In this post you have shifted from solely criticising people being vegan to also criticising people campaigning for veganism. The two are very different. I'll address your comments about campaigning, as that's what the OP is about and what others here are discussing. We can address the issue of being vegan separately if you think that warrants a separate discussion.

My response re campaigning is that I don't think zero is practical in those other things you mention, so it would not make sense to campaign for zero in those.

Never flying disqualifies one from most interesting jobs, some of which are jobs in which one can do far more to reduce greenhouse pollution than if one didn't do the job and didn't ever fly. Furthermore one can buy carbon offsets for one's flights and, if one does some research, ensure that they are genuine, meaningful reductions in emissions. Minimisation is the only practical possibility here.

Never using anything that may involve conflict materials such as rare earth elements form the Congo makes it almost impossible to use a computer. That again rules out the possibility of doing jobs where one can do far more to reduce suffering than that which is created through the conflict materials necessary to the job. Minimisation is the only practical possibility here.

Not buying things from companies that may not have clean supply chains for human rights is not practical in some cases, since most major retailers sell some products that don't conform to that, and for many goods it is impossible to trace the entire supply chain, including that of all tools, transport arrangements and so on that are used in supporting the supply. Again, minimisation is the only practical possibility if one is to live an engaged life that materially helps others.

Veganism is different in that being a vegan does not prevent one from living an engaged, helpful life. It is not easy (if it were, I would be a vegan rather than a namby-pamby vegetarian that tries to come as close to veganism as he can bear (which is sadly, not terribly close)), but it is achievable for those with strong values and will, without making them ineffective in other aspects of life.

I think veganism is very unusual in this respect, compared to other harm-reduction practices, in that it is possible and practical to get to zero. But from another perspective, it doesn't get to zero and is like other harm-minimisation strategies, because in any food production activity some animals will be harmed, be it only when they are trodden underfoot by people planting grain. Eliminating consumption of animal products doesn't get to zero but eliminates an enormous amount of harm.

Nor is the zero issue an article of faith for vegans. Only the most wild-eyed are so extreme that they would rather starve then eat, or even touch meat, or would refuse to eat tofu in a frying pan that had previously been used for sausages. Peter Singer has said that he will eat small amounts of meat or fish when to do otherwise would cause great upset to those offering it, and the animals involved have already been killed so that his refusal would not reduce any harm.

I think perhaps the zero issue becomes associated with veganism because some of the most vociferous campaigners are zero perfectionists. But I don't think most ethical-vegans are like that.

Good for you! Given those choices, I'm struggling to see why you would find fault with someone being a vegan. Their choosing to consume zero animal products acts in the same direction as those things in which you've chosen to go down to zero. Many people who are vegan for the reason of reducing animal suffering may also do the same as you on the things you mention. Certainly most of the ones I know do. I would have thought that would be a reason for celebration rather than criticism. But perhaps we are at cross purposes.

Making use of comforts that cause suffering to others, while one's ideals seem to be to reduce suffering. — Tzeentch

I see. How do you justify doing this?

Meanwhile, why don't you answer my question? — Tzeentch

Answer mine first, which pre-dates yours, and is related to it:

Are you now saying that your position is that if one doesn't do one of those things (some ludicrous, some that have no impact at all) then there is no point in doing anything to reduce suffering? — andrewk

If you weren't saying that then point were you trying to make in this post?

Now about your question - I presume you mean this:

how do you justify it — Tzeentch

In order to get an answer, you'll first need to explain what it means. How does who justify what?

And never let proverbs stop one from putting one's ideals into practice. — Tzeentch

If we were to follow your prescription, we would be stopped from putting our ideals into practice - that's the point of the proverb. By the standard you seem to be promoting, we would never do anything to help anyone unless we could be sure that it was the maximum possible good we could do for everyone. Apparently there's no point giving a starving man a meal unless we immediately sell everything we own and distribute it amongst all the starving people on the Earth.

That way lies Ayn Rand's world.

In practice it's often not a problem. For instance two political parties might argue over whether a particular taxation plan should be adopted. They might have goals to maximise equity and efficiency, and it is in selecting those goals that taste (aka values aka preferences) comes in. The disagreement will be about whether the plan will bring the taxation system closer to, or further from, those goals.

A classic standoff is the freedom vs equality debate. It is a matter of taste/values/preference as to whether one sees freedom as more important than equality. If one fins oneself arguing over a political measure it can save a lot of time if one first tries to ascertain what values are driving the two sides. If they are different, it's a waste of time discussing it. If they are the same and the dispute is just a question of the best way to aim for those values, the discussion may have some point.

when vegans address these other aspects, reduction is the solution they adopt there. — Isaac

That's because zero is not attainable in those other items. There's no reason why an inability to reach 'perfection' in one dimension should prevent someone from striving for it in a dimension in which it is practically attainable.

