims while shedding bittersweet tears of resolution knowing that the foul people responsible would be put behind bars where they belonged, where they would have the time to contemplate such heinous crimes.
Jane and Billy were their names, it was these two human rights activists who played the most important part in the story for they had taken it upon themselves to infiltrate the genital mutilation ring and alert the police.
They already knew what had been going on well before the media picked up on the story and having had little faith in the police to do something about it, thankfully Jane and Billy had become vigilantes to track down the perpetrators themselves, as without the help of these activists it would have likely taken much longer with much more bloodshed until the perpetrators were finally caught.
The police had broken down the door to the secret location in the middle of the night, the parents had already years ago mutilated their two eldest children's genitals and were in the process of mutilating the youngest two when the police stormed the building.
One of the children fortunately was unharmed but one wasn't so lucky, the girl was experiencing massive blood loss and had gone into shock, so she was rushed to the hospital accompanied by the human rights activists as they had been at the scene when the police made the raid.
They had frantically run to the police station after having received word of the mutilation that would take place that day to alert the police and point out who the doctor and parents responsible were.
At the hospital whilst the medical staff raced to save the injured child's life the human rights activist waited distraught in the corridor just outside the operating theatre, Billy paced up and down with a scowling face furious at himself not having been able to bring the police to the location sooner, Jane sat with her head in her hands, if only they had been able to arrive just five minutes earlier maybe even just one minute earlier, never before had 60 seconds meant so much to either of them.
It wasn't long before the medic walked glumly out of the operating theatre door and into the corridor where the activists waited now frozen, now unable to take a breath in anticipation of the news, looking up from her chair Jane burst into a whale of tears even before those six heartbreaking words could escape from the lips of the medic, we did all that we could.
Billy threw his arms around Jane in an attempt to comfort her as she cried engulfed in sadness and regret for not having been able to have saved the girl from this terrible fate. Holding back tears himself the surgeon mustered his most professional voice and said I'll give you some space, if you need me I'll be down the hall.
A week later, Billy and Jane were walking round the supermarket together when Jane got a text from their daughter Sam asking for a razor. She turned round to Billy to read out the text and they both looked at each other concerned.
Sam was 14 years old and had been a mini advocate at school for girls not needing to shave their legs if they didn’t want to, so they worried had someone said something really mean to her for her to suddenly want to shave her legs now. They discussed the issue some more, but decided they better get the razor as it was her decision and if she changed her mind again she could always grow the hair back. They could hardly fight so hard for girls to exercise their rights over a cultural norm like FGM and yet not trust their daughter’s judgement in the matter of shaving her legs.
When they got home they talked to their daughter and found out someone had said some really mean things to her, but that that was a year ago and it had only made her even more determined to keep her leg hair, but that now it was summer she just wanted to try out shaving her legs to see what it felt like.
Billy and Jane still worried she was being influenced by advertisements or all the bullying over the years, but they were glad to have talked it through and furnished her with her very own razor blade.
The next day was a Saturday and Billy and Jane were busy setting up a Food Not Bombs stall in the town centre, having slaved away all morning on a massive pan of vegan stew that could feed 500 people. The bread to dip in the stew was rescued from a supermarket bin that night and contained the tiniest amount of whey from cows milk.
They put up two signs on the table, vegan stew and freegan bread. As well as tons of pamphlets and leaflets with helpful advice on living a low impact vegan or freegan lifestyle and the various campaign struggles in the city and internationally.
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 by the time it came to fold down the table and go home, a great day of advocating for human and animal legal rights, plus environmental protection had been had.
Driving home they got to talking about how Jane had used rescued cheese to help her stay strong in her decision to go vegan. And how she hoped that she wouldn’t have been so weak willed to fail without it, like convince herself that she didn’t need to go vegan, but that probably that happens to a lot of people, and so if more people had access to animal products from a source that is doing no harm to animals, which helped them in their transition to not buying it anymore, it could only be a good thing.
That reminded Jane of a documentary she’d watched which talked about a therapist who devised a technique in group therapy to help people quit cigarettes, which was to on day one, empty bags full of cigarettes in the centre of the group sitting in a circle, to show them the abundance, so that that stress about when am I going to be able to get my next rush is dulled.
And how freeganism had had that same effect of re-aligning the value of junk food for her, getting rid of low level addictions, when you see the mountains of packaged baked goods, croissants and doughnuts produced that day in the shop, stacked in a mountain all in front of you, you know you can get that sugar crash whenever you like, you stop seeing it as such a hot option.
Billy then remarked how interesting it is that buying cigarettes for that therapeutic technique is doing a little harm in the short term, but in actuality it serves a greater good long term. And yet with freeganism no harm is even being committed.
Then Jane said; I guess the perceived harm for many is cultural capital, like in most every culture on earth people would have a worse quality of life knowing you’re going to be eaten by other humans, because of how compassion for our fellow human beings works. But at the same time in Tibet, having your energy transferred into that of a bird is seen as a beautiful thing, so funerals at the top of mountains and your remains left as a tasty snack for the vultures is not so unusual.
Then Billy said; And it would be a great thing to move away from graveyards with cold gravestones in rows and more people choosing to be buried at a memorial woodland site where a tree is planted at the same time atop where you are buried, to be nutrients for the tree.
Finally Jane said; Right, so culture can be good or bad, we have to look towards something more concrete like what brings us happy flourishing and go from there.
Like 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 at the end of the day, it’s not like cannibalism where you’re causing worse quality of life in other humans by normalizing it and the same goes for normalizing the standard that women should have their genitals mutilated, neither the choice to shave your legs or eat thrown out animal products causes harm to anyone, so I don't really see why people ought not do it.
Even though I want that culture without any more domestic animals or carnism, I still just see a win in the political act of rescuing animals and food going to be thrown out, building relationships with people that can benefit from those calories or companionship, where no positive change would happen otherwise.
“Here, here” they both said while enjoying a little laugh. And laugh they did.
-
Formal Arguments
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
-
A2) Kant’s Indirect Principle For Advocating For Freeganism (Sound)
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 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 shouldn’t override the principle that it’s wrong to breed animals to be killed for taste pleasure.
P6) I accept Kant’s axioms
C) Therefore I should be pro-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)
-
A4) Refutation of P5 of A1 using Tom Regan’s worse-off principle
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 shouldn’t override the principle that it’s wrong to breed animals to be killed for taste pleasure.
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)
-
A5) Refutation of P5 of A1 using W.D.Ross’s principle of prima facie duties
P1) 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 its defeasible and it usually continues to operate in the background.
P2) If 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 THEN 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 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.
P4) 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)
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)
---
Description Box
The video I’m responding to is called ‘Freeganism is Evil’ by Footsoldier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2wVcjYION0
The idea for the analogy came from this great video called Thoughts On Freeganism by Catherine Klein:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-lr8XDrM_g
“I understand that shaving my legs and my armpits and everything is a sexist double standard, why are women expected to be completely hairless in order to be seen as attractive? It doesn't make sense and I think it's totally badass when women break this norm and go all natural. It does make me question my choices like I probably should be like **** the patriarchy and stop shaving, just like I probably should be horrified by my leather boots and throw them out because one could argue that shaving your legs is an example of internalized oppression, but at the end of the day, neither of my choices here are causing direct harm to anyone, so I don't really see changing my ways as a moral necessity.”
Freeganism article on the Philosophical Vegan Wiki:
https://philosophicalvegan.com/wiki/ind ... Freeganism
Freeganism video catalogue:
https://activistjourneys.wordpress.com/freeganism/
-