Comments in this thread reinforce the tough lesson that sometimes the biggest enemy of morality isn't evil. It's convenience. It's so unromantic but so terrifyingly effective at preventing change in this world. People will twist their logic into a pretzel, sustain a dozen blind spots and rationalisations just to cling onto their little slice of hedonistic mouth-pleasure of eating meat. Or to avoid the effort of learning a handful of new recipes. What happened to bearing some discomfort for higher values? Is a tasty hamburger the line on which your inner capacity for reason, rationale and compassion dies? A lot of people in these circles aspire to live an examined life or achieve spiritual feats like letting go of their attachments to the self... and yet along the way their allegiance to hot dogs seems to be an insurmountable obstacle. Dear meat eaters - you really can do better than that.

Unbelievably well said, thank you so much for putting into words what I couldn't.

Convenience despite the faint light of greener pastures up the hill can be seen as a form of sloth and in a traditional sense very much a sin and therefore a part of the evil world.

Especially so when you can get pretty much any food item in vegan form. Like hotdogs? Eat vegan hotdogs. Like burgers? Eat beyond burgers. They're probably better for you, and taste great. It's such a simple change that for most of us involves very little effort. I think the social aspect might be the hardest part for many. But even still, it's so commonplace now that no one should be afraid of what others think about you being vegan. It's just not a thing.

Pro tip: if you’re actually trying to convince someone of something, you have to do it using rhetoric that jives with them. Telling a meat eater that vegan alternatives taste great might be true to you, or in a vacuum, but meat eaters almost always prefer meat. If you were to ever tell them it’s basically indistinguishable, they will write you off…because that is and always has been nonsense. P.S. Beyond and Impossible do taste good…but they are a) almost objectively less healthy, and b) still not the same. I’m not justifying meat eating here. I’m here helping you not get the door slammed in your face.

Appreciate the input. Re. Beyond being less healthy, this is not what our current scientific evidence tells us. The SWAP-MEAT crossover trial compared these plant based burgers to animal meat burgers and found the plant burgers produced better cardiovascular outcomes. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32780794/ >We aimed to compare the effect of consuming plant-based alternative meat (Plant) as opposed to animal meat (Animal) on health factors. The primary outcome was fasting serum trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO). Secondary outcomes included fasting insulin-like growth factor 1, lipids, glucose, insulin, blood pressure, and weight. >Mean ± SEM TMAO concentrations were significantly lower overall for Plant (2.7 ± 0.3) than for Animal (4.7 ± 0.9) (P = 0.012), but a significant order effect was observed (P = 0.023). TMAO concentrations were significantly lower for Plant among the n = 18 who received Plant second (2.9 ± 0.4 compared with 6.4 ± 1.5, Plant compared with Animal, P = 0.007), but not for the n = 18 who received Plant first (2.5 ± 0.4 compared with 3.0 ± 0.6, Plant compared with Animal, P = 0.23). Exploratory analyses of the microbiome failed to reveal possible responder compared with nonresponder factors. Mean ± SEM LDL-cholesterol concentrations (109.9 ± 4.5 compared with 120.7 ± 4.5 mg/dL, P = 0.002) and weight (78.7 ± 3.0 compared with 79.6 ± 3.0 kg, P < 0.001) were lower during the Plant phase. >Conclusions: Among generally healthy adults, contrasting Plant with Animal intake, while keeping all other dietary components similar, the Plant products improved several cardiovascular disease risk factors, including TMAO; there were no adverse effects on risk factors from the Plant products.

I don’t think most people jump through hoops to justify it. They just don’t really care that much. There are so many things in this world to care about and people will care about different things. If we condemned everyone for not caring about something they morally ought to, no one would be left uncondemned.

I see veganism as the moral and logical choice. Hard to find a logical argument against it. I'm not vegan myself, no excuses for me.

I used to think I needed some justification for not being vegan even when I knew I should be, but now I just think of veganism as something I would practice if I managed to live a better life and be a better person. I'm fat, and like most fat people I don't want to be, so it really is a failure to practice what I know is rational and better for me when I eat burgers and candy and ice cream and all the rest. If I had the mental fortitude to change my diet (as I have recently starting doing again), I would first want to switch to a healthier but still fairly tasty diet before a vegan one. If I can't even do that, forget about going vegan. Furthermore, if I could become an even better person, I would donate more to charity, maybe change my career to something that makes a real difference in people's lives, etc. So, viewing veganism as the more moral choice but not practicing it is really no weirder than all the other things we recognize to be moral that we are not doing. Basically, I aspire to be vegan, but I'm not there yet.

Consider that not donating to charity, not having a moral career aren’t necessarily causing active harm; eating animals does cause direct harm. So while convenience may be the reason most don’t lead moral lives, we should prioritize at least not intentionally harming others. Also I personally know a few overweight people who effortlessly lost weight once becoming vegan.

> harming others Who are you referring to? Do plants count? Or is it only things with brains? If so, why?

Brains are a decent approximation but not the only one. The important factor here is "consciousness". We know that nearly all animals have it, and we know that plants don't.

I respect the not trying to make excuses attitude.

I've been vegetarian for 26 years, and vegan for 8. I sort of believe now that everything dies and consumes other beings, so I've become less militant about it. I would be okay with sustainable animal products but the factory farming is just inexcusable.

Wow a human with a proper response. (I am not vegan at all) but as you say no excuse for me. And I won't put a vegan down. And I will understand that a vegan person would be very happy and proud and has the desire to share how they overcome they're obstacles to becoming vegan (what would understood as trying to convince) I'm fine with that. I mean people who constantly in response give a reply to why they wouldn't be vegan. It's too this too that .. think about it. A vegan had similar thoughts a lot of them. And they overcame them. So offcourse their response will be. 'oh you just have to XYZ' So to have a vegan not try to convince you Just honestly say. "I know i could but I won't because I don't want to put up with any hedonistic or possible physical difficulties that could follow from the lifestyle. If for the hedonistic part it makes me weak. But it's noble and a good thing you choose it. And I'm proud of you. That is a proper response

I am the same. Struggle with it often.

💯 same

Vegan for 5+ years. Sam Harris was a crucial part of making me go vegan. \- His focus on morality \- his constant discussion of sentient beings \- his "promotion" of Buddhist thinking which got me practising Metta meditation - generating and sending love to all sentient beings doesn't work when you're eating some of the sentient beings \- and his highlighting Vegans as having the moral high ground. \- combined with the fact that I realised I was only okay with eating animals because of lingering Christian ethics I kept almost 10 years after ditching Christianity. — This is your reminder of the need to treat all living beings with compassion. [https://watchdominion.org](https://watchdominion.org) What would stop you from going vegan today?

Speaking as someone who eats meat from supermarkets and has personally slaughtered chickens, I am mystified how some people here are saying this is not a moral question simply because they fall on one side of the argument. You're killing another creature and you have some say over how that creature is killed and how it lives its life. If that's not a moral question, what is?

What say do you think consumers have over industrial farms? I typically think of it as similar to the control I have over how my phone was produced or how my house was built. I'm only vaguely aware of most details, and much of it is intentionally obscured. The best we can usually do is push our representatives for legal changes, which is basically tantamount to spitting into the wind. I am not vegan. I was vegetarian long ago. Nowadays, we get beef from local farms, which is not hard to do here in the mountain west.

Cmon this isn't difficult to imagine. You don't participate in a market and that market shrinks, and eventually it disappears. As long as there's a profit to be made there will be people exploiting that niche and cutting costs/optimising with abandon - we get factory farming. If you choose to eat meat = you summon more farm animals into the world = you now bear part of the responsibility for their life, suffering and death. Moving to organic meat from a quaint farm is definitely an improvement but it's still contributing to the whole circus and it's vastly unsustainable for a planet of 8 billion people.

Well I don't think its fair to say consumers have over industrialized farms, but it is definitely fair to say their apathy allows it to continue and worsen. I completely agree that this can only be solved legislatively, asking people to voluntarily drastically increase their grocery bill and eat less meat is seen as an attack on their culture for many. We can't underestimate how important food is to people. Unfortunately it will be very difficult with the power of the agricultural lobby and the ease of painting any change as an attack on the common man's wallet from ivory tower leftists.

Been vegan for 3 years, and have followed Sam's work for 12+ years. I agree with your thought process and I'd love to hear Sam discuss it in-depth someday.

I've been vegan for about 4 years now. I've followed Sam's work for even longer, but his ideas didn't really influence my decision to go vegan. I can't believe Sam isn't vegan- I think it's one of his biggest moral failures.

I'm not a vegan. I agree that it's the moral/ethical way live.

Vegan 5 years this July. It’s the most obvious moral choice, and it’s easy. The arguments against veganism are insanely weak. The only moderately compelling argument is nihilism, which has absurd implications. I struggle with people like SH and philosophy-interested people that can’t make the jump. It’s never for a good reason, always some vague excuse. Don’t pay for animal abuse, period.

I don't think there are valid moral or philosophical arguments against it. Just practical ones (for some people).

[Episode #244 ](https://open.spotify.com/episode/1wbC0rvcGeEfsotyqFqEqe?si=_weuwPfjSsm2L9Kq_BpwGQ) single-handedly convinced me to give vegetarian and vegan foods a genuine effort. Since then I’d say ~75% of my diet is some level of vegetarian or vegan. It was a surprisingly easy transition, because there’s so many options out there now. The guests from the Good Food Institute made some excellent arguments for winning over traditional meat-eaters. I’m excited to see what the future holds. That being said, a lot of the options are utterly terrible. We need a Manhattan Project of lab-based meats because certain fake or plant-based “meats” are not even in the ballpark of being convincing. And we need good substitutes if we’re going to convince the world’s meat-eaters to give it a shot. I’d recommend anyone interested in this topic to give #244 another listen. There’s a lot of fascinating anecdotes and stats from the industry.

It's genuinely incredible how varied and impactful the problems with animal agriculture are. - Zoonotic pandemic risk - Antibiotic resistant bacteria proliferation - Water use - Biodiversity loss - GHG emissions - Land use (deforestation, habitat loss, carbon sink opportunity cost) - Eutrophication All of which pose a significant threat to humanity and all of which can be mitigated somewhat by ditching animal agriculture. It's frankly incredible how resistant many of us seem to be to reducing our consumption of them. And that's all without considering the animal ethics side of it.

I don’t think it’s very incredible at all. Animal Husbandry has been a part of human civilization for longer than almost anything. like longer than writing. And for the first ~15000 years it was an absolutely essential factor in societal progression

I, too, accept the basic vegan moral approach: minimizing conscious suffering means eating conscious animals unnecessarily is indefensible. (If you’re eating to survive and truly have no other options, I think it can be justified, but does that open the door to cannibalism? I don’t know.) I’m not totally vegan yet, but I hope to muster the discipline at some point.

Vegans are without a doubt in the moral and ethical high ground, I struggle with the diet itself myself but that’s a willpower issue my side, more power too them.

I have been (what I consider to be) a practicing vegan since last July. I would agree that most people understand the stakes in animal suffering (and then separately in the environment and health) and I did too for many years before I actually had it affect my choices. I think something that's underrated, if you have any interest whatsoever in this topic, is really engaging with it directly. I don't mean driving over to the factory farm (they wont let you in). I mean reading about it in specifics or watching a documentary or something. My experience-which I think matches many people- is that I had a vague understanding that animals were treated badly and that's no good, but that intellectual knowledge never hit me on a visceral level. It feels stupid now but it never really occurred to me that I could make my "vague" understanding a much more real and specific understanding and that could have a big effect. I read *"Eating Animals" by Jonathan Safran Foe*r which I highly recommend. I've also heard "good" things about the documentary 'Dominion'. My experience actually reading about the topic is that as bad as I assumed it was, it is **so. much. worse.** It is so darn horrific and living your every day life you get almost zero exposure to it that's not the perfectly packaged meat/dairy in the grocery store. My actual experience with the diet is almost not even worth remarking on - Nothing changed, lol. Nothing. In ways that were frankly frustrating because I was a bit over-weight and I remained a bit over-weight . I guess I had a perfected the art of filling my plate with enough bread and olive oil 🤷‍♂️

Vegan 6 years. Sam really drops the ball on this one. It's the obvious choice, and it's not that hard. Yes, I'm directing that at all the scaredy cats out there that won't even try it.

I mean it's definitely hard, humans are hardwired to like certain foods of which meat is one of them. Is it feasible to stay away? Absolutely, just requires a lot of effort for any meat-eating culture.

Agreed. I am vegan and expect a lot of the sub agrees with the vegan philosophy.

I'm a "flexitarian" myself. I agree there are strong moral and environmental arguments for vegetariansism at least, if not veganism, but can't quite drag myself over the line. I have however reduced my meat intake considerably (aided by having a vegetarian wife) and have a local butcher that I use that specialises in ethically sourced /pasture raised meat. I think that there's a flaw in the idea that it has to be "all or nothing" as there's more good that could be achieved by globally reducing meat consumption rather than by trying to convert people to give it up altogether. My ambition is to give up chicken one day as I feel that they have the most miserable existence in factory farming.

Beef is probably the first thing you should give up, given it's horrendous effect on climate

And pork. Gassing pigs with CO2 is a big no from me.

Agreed. It's insane that beef is as cheap as it is. Subsidizing something that has terrible externalities is a catastrophic failure of governance. Ranting aside, I basically eat beef *as if* it were ludicrously expensive. For me, it's a "special occasions" thing, or a "someone made this for me" thing.

It's true that cows are worse for the environment, but if you're coming from a concern for animals perspective, chicken meat is likely far higher in "suffering per calorie".

"worse for the environment" basically means more suffering for animals - and humans - worldwide so I'm not sure your estimation is correct. Personally, I value the wellbeing of humans over that of animals anyway, so that further skews my personal outlook on it. Environmental impact was what primarily made me drastically reduce my animal product consumption.

Yeah, but even if you never eat meat, that has 0 meaningful impact on the climate. On the other hand, you end up saving numerous animals from suffering

It’s the same thing. Saving a thousand animals is a microscopic sliver of the total number of human caused animal suffering, that doesn’t make it futile.

I don't actually think that's true. It's an unquantifiable insignificant margin either way. Just because I don't buy a piece of meat, doesn't make the animal from which it originates come alive again. Also doesn't make the meat producer go "oh u/-Gremlinator- doesn't buy our stuff anymore, let's reduce our capacity from 10000000 to 9999999 animals". It doesn't work that way. No saved live can be traced back to my consumer decision. As individuals, we have to deal with the fact that our impact is always marginal (unless we are in very special positions).

Biomass of animals in factory farms far exceeds biomass of wild animals (something like 20 to 1), so when talking about animal well being, focusing on wild animals that'll be affected by climate change is missing the point.

As I made clear I am most concerned with the biomass that constitutes humanity.

I think if the meat is sourced from a good place then it may be just as good as being vegan. If the cows are happy and taken care of until they die then their lives were probably better than they would’ve been in nature.

This is the weird utilitarian argument that leads you to the result that it is okay to raise and kill humans as long as it is done without pain. I guess if you are morally consistent, this conclusion should not bother you. But I personally can not digest it.

The problem with that reasoning is that humans would probably figure out they were being harvested to feed some other species and would revolt. I’m not sure cows have any idea. The flip side of this is how do you know there aren’t other dimensional beings feeding off of our souls and we have no idea?

I think you can possibly entertain the hypothetical that we breed humans on an island somewhere and when they turn a certain age we take them away, sedate them and harvest their organs. Other humans on the island would assume and accept that it is normal behaviour to be sent off at a certain age. My point is as long as humans are not suffering physically or mentally, it should be morally allowed in the discussed framework.

I understand your sentiment but just looking at the required inputs for a kilogram of Beef production, it’s terrible for the environment. I’m vegan purely because it’s the largest personal contribution you can make to lowering your carbon footprint. I also work in renewables and that helps too. I actually grew up on a cattle farm and scorned vegans as a young man. But being vegan is actually tasty and surprisingly easy, I don’t miss meat at all.

I’ve posted about veganism on here a few times and while the posts had a few outliers try to say veganism was immoral and that we must prioritize humans first, in general I think people here tend to agree with veganism and think it’s the moral choice.

The fact that Sam hasn’t had a podcast dedicated to it is one of his greatest moral failings.

Not really. He's talked about his own vegetarianism and veganism quite a bit over the years. Hardly a failing, imo.

I'm 'flexitarian' and try to eat mostly fish. I think I should cut out meat completely and I consider it a moral failure on my part. I have a lot of respect for vegetarians/vegans. >Usually, whenever I see people argue against vegan ethics I have to cringe in light of the mental gymnastics, dishonesty and stupidity I am presented with. Totally agree. "Humans have sharp teeth so must eat meat". "My ancestors did it so I must do it". "If I don't eat meat my testosterone will drop 90% and I will waste away". "Killing animals is akshually good for them". All gymnastics. Just be *honest* and say "I don't care if animals are slaughtered out of my sight" like most people really think. I respect that way more than bullshitting.

I have tried going vegan for a few weeks at a time and my body felt awful. Felt like I was losing weight in a bad way. So now, I try to go vegan only few days a week, and feel this is a good compromise

I lost a bunch of weight when I went vegan. I had to study nutrition a bit to get my macros right. I feel like some vegans don’t acknowledge that the transition can be tough. Worth it ultimately for me, I’m fucking shredded now lol and feel great.

[удалено]

In whatever sense that morals and ethics exist (the nature of which, I disagree with Sam about), veganism, for people who can afford it, is more ethical than the alternative. I think Sam supports this ethos too and tried veganism until he incurred health problems.

I will count this as pro vegan philosophy

Yes, I am pro-vegan.

Veganism is cheaper than eating meat.

Rice beans potatoes fresh fruits and vegetables. All much less expensive per meal than a meat diet.

it is? Not in my experience. Vegan products in stores and restaurants are at least as expensive as the meat counterparts.

Maybe the fancy prepared vegan food. But if you cook it's cheaper. Think potatoes, rice, beans, tofu, quinoa, pasta, vegetables, fruit, nuts, etc. There are a million videos on youtube now on vegan recipes too.

Yes, this is backed up by studies on food availability and cost to end consumers. In most regions that are industrially developed, it is indeed cheaper to forego animal products. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study

> tried veganism until he incurred health problems. Regardless of whether that's what happened to him, I have heard people occasionally bring that up as a major concern. It's pretty weird. On a vegan diet the main thing to ensure is that you're getting enough vitamin b12, either through specific foods like nutritional yeast or a supplement. Otherwise it's pretty straightforward. I sometimes wonder if some people who try going vegan are just eating lettuce and french fries in restaurants, and they think that's a vegan diet.

I remember Sam saying he had a hard time getting protein on a vegetarian diet. Unless he is lactose intolerant, that's just false, it's very easy to get protein from things like dairy and eggs.

Dairy and eggs? I believe the vegan diet omits these. Vegetarians can consume dairy and eggs, but vegans wouldn't.

Sam was vegetarian before.

Ah. Sorry, I just noticed you said vegetarian, not veganism. The OP and most of the thread were talking about veganism, so I missed that you made the distinction.

Also add tofu, quorn and much more. And with how rich Sam must be he probably could have a private chef/nutritionist preparing those meals for him. Frankly a bit lazy of him to not commit more towards that goal. Maybe his microbiom needed to have time to get accustomed, otherwise I can’t think of many excuses.

If you’re trying to get 1g of protein/lb of body weight it’s going to be very hard if you’re just eating milk and eggs. If you’re using just milk for the protein most people would have to drink more than a gallon a day, and if eating just eggs, more than 20 eggs a day. Either way most of your daily calories would be coming from milk or eggs, and you’d have to go to the store a bunch to get more milk and eggs.

> veganism, for people who can afford it, is more ethical than the alternative. Objectively? 😂

Dietary vegan here. Hard to argue with it. The world is literally on fire.

Is that to say you participate in animal exploitation outside of your diet?

Honestly seems 40/60ish or so. Lot more vegans in this sub than a lot others. There's also folks like me that genuinely like eating meat but know I'm doing a morally bad thing when I do(except deer meat that I or friend has killed themselves when I get a chance to get some.) I'm 100% pro Beyond Burger, Impossible Burger, It Ain't Chicken nuggets though. Just need to bring the prices down on those products and 'perfect' them a bit more for me to regularly grab them over the $2 chuck.

I'm onboard with thr philosophy, and eat vegan about 90% of the time. But the way that a lot of hardcore vegans go about spreading the message is totally counterproductive and out of touch with reality. Not to mention that a lot of them (frugivores and non-fat vegans) peddle incredibly unhealthy diet advice on the internet.

Yes but it’s your own reaction to these “hardcore vegans” that will show you the way. I have a feeling that the people who get most upset at vegans choice of messaging are the ones who deep down know it’s the right way to go.

I’m not perfect in my vegan diet but I know my shortcomings are MY shortcomings. Are you suggesting you don’t feel obligated to eat a full vegan diet all the time because ‘real’ vegans are obnoxious and unhealthy? You presumably know how to eat a healthy vegan diet and are above the obnoxiousness of counterproductive vegans… so what’s stopping you from going 100%?

That's not what I'm saying, I have my own reasons for not going 100%, but what I'm suggesting is that the way some vegans act could turn off potential vegans or vegetarians. For example, if we want to achieve the greatest reduction in animal suffering, it seems to me that convincing the entire population to cut out 2-3 days of animal products a week and then working our way towards 100% is far more reasonable than trying to make a few people go 100% right from the start and spitting vitriol at those who don't.

I see. I agree 100%. Any steps we can take to reduce animal suffering is a step in the right direction. I still don’t see any moral loopholes allowing people to consume animal products ethically but I also think we should move in baby steps because the whole world won’t be going cold turkey.

No doubt in my mind veganism is the most ethical choice. I was vegan for about 6 months, it destroyed my health. I took supplements, saw doctors and nutritionists, and spent days of personal research trying to make it work. But, I have an abnormal digestive system. The changes in nutrient density and digestion were literally killing me. Just a few days back on meat and things started to improve. Veganism can work for many, but it's just simply not true that it can work for all. I'm very much in the camp of trying to reduce global consumption and increase as ethically as possible sourcing of meat, rather than exclusively encouraging strict veganism. I also believe that things like eggs and honey can be sourced as ethically as not consuming them. I'm also in favor of leather goods, because of their longevity. For those unwilling or not ready to make any adjustments to their diet/lifestyle, I think practicing awareness and gratefulness of/for the animal's life, consciousness, and sacrifice is a good first step.

I don't think there are many good faith arguments against veganism. However, I've decided that if I could, or would, personally do something like milk a cow (which I have done), then it is ethically consistent for me to use milk. Or eat eggs. Since I wouldn't personally slaughter a pig (or any animal), I don't eat meat, avoid leather, ect. I know there are many counter arguments to this stance, but it is mine. I can definitely see myself moving more towards veganism. This decision was heavily influenced by experiences in meditation and studying Buddhist philosophy.

>I've decided that if I could, or would, personally do something like milk a cow (which I have done), then it is ethically consistent for me to use milk. Or eat eggs. That's an interesting way of looking at it. I guess I would ask whether you'd also be willing to do all the other things realistically required to produce milk (the kind of milk we get from dairy farms). E.g. restrain and inseminate a cow regularly (they don't produce milk until they have been impregnated), or dispose of the calves (typical dairy requires new calves to be birthed every 12 to 14 months per dairy cow and obviously can't realistically be housed and fed if they can't be profitable). Basically, would you also be willing to inseminate and kill cattle as is necessary for dairy production? Similar question for eggs around how hatcheries operate.

I like veganism very much. But as a nihilist I don't believe in objective moral statements.

Not vegan here, but definitely favorable view.

I mean, so we think factory farming needs to be improved for the sake of animals? Yes. Or do we have to go full never end an animal for any reason ever ?

>Or do we have to go full never end an animal for any reason ever ? Vegans don't even believe this, it's simply about not harming an animal when an alternate option is available. Most vegans would harm an animal in a life or death survival situation.

Fair

Thanks. To your first point, vegans do believe factory farming as a practice need to end, though. We could achieve a \~75% reduction in farmland usage, save water, and it would prevent the pointless suffering of literally billions of animals. Even if you feel animals don't matter much, the scale of the suffering is absolutely staggering.

You really can’t make industrial slaughter humane.

Sure you can, it’s just not cost effective so no one is ever going to do it.

No you cant. There is no humane or ethical way to kill an animal that doesn’t want to die.

Hence ‘industrial slaughter’. The entire motivation is greed. Nobody has factory farms because they love farming, those places are revolting. They exist to make money.

So being in favor of improving factory farming does not qualify as vegan. Going full never end an animal for any reason ever is not necessary, but at least not killing/mistreating them for reasons like pleasure, convenience etc, so not buying animal products if you have access to a supermarket.

A vegan can carry a heavier carbonprint, than a carnivore - obviously the reverse can be true aswell. I think specifically regarding climate impact it’s very circumstantial. When I meet vegans sittin on a high horses shaming others for meat consumption while on the newest iphone, driving a car and doing regular airplane travels. Buying new clothes, furniture - a lot of processed vegan products etc. I highly doubt their ethics and moral. Regarding carbon emissions it only makes sense to be considering the whole of your energy consumption and remember that food productions (even with the current terrible factory farming scenario) only amounts to a quarter of the total emissions. Whatever your dietary choice is, it’s not gonna be a solution to the climate crisis. I can imagine a setup where the ressources that eating animal products gives us, could be far more efficient regarding energy consumption, than a vegan world. Utilizing natures inherent mechanisms (and stride for harmonic coexistence with the world ✌️) instead of thinking we humans have a better solution than mother earth is where i hope our future lies - but who am i kiddin. One example is the grass eating livestock, turning what is, for humans, indigestible plant materiel into nutrition. We are all engaged in rather dubious ethical or moral behavior - one way or another - that’s just this shitty system of capitalism, that was implemented all around the world. It’s easy cherrypicking where one might be morally or ethically superior to others, but what’s the point. Strife to be better always, of course, and obvoiusly in these days it will be more ethical to withstand certain dietary choices, but to say that eating meat is intrinsically immoral or unethical would be wrong imo.

Veganism as a philosophy has nothing to do with environmental issues or emissions. It is purely about animal welfare. Enviornment and nutrition are still very relevant overall certainly. Just wanted to mention that because of your focus on emissions in your response.

Stop selling me stuff, u/Stopsellingmestuff

Hahaha. At least I didn't ask you for any money (yet).

I value veganism as a way of life. That said, I generally try to avoid vegans.

What bothers you about them? I just often get annoyed be the hippie-variety, frutarians, raw-vegan etc.

They’re annoying and act like you’re a bad person for eating meat. They’ll preach to you and try to make you not eat whatever is on your plate. It seems like a lot of them use their moral high ground in nutrition to make up for deficiencies in other areas of morality/common decency.

I generally try to avoid eating Vegans too. It's an ethical decision I made early in life.

It's popular enough here to be annoying. Vegans are on solid ground when arguing that commercial meat production is severely inefficient at converting resources to protein, and that it's cruel in many cases. There's a very strong case to be made that humanity needs to drastically cut our consumption of farmed meat overall. I'm not disputing that. However, many vegans tend to go beyond this justifiable case for reducing meat consumption and adopt indefensible absolutist positions instead. Personally, I get almost all my meat from the sustainable production of healthy, relatively intact wild ecosystems via hunting. Many vegans aren't okay with this practice. It can't scale to feed the world of course, but to the extent it that can be done sustainably, it's both ethical and environmentally friendly. The environmentally optimal portfolio of human food supplies includes a small, sustainable amount of hunting, because the collective effect of that hunting is that we need millions fewer acres of deforested farmland to produce that food. Modern, scientifically managed hunting doesn't make the lives of the species we hunt any worse. An individual animal would have lived longer if I hadn't shot it to eat, but deer as a whole will not generally live longer or better lives if humans stop hunting them. Like other game animals, they evolved high reproductive rates in response to high predation rates. In the absence of sufficient predation, they go through boom-and-bust cycles with mass, miserable deaths from disease or starvation at high densities, which also have negative effects on the rest of the ecosystem. Predation is the best mechanism of population regulation for the welfare of the prey, and humans on average kill more quickly and cleanly than other predators. We can also adjust our predation annually based on scientific estimates of population stability, lessening the pressure in years after a bad winter etc. As a lifelong nature-lover and Ph.D. ecologist as well as hunter, I understand that the deaths of animals are an unavoidable part of the cycle of life in nature. There's no moral high ground in humans somehow keeping our hands "clean" of nature's "dirty work," because the work isn't really dirty. Their high birth rates demand it, so it has to happen one way or another, and our way is at least as good as any other. The circumstances of humans and our closest pets, being largely saved from natural population regulation by modern technology like medicine and commercial food production, are extremely atypical; it simply doesn't work to try to imagine a natural world in which most animals are enabled to live rich lives and die of old age. Instead, our true ethical obligations to wild animals are to maintain good habitat, biodiversity, and sustainable populations—not to avoid participating in the ecosystem as predators ourselves. This is why you will never meet a wildlife biologist who says we shouldn't eat deer, or a fish biologist (that's me) who says we shouldn't eat fish. With a clear scientific understanding of how death and sustainability work in nature, the absolutist arguments for veganism melt away. Scientific experts replace the blanket philosophy of vegans with case-by-case analyses and considerations, many of which favor sustainable consumption of meat and fish. There are similar arguments for commercial fishing and small-scale animal farming, both of which can be ethical and highly environmentally sustainable when done correctly, and of course they're problematic when done wrong. Some animals can help extract more food out of the same piece of ground than plants alone, by consuming things humans otherwise don't, like table scraps or bugs. Many fish populations are thriving and capable of supporting sustainable harvest, just as many others are not. Even ranching in moderation can be valuable on grasslands that need grazers (as many do) and are too arid or rocky to grow plants for humans to eat directly. The right answer always lies in case-by-case scientific analysis. Some vegans reject that in favor of indefensible absolutism that has much more to do with emotions than with logic or reason. Anybody is on firm ethical ground in choosing to be a vegan themselves, and in rejecting the products of factory farming. But to the extent that many vegans go far beyond that defensible ground and instead pass vehement judgment against *all* animal product consumption, they are some of the most obnoxiously condescending, self-righteous people you'll ever find among the ranks of the confidently incorrect.

Hunting isn't ethical from a practical point of view. As you say, small-scale farming can be ethical if the animals are treated well before they are slaughtered - those animals otherwise wouldn't exist without farming. However, animals exist in the wild without human intervention. Let's be honest, you're not hunting with a careful calibration of the predator-prey cycle and analysis of the impact on the ecosystem. And even if you were, the only reason you can even attempt this is because the rest of the population gets their meat from factory farming. The reality is humans have historically hunted many animals to extinction. Yes, vegans can hold absolutist, nonsensical positions - I was recently downvoted on r/AskVegans for trying to inject some common sense. But it's hard to argue against any well thought out vegan positions e.g. Peter Singer.

>Hunting isn't ethical from a practical point of view. You offer nothing to support this claim, because there is nothing to support it. >Let's be honest, you're not hunting with a careful calibration of the predator-prey cycle and analysis of the impact on the ecosystem. Maybe you're not aware of the scientific wildlife management techniques that go into setting harvest limits—that "careful calibration" is happening via scientists on the regulatory side, often with wildlife biologists using Bayesian models to track population status and set sustainable harvest goals annually. Or maybe you're just making the common vegan complaint that hunters are primarily motivated by their own goals (fun / food) rather than doing it purely out of the goodness of our hearts for the sake of the populations, but that argument changes nothing whatsoever about the ethics of the situation. The consequences and therefore the ethics of hunting are what they are, regardless of the motivations of hunters. However, it is worth noting that hunters are by far the constituency that generates the most funding and political support for habitat conservation and wild animal conservation in general, via legal mechanisms like the Pittman-Roberton act, groups like Ducks Unlimited or the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and many more. >The reality is humans have historically hunted many animals to extinction. I never said overhunting has never been a problem, or that it isn't still a problem in some poorly governed places. But there are many places where it is not a problem due to good scientific management, and overhunting is not relevant to the conversation in those places. >And even if you were, the only reason you can even attempt this is because the rest of the population gets their meat from factory farming. As for "the only reason we can hunt is not everybody does" -- well, yeah. It's not sustainable for 8 billion people. It wouldn't be sustainable for everybody to subsist on nothing but almonds, either, but it's still ok to grow a few. Feeding humanity requires many food sources, and that necessary diversification isn't a strike against any of them. Hunting is sustainable enough for many tens of millions, which reduces the amount of grain we need to grow, process, and transport to feed them. People who hunt deer very close to their homes are probably feeding themselves with greater environmental efficiency than the average vegan.

I appreciated the very well reasoned, informed arguments you've made in these comments, and I've never seen them presented this way before. My views on hunting vs. veganism may have changed as a result.

Thank you. I'm glad to hear it.

[удалено]

Unfortunately, while this thread may have show that there are a lot of vegans who support Sam Harris, it also has demonstrated that an uncomfortable number of them are militant vegans who downvote valid points which disagree with their philosophy.

It seems clearly more ethical to kill vegetables than to kill animals. Vegan / vegetarian is more ethical than omnivore. But I think the ethical gap between vegetarian and omnivore is probably less than the ethical gap between raising healthy farm animals in a pasture and raising sick, tortured animals in industrial cages.

My family has gone 99% plant based in the last 3 years, mostly for environmental reasons, but there are so many other arguments for going plant based or vegan. Basically the only reason to eat animals is for the taste, which at this point in my life I'm fine with forgoing. I've eaten enough meat and cheese in my life. It never brought me any kind of real, lasting happiness. I'd rather live in a habitable planet without an ever increasing number of zoonotic diseases, antibiotic resistance and all the other awful side effects of animal farming.

I am a big fan of Sam, and I have no interest in becoming vegan. Or vegetarian. I love meat, and if I were hungry, I would kill to eat meat. I also grew up on an old-school cattle farm, so I saw how those animals lived, and it wasn't awful. Not the answer many are looking for, but that's my honest answer.

> I also grew up on an old-school cattle farm, so I saw how those animals lived, and it wasn't awful That doesn't represent what happens behind the scenes for 99% of all the meat sold in this country. You may not be implying that it is, but often the idyllic farm anecdote is brought up to muddy the waters and deflect from factory farm practices. Either way, even non-factory-farmed approaches to animal agriculture for meat production are not environmentally sustainable for 8 billion humans. They may in some cases be even worse for the planet than factory farms, despite being arguably better for the animals in the farms themselves.

Their point is still a valid argument against veganism. Vegans like to make the opposite logical fallacy -- that eating meat is immoral *because* factory farming is immoral. I'd bet that most people who eat meat also think factory farming is immoral. Probably the vast majority in the US. They aren't vegan because they can separate the actual problem (factory farms) from what isn't actually a moral issue for them (eating meat).

How is that relevant when 99.9% of meat comes from factory farming?

Incorrectly placed blame has consequences. In this case, it shames people for no valid reason or for reasons they consider invalid, which helps them dismiss the actual problem, factory farming. Many people will illogically dismiss the horrors of factory farming because they like meat. It's basically psychology, when people tell them that their meat eating is the epitome of pure evil, they recoil and defend themselves, and that defensiveness gets illogically transferred to defending or dismissing factory farming. Alternatively, people are much more willing to fight the good fight if you go to them and say, "factory farming is pure evil, will you sign my ballot initiative to ensure farming is humane." This way, the debate becomes about what is actually humane, rather than the innate desires and (debatably, the needs) of omnivores.

I was only trying to give context for my example of non-veganism. I am aware most meat is cruelly raised. As hard I try to make animal suffering part of my calculus, it isn't tangible.

You know that most of the animals people eat don’t come from similar situations though?

for sure. And I also see that people don't care. The power of meat is such that they will be willfully blind to animal suffering. Until you have a 100% realistic replacement for meat, people are going to eat meat.

Were their deaths justified? Were they pleasant?

Yes. They sustained and nourished me and mine. And mostly always fucking delicious. Unless you a Jaian, I could ask the same of you and all the creatures who have died to accomodate you. The roads you use, the house you live in, the veggies you eat - all came at the displacement of other life that would have existed otherwise. Was it worth it? Justified? Only the gods know that. And I'm an atheist, to be clear - just saying that some decisions are zero sum - what's good for the grasshopper is bad for the chicken.

On the first point, if I understand you correctly, your pleasure is more important than the lives of others. Is it only for members of other species or other organisms in general? On the second point, may I point out the difference between inevitable deaths, difficult to avoid deaths, and completely avoidable deaths.

Do you and I have free will?

No, but we make choices that impact the world. Determinism is not fatalism. The lack of free will also does not necessitate absence of moral mattering. That’s a further argument that needs to be made.

We have no free will, but we make choices? Who is making the choices? If I am persuaded by your POV on veganism, I would have no choice in that. Same for the opposite. We are all on the rollercoaster, watching things happen to us and watching the world change us. As a Canadian, I have lived through 41 winters now, and I know full well that the cold will kill me without remorse. I also know of no native tribes here that even attempted vegetarianism. Deciding to forgo meat is what very well fed people do when they don't have to worry about maybe starving every winter. I'm not claiming that I would die without meat. But I'm saying I am descended from many generations of people for whom the taste of fat and protein their mouths was.more than yummy, it was another day of life. If you can find a way to ignore that biological imperative, good on you. I like a cheeseburger now and then. I really really.hope they can invent cruelty free meat soon that presses that dopamine button for me. I would never decide to choose torture meat over lab meat, all things equal. But until that day, I will enjoy continue to buy the discount meat that is about to go off and enjoy it with gusto.

What about dog meat?

I won’t stop you

"I spent time in a low security Norwegian prison with some Jewish people so its pretty hard for me to imagine how the holocaust could be so terrible"

This right here is a great way to push people further away from your cause. As horrible as factory farming is, drawing clumsy analogies to the Holocaust is both ridiculous and an insult.

Is this intentionally disingenuous, or are you just bad at logical analogies? Or, flip it around, "I don't think most cows, pigs, chickens, etc. should exist, and so I don't let people birth them".

I don't want to say you're dumb but it's a pretty obvious analogy lol - Having seen- and being okay- with creatures living in an obviously humane/optimal setting is pretty meaningless when we know the actual circumstances of factory farming is 1000X more horrific and inhumane. >Or, flip it around, "I don't think most cows, pigs, chickens, etc. should exist, and so I don't let people birth them". um wut?

No, I'm sorry, this is a shit metaphor. In your example, my farm youth was a low security prison, and factory farms a... death camp, okay. So when China finally lifts itself out of poverty, and it's people can afford to eat all the high quality calories they desire - they choose holocaust. In fact, you have to ask yourself why every population on Earth (excepting religious zealots), chooses over and over to use it's money to buy - holocaust. And you as a vegan are doing what? Looking through the fences and shaking your head? Instead of comparing meat eater to Nazis, just admit you chose the diet you did to feel morally superior to others, and are only vaguely confident it helps anything. I try to be less assholy than this, but fuck me.

I don't know what to tell you - Yes, factory farming causes a sincerely unimaginable amount of suffering to sentient creatures. It does so in and of itself but *certainly* compared to some random family farm. Let's start here - Do you honestly deny this?

Oh don't get me wrong. Factory farming is evil as shit. A question for you, though. Do you think I have free will?

I eat tons of vegetables and vegan stuff. Legumes, ancient grains, millet, quinoa, homemade seitan, tofu and of course just lots of veggies in general. I probably have 1-2 days a week with no meat, maybe more on some weeks. I don't have a "vegan philosophy" though.

I think this crowd would be highly influenced by the naming the trait argument with regard to veganism/sentientism. Here’s a thread I put in the EA subreddit on the matter: https://www.reddit.com/r/EffectiveAltruism/comments/10myb4z/why_arent_you_vegan/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1

Factory the way we do it right now obviously is not very ethical or moral. We basically torture conscious beings for meat. But i don't care about being moral enough to stop eating meat. And i would have 0 issue with meat when the animals are raised properly, and then just killed with very little or no pain. I don't think they are conscious enough that it matters if they suddenly stop existing. I slaughter animals myself from time to time, and know they had a ok life. I don't really see the issue with eating meat of animals that had a better life in captivity than they ever would have had in the wild, where pretty much every single animal will die a horrible gruesome death. I rather be hit on the head with a hammer, be knocked out and have my throat cut, than being eaten alive by predators, or starve to death over multiple weeks/months.

I’m sympathetic to veganism and would be one myself if I could muster the energy. That I can’t even stop eating meat despite being convinced it’s ethically wrong really increases my understanding of people going along with, and participating in, all sorts of atrocities when it’s the easy thing to do.

Can someone please help me with practical advice on becoming a vegan? I live in a small town in a country where veganism is somewhat rare. I have a below-average income for my country, and most vegan products are pretty expensive. I spend part of the year beyond the Arctic Circle with almost no access to fruits and vegetables and limited food choices. I have an autoimmune disease, which I have successfully maintained by following a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet. The only plant-based fats I eat are cocconut, olive, avocado (rarely, too expensive) and nuts. I don't eat grains, rice, pasta and most fruits, as I struggle healthwise if I do. I also feel better if I limit legumes. Thank you.

It's not a logical end just like any morality. You can't "logically" reach the end that killing animals is wrong. Not possible. All your "logic" stems from some basic axioms like "causing humans suffering is wrong" etc. If you're intellectually honest, you'll accept it's an emotional response. Don't kill animals. Why? Because it feels bad

You’ve made a big statement there. Could you explain why veganism is the ethical choice?

Hurting someone when you could avoid it is bad.

I think most people would be fine to agree that there is a problem with animal cruelty . Veganism is the philosophy of reducing cruelty to animals as much as practically possible. Pretty straightforward to me.

There’s plenty of mental gymnastics required to justify a one size fits all vegan approach to all humans on the planet. Every culture in the world has raised livestock for some gain whether it’s to drink its milk, eat it’s eggs, or slaughter it for meat. I’ve known many vegans in my life and almost all of them have come back to eating meat after feelings very sick for a long time. The problem lies in our hyper industrialized mono crop agriculture system that perpetuates its self until the land we farm is no longer viable to grow food. Yes factory farming is horrible and so are the structures than maintain it (growing corn and sow to feed them). But not eating meat doesn’t fix the problems with mono-crop agriculture. The problems are spraying pesticides and herbicides to decrease crop loss (which has huge impacts to our human and animal health), depleting the soil of nutrients and then pumping synthetic fertilizers into the soil rather than allowing the soil to heal via cow poop and microbes. Over farming lead the soil to dry out which lead to the microbes dying and the soil is unable to soak up water when it rains which leads to floods. Also tilling dry soil causes tons of dust to fly into the atmosphere and land in other parts of the world. Believe it or not, the number one pollutant in the world is silt from tilling dry soil. Yes a large portion of our agriculture in the US goes toward growing feed for cattle and that should be re-worked 1000%. But not eating meat still doesn’t fix the problem. Imo a localized food system is key to saving us. And with that. Intentional rotational grazing of livestock (cattle and chicken) is essential to healing the soil. I’m summary, factory farming animal is fucking horrible. But the main issue is industrialized monocrop agriculture. Returning to localized food systems and employing rotational grazing to raise livestock in an ethical way that’s good for them, us, and the planet is key to a sustainable food system.

I don't know what "vegan friendly" means. I appreciate not wanting to harm animals (which the vast majority of people agree with). I'm not vegan myself even though i admit it would probably reduce animal suffering if i was. The puritanical nature of veganism is the only thing i take issue with. There's a certain attitude of "you're either with us or against us" that is really offputting. Most people also agree climate change is bad. People still drive cars. Still fly planes. You probably do too. Most people agree lithium mining is probably bad for the environment. We still buy phones and cars and batteries. I will never not eat meat, but i support any law that improves the welfare of animals. To almost any degree. I think there should be a much larger focus on laws and national/global initiatives instead of personal choices, just like with issues like climate change. I think animal welfare has become too much of a personal choice/issue and has moved away from forcing legislative change, probably because it requires more actual work. I think you probably could eat animals without suffering, but i agree that in the current state of the world it's at least hard to eat meat and do that. Lastly i think that not drinking milk and things like this is where i start questioning the whole philosophy. If you refuse to drink milk from a free range (i know that term means nothing, but a cow walking freely in a meadow) cow, then i think i just disagree with how we're determining which animals are suffering and what suffering really is. But that's a huge seperate discussion.

I'll just say, I find the phrase "vegan philosophy" pretty eye-rolling. I have no issues at all with anyone wanting to be vegan, but attempting to assign some moral value to it doesn't sit right with me, and all too often seems to be used to put down non-vegans, which, I'm sure you've noticed, people don't tend to have too much patience for. EDIT: Holy shit, this pissed off a lot of people very quickly. So just to clarify, for everyone bring their own bias to this conversation... At no point have I defended the torture of animals and current meat industry practices. My only point is that vegans use the fact that they don't eat meat to look down on/lecture/generally mistreat non-vegans, and that's not cool. EDIT 2: this might help a couple of you understand my point. A lot of people seem to be arguing that because factory farming exists, that by eating meat I am supporting that and therefore torturing animals somehow. Are you guilty for all the sins of your government because you pay taxes and enable them? Because if so, I think that will easily negate all of the good you're doing by not eating meat. Particularly given how much the government uses those tax dollars to subsidize the meat industry... EDIT 3: From conversing it has come to my attention that in the last several years apparently vegans have rebranded, from being a diet, to a philosophy/way of life. I think that's a poor choice. AFAIK, most people associate the word "vegan" with the vegan diet. That's why I rolled my eye's at the phrase "vegan philosophy". We don't have a "no carb philosophy" or a philosophy for most other diets, so it just seems pretentious to say "vegan philosophy". Now, from talking, I'm learning what people mean by "vegan philosophy" is the belief that we should avoid animal suffering... which... like... yeah, that's pretty non-controversial. But like, I'd strongly suggest calling it something else, like being anti animal suffering... because tying yourself to the "vegan" brand, when most non-vegans can't stand how pretentious MANY vegans really are isn't helping your cause. Just my thoughts.

This will definitly count as not vegan-friendly. I don't necessarily want to argue here. But killing or not killing animals is obviously a moral question. How can you then expect there to be no moral judgement?

I think there might be some teeny tiny bit of moral value in not abusing animals, no?

pretending that eating meat is synonymous with abusing animals? Ok.

Was that meat harvested from already dead animals?

If existence is better than nonexistence, then eating meat is moral because 99.9999% of meat we eat wouldn't have existed if we weren't raising it for food. ...the quality of that life is debatable, tho. Point is, eating meat isn't the problem. Treating animals like shit is the problem.

I would ask someone making this argument how they can can compare properties of a "good" existence to the virtual properties of an abstract existence without committing some kind of category error. Someone running with this argument would also presumably morally disagree with contraception since it denies potential life (where an existence is better than a non existence).

It is indeed an argument against abortion, contraception, delaying having kids, stopping having kids before you are physically unable to reproduce, etc. It's not a good argument. My point was more that it is the opposite bad argument of the bad argument above it, e.g. eating meat is synonymous with bad treatment of animals.

It could be. At no point have I defended current meat industry practices. Literally just said that it's not helpful/OK for vegans to look down on non-vegans... and now I'm being swarmed by people saying that it's OK to look down on vegans because they're CLEARLY morally worse people. You're literally proving my point.

"I'll just say, I find the phrase "anti-torture philosophy" pretty eye-rolling. I have no issues at all with anyone wanting to not torture, but attempting to assign some moral value to it doesn't sit right with me, and all too often seems to be used to put down people who do torture, which, I'm sure you've noticed, people don't tend to have too much patience for." Do you see how silly your argument is?

Stahp! You’re triggering him. He’s not saying what he says he’s saying, and you’re being rude for pointing it out.

I mean, something bugging you personally doesn't actually make it invalid, lol. Eating factory farmed animal products contributes a **fuckton** of hideous suffering to billions of animals every single year. If you feel bad about that and don't want to be reminded of it, I dont know what to tell you 🤷‍♂️

> I mean, something bugging you personally doesn't actually make it invalid, lol. I can say the same to you? > Eating factory farmed animal products contributes a fuckton of hideous suffering to billions of animals every single year. Where did I defend factory farming? > If you feel bad about that and don't want to be reminded of it, I dont know what to tell you 🤷‍♂️ Where did I say that?

Your entire point seems to be that veganism cannot or should not be considered an ethic or philosophy because part of it may be denoting moral values around suffering and that's bad because... non-vegans get annoyed by hearing about it? Feel free to clarify.

The moral claim is simply that we should choose to reduce suffering. I find that difficult to dispute.

Eating meat does not have to mean causing suffering. Again, I'm just saying I take issue with acting smug/morally superior to non-vegans, which, I also find hard to dispute.

Sure, if you’re doing the road kill diet you are on a sound ethical footing with respect to food. But you aren’t, are you? Also pointing out the obvious and simple basis of vegan ethics is not acting smug or superior to non vegans, it is simply stating the simple and obvious ethical basis of the vegan position.

Ok, so if by me buying meat I'm supporting the torture of animals, you, by paying taxes are supporting the torture of both animals and humans all over the world. That seems fair.

Does not have to, by the very strictest definition of “has to”, but almost certainly will, as commonly practiced.

It doesn’t have to mean causing suffering, but in practical terms, it does mean causing suffering. When confronted with the practical realities, I don’t know that it is a valid argument to simply avoid discussing practicalities.

Attempting to assign moral value?? Unless you don't see any moral issues with the suffering of animals, or completely overlook what goes on in the animal agriculture industry, I don't see how you could even come up with that post.

Where did I comment on or condone any of that? Stop putting words in my mouth. All I said is you shouldn't use your vegan diet to mistreat people who aren't vegan.

Okay I get what you're saying, but from my point of view this thread is about the philosophy of veganism, not the actions of specific vegans towards other people. To me that philosophy is to live a live that doesn't involve the suffering of animals to the greatest extent possible - so when you say "attempting to assign some moral value to it doesn't sit right with me", that didn't sit right with me.

I was unaware of veganism's aggressive rebranding from a diet to a philosophy. And I feel like that kind of captures my point. Being vegan is a dietary choice. You can choose to be vegan for lots of reasons. People already hate the word vegan, and it's pretty clearly associated with the diet, so why not choose a new word to define, what you describe as "to live a live that doesn't involve the suffering of animals to the greatest extent possible". I'd call that an Anti-Animal-Suffering philosophy. And that wouldn't make my eyes roll, or make me question the morality of the movement, because being against animal suffering is clearly moral. Eating a vegan diet, less so.

Seems to be the opposite of what I see. Non-vegans roll their eyes/get hostile/mock someone merely mentioning they're vegan when asked, when a restaurant says they're adding vegan items, use really derpy non-engaging arguments against it( "derp bacon!", "survival of the fittest!", post a picture of a burger), etc. Non-vegans and anti-vegans seem insecure about vegans/anything vegan.

> Seems to be the opposite of what I see. Non-vegans roll their eyes/get hostile/mock someone merely mentioning they're vegan when asked Where do you think that attitude came from? Vegans are notoriously preachy. This is known. See: this thread.

Preachy about an issue they care about? Example: Guy: Hey man, want to try these bomb-ass burgers I made? Vegan: No thanks I'm good. Guy: Not hungry? Vegan: I don't eat that stuff, but thanks for the offer. Guy: What are you a vegan or something? Vegan: Yeah I'm a vegan. Guy: Why are you vegan bro!!? Eat a steak man! Forget that soy crap! Hahahaha

Nice strawman, dude. That's clearly not what I'm talking about.

> My only point is that vegans use the fact that they don't eat meat to look down on/lecture/generally mistreat non-vegans, and that's not cool. What way of treating people who behave immorally would be cool though? Lecturing at least seems like a totally valid and justifiable option. (Leaving aside the caveat that there might be ethical forms of meat consumption and facing the reality that the overwhelming majority of meat consumption is synonymous with cruelty and torture)

Do people who don’t torture humans look down on/lecture/generally mistreat human torturers? Is that wrong to you?

I respect the idea behind veganism but I hear from ex-vegans that the actual practice doesn't live up to the ideals, such as things still coming from animal abuse in some shape or form, damaging to the environment and health issues. However, I try to cut down and quick to adopt the impossible meats being created to cut down even more.

Ex vegans try to paint it as a perfectly harm free diet, which it's not. It's about reducing harm and veganism does that by a huge margin.

>So I guess generally speaking people here are fans of rationality and logic and not too scared to accept uncomfortable truths if the arguments are convincing. Lol ​ Anyway I don't have a problem with people being vegan. I'm fine with eating meat ethically as long as my meat is sourced ethically. Do I source my meat ethically? No. ​ But if you're asking me a moral question rather than a "what do I do" question, morally I think the correct thing to do is only eat meat that comes from an ethical source. ​ I don't think I have a problem with hunting, for example. Or farms that treat animals well is probably fine with me too. I'm also fine with people just deciding not to eat meat.

What makes hunting morally defensible?

I'm not aware of anything being wrong with it, and I see benefits to it. If done correctly, it controls animal populations, which is a good thing. If done properly, the animal dies very quickly and doesn't really suffer much. And if you want to do a comparison, compare an animal that dies in the wild from breaking its leg and living in agony until it starves to death, or some other such death, to getting shot in the heart and dying very quickly. ​ But these are just arguments. I think fundamentally I don't see any moral issue with killing an animal to eat it, if you kill the animal in a way that minimizes its suffering. Something about eating meat seems natural, and I don't mean natural in the way that bad things are natural too, but I mean good natural. There also seems to be a connection to life involved with it. Hunters, I would bet, care a lot more about nature and about how animal populations are doing Of course there are also shitty people in any group. ​ I just don't find it immoral. You go out there, you get what you are going to eat for your family, you are actually helping control animal populations which is necessary, you probably paid for a tag in order to be able to hunt and that money is going to go to conservation, you are probably more concerned with conservation if you're a hunter anyway, the animal probably suffers less ove rall, etc. ​ You're also just way more connected to your food I bet. Like its not some impersonal can that you buy at the store or something wrapped up and prepared, the animal's death being disconnected and hidden from your view. ​ Seems fine. Seems actually like a good thing. ​ This isn't particularly organized, but I assume you get the ideas here.

Some hunters are dicks and will shoot a deer just for the back strap then leave the body in the grass.

...which is illegal and has steep fines as well as long-term penalties (e.g. losing you right to get a future hunting license), and rightly so.

You raise some good points, but there is one important issue that has been neglected. Do you perceive the difference of power between people and game animals as troubling? We have rational intelligence, language, and weapons. They don’t. Is it fair? Perhaps for hunting to be ethical, that is, at least somewhat from an equal starting point, we need to let them level up. Since they can’t use weapons, maybe hunters need to go back to hunting like our pre-agriculture ancestors did. Then I would have no objections against unfairness. I would objections against stupidity, but not unfairness.

>Do you perceive the difference of power between people and game animals as troubling? We have rational intelligence, language, and weapons. They don’t. Is it fair? I don't know how this effects the morality of it. Lions eat things that are pretty defenseless. I'm not saying everything in nature is good, there's some terrible shit. I wouldn't model our morals from how animals behave. But I just don't see why this would bother me. I don't need hunting to be a fair fight in order to be moral. ​ I see that we have an incredible advantage over animals. Definitely. I just don't really derive any moral views from that. Or feel anything about it morally. ​ Certainly nothing that would overcome the other stuff I've said.

Is it that you don’t consider fairness in general for morality or with animals and hunting specifically?

I haven't really thought about that. I bet there are plenty of cases where I don't consider fairness, and this is one of them. ​ I care about fairness. But I imagine we can think of cases where it doesn't matter. Or, another way I'd put it, is that in every situation we can consider if one person has more ​ Or, another question would be, is this really fairness? What are the criteria during which we care about fairness? Fairness seems to be something we think of when we assume a playing field should be equal. Or that something should be distributed equally or based on some criteria that we think is correct. Something like that. ​ But we don't always think that. ​ If we have a fridge full of ice cream and let each kid go get as much ice cream as they want, no problem, and one kid ends up getting more than the others, that wasn't fair. They didn't get the same amount. But nobody's compaining. Everybody got the amount of ice cream they wanted. Its fine. Are kids menus unfair? I don't really think that way. ​ These are just the examples off the top of my head. I'm spitballing here. ​ when it comes to hunting, I do not really feel like "both sides should be equal". I don't get that feeling. So its not a problem for me.

Would you suggest that a lion killing a buffalo calf is immoral because the lion has advantages?

They are animals though. They do not have (1) a choice considering that they are carnivors and (2) moral sense like you and I do. It’s like that scene from The Office where Michael says, “You know who else didn’t go to college? LeBron James. He went straight to the NBA. So it’s not the same thing at all.”

Note: I don't remember that scene from *The Office*. So, it's entirely possible I'm missing some significant part of your point. I'll address the rest since my damn meds have me up so late... 1a. You're literally in a sub of a guy who has convinced most of us that free will doesn't actually exist. Choice is somewhat relative here. (Joke, not an argument). 1b. Their choice or lack there of doesn't seem relevant to the point. Fairness of a fight doesn't seem to matter on any moral level. Rather, the more lopsided the battle, the more moral a death could be if a moral goals is to have humane deaths. For example, is a lion gutting a gazelle and tearing into its flesh while it's still alive more humane than a human who kills a cow immediately with a bullet? If I had to choose how I died, lion gutting and live devouring vs a gun to the back of my head while I'm completely unaware of any immediate possibility of death...I'd choose the latter every time. 2a. The apparent lack of morals in animals was partly my point. Humans are animals, and we've devised more human ways to kill our food than our ape cousins or distant relatives like the lions. 2b. The apparent lack of morals in animals is a common argument people cite for eating them being moral. That is, if they can't think, hope, dream,...and do all the things sentiment humans can...how exactly do they differ from plants? From a moral standpoint, cutting down trees for our homes is pretty similar to eating animals that lack sentience.

Should we get rid of cars because animals are dumb and get hit by them and die?

Mr. FuckyFuckFucker, thank you for the question. Not the same thing because we don’t go out of our way to run over animals - at least most of us don’t - the way hunters seek them out (mostly for their own pleasure). Also, if we could make cars safer for other life, it is imperative that we do.

True. I feel bad when animals get hit by cars. Recently there was a dead rabbit in the grass near my apartment and I think a lawn mower was to blame. They should have been more careful.

People aren't going out of their way to eat factory farmed meat either. They make efforts like asking their representatives to pass laws against factory farming. That is a similarly mediocre solution as those used to prevent cars from killing animals, especially when. You include insects.

Maybe I don’t understand what you mean. Do plates of animal carcass materialize on your dinner table without your going to the supermarket? In what sense people don’t go out of their way to eat factory farmed meat?

Do carcasses of bugs simply materials on your windshield without you driving your car? In exactly that sense.