Are you now saying that your position is that if one doesn't do one of those things (some ludicrous, some that have no impact at all) then there is no point in doing anything to reduce suffering?

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

there are alternatives aplenty depending on what one finds reasonable or 'convenient'. — Tzeentch

Name some.

I don't see how their actions are relevant to a discussion on Veganism as a philosophy. — Isaac

They are not relevant to it because veganism is not a philosophy. It is a practice, and different people adopt the practice for different reasons - concern for animal suffering, concern about killing animals, their own health, environmental concerns, their own digestion, economics (it's cheaper), fashion.

To complain that practising veganism does not logically entail, for instance, living with a tiny carbon footprint (although there is a correlation) is to make a category error.

Even if you restrict the discussion to people that are vegans because of concern for animal suffering, it makes no sense to complain about veganism having no impact on other forms of suffering. Veganism is about action through restricting what one consumes. It is as reasonable to complain that being vegan doesn't stop racehorses from being abused as it is to complain that campaigning against the slave trade does nothing to help stop domestic violence, or to complain that the road traffic laws have nothing to say about flight paths.

People are capable of maintaining more than one ethically-based practice at a time.

how does one justify driving a car, which pollutes the atmosphere? — Tzeentch

I think it is very hard to justify unnecessary use of a car, which is why I very rarely drive, and try to get as many passengers as possible when I do. The long-term, committed vegans I know feel and act similarly.

How does one justify living in a consumption based society which inevitably causes suffering to both animals and humans on a large scale? — Tzeentch

One doesn't have to justify something for which there is no reasonable alternative. If one is born into such a society, the best one can do is minimise unnecessary consumption. Again, the vegans I know do that.

Sure that's what most vegans seem to aspire to. My point is that advocacy of veganism is not rendered meaningless by being non-absolutist.

I think it is correct that most vegans aspire to not use any animal products at all. I think that is not completely practical because so many things one uses may indirectly rely on animal products. But I admire those vegans for the sacrifices they make in pursuit of their moral values and, if in striving for complete elimination they achieve ninety per cent elimination, they will have prevented a great deal of suffering.

I mean what vegans as a philosophy are advocating, otherwise 'vegan' becomes meaningless. — Isaac

I can see how one might take it that way when one comes up against militant vegans that angrily proclaim that anybody who has even tiny bits of animal produce is evil. But I don't think it's fair to characterise an entire movement based on its most extreme fringes.

I think it makes perfect sense to say something like 'I try to be as vegan as I can', meaning one tries to reduce one's use of animal products as much as one can bear to do.

There are nuances too. Some philosophers argue that it is wrong to use products of animals even if they were not harmed or coerced in the process. Such people will not use honey, because it is using bees. This is reminiscent of Kant's dictum that we should see people as ends not means, but applying it to all animals rather than just our species. I say that goes beyond mainstream veganism, but some might disagree. That's the trouble with labels - they're too short to contain all the essential aspects of an idea.

Do you see, then, the irony (paradox?) that the most violent species, humans, are the ones troubled by their own natural bloodlust? — TheMadFool

Perhaps we are the most dangerous species, rather than the most violent one. After all, there are other species whose entire life is conflict and predation or parasitism.

Perhaps our danger comes from our enormous brains, and the ability to reflect and feel concern for others comes from the same source.

How does a vegan justify the use of anything beyond the bare necessities of life when such luxuries almost universally cause harm to something, somewhere? — Tzeentch

I'm sorry but I can't quite bring myself to believe that you really do not understand the difference between 'removing all harm' and 'reducing harm', despite your best attempts to persuade me otherwise.

Even if they advocate unlimited tolerance, they do not practice it. Indeed, some of them are quite temperamental.

But that's not what vegans are advocating with regards to meat eating though is it? Vegans are advocating eliminating meat, not minimising it. — Isaac

On the contrary, Peter Singer - probably the world's most influential and well-known vegan - advocates exactly that, ie minimising, or even just reducing. He has written repeatedly that it is not realistic to expect that most people will give up eating meat, but if they can even be persuaded to reduce their consumption somewhat, and pay more attention to the conditions in which their meat was produced, a great deal of suffering can be prevented.

Further, Singer advocates all of those other things you mention - minimise unnecessary travel, resource consumption (including frequent, long, hot showers), greenhouse footprint. Most of the outgoing vegans I know do too.

'Peacable' is fine. It's 'docile' that I reject. That implies weak and obedient, which is the opposite of what those protesters are.

Non-violence is a soft stance as opposed to, say, the on-going malady of terrorism. Isn't it? — TheMadFool

No. It isn't.

Try marching in a line up to a bunch of policemen that are systematically clubbing those that reach the front of the line on the head with long sticks until they collapse, and then say that that's a soft way to live. Most terrorists are weak, narcissistic softies by comparison.

Docility would involve obeying the police's orders to stop and turn back, not marching on to receive the blows of the lathis.

if the vegan goal was to actually reduce suffering they could chose to not eat fruits and vegetables from farms. — DingoJones

I'm afraid I am unable to make any sense of this. Are you denying that, for a typical city dweller that can only obtain food from shops, there is less animal suffering involved in a vegan diet than an omnivorous one? If there is less suffering involved, and it is easy to show that's the case, then the vegan's goal of reducing suffering has been achieved.

Do you have an actual argument against that, other than (apparently) suggesting that vegans are hypocrites for not starving themselves to death?

The vegans you meet must be very different from the ones I do. The vegans I see wear recycled clothes, use bicycles for transport, minimise needless consumption and packaging, minimise power consumption and so on. There are some that are annoyingly sanctimonious, but they seem to be a minority.

I do acknowledge that there is a bit of a 'hipster vegan' thing happening at present, where veganism is seen as a fashion choice rather than a deep conviction and is adopted at the same time as a heavily consumeristic lifestyle. The people you refer to might be like that. But I think that's a passing fad and not representative of traditional and mainstream veganism, which is very closely associated with environmentalism.

Negative utilitarianism is not generally understood to mean that one should never do anything that causes suffering. To me it means that we prioritise reducing gross suffering rather than net suffering (which is suffering minus pleasure). There are plenty of situations where one reduces net suffering by causing a small amount of additional suffering. An immunisation program is a classic example.

If somebody adopts the principles of negative utilitarianism as you present them then antinatalism follows immediately. But I don't know anybody that would adopt that extreme form of negative utilitarianism. There are plenty that adopt the 'minimise gross suffering version', but that doesn't automatically lead to antinatalism.

and before that, well, God knew himself — NKBJ

Hopefully not in the biblical sense. I'm pretty sure there's a para somewhere in the bible forbidding that sort of thing. :razz:

People who are of moral bent are generally docile. — TheMadFool

No they're not. Martin Luther King, Mahatma Gandhi, William Wilberforce, Emily Pankhurst, Yitzakh Rabin were all revered for their integrity and moral courage. I can't think of anybody that would describe any of them as docile.

The explanation of NKBJ you linked, like your reiteration of it, doesnt address what I am saying. — DingoJones

Here is what you said:

When a vegan argues against a meat eater on the basis of suffering they are being contradictory because the vegan too causes suffering for what they eat. — DingoJones

The response to that was that the vegan causes less suffering and the moral principle they are following is to reduce suffering.

Can you explain how you find a contradiction in that response, or how it fails to address your claim that veganism is contradictory?

What I said was, when a vegan argues against a meat eater on the basis of suffering they are being contradictory because the vegan too causes suffering for what they eat. — DingoJones

And NKBJ explained here why that is not contradictory. You have not responded to that explanation. If you still believe it is contradictory or a paradox (you actually said it was both) you need to explain why that is the case. How can a goal of reducing animal suffering be used to justify eating meat or, more specifically, eating meat produced by Western factory farming methods?

So, what do you think? — TheMadFool

Hitchens' book needs to be read in the context of when he wrote it and his experience around that time.

It was not long after the WTC attacks in 2001. Hitchens had adopted America as his new home and had a deep affection for it. He took the attacks personally as an attack on that which he loved most of all. The book was an angry retaliation at what he saw as the root of the fanaticism that drove those attacks. Far from being a careful piece of philosophical analysis, it was an outpouring of rage and grief.

Add to that that Hitchens was a great showman and wordsmith with a penchant for hyperbole, and we get the exaggerated book that's being discussed. Regardless of what one thinks of his vicious attack, one cannot help but admire his skill with words. The title and subtitle are about the best attention grabbers and memorable phrases one can imagine.

Think of the book as a fascinating, entertaining insight into what was going on in Western culture in the early 21st century, not as a work of philosophy to be analysed.

All too often one finds that these people use all the luxuries society has to offer, except for the fact that they don't eat animal products, ignoring the fact that all these other luxuries contribute either directly or indirectly to the suffering of other beings (including other humans). — Tzeentch

All too often one finds that, does one?

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

I doubt it. I am not vegan but most vegans I know are very concerned about the environment and go to great lengths to reduce their carbon footprint and their consumption of unnecessary, resource-wasting manufactured goods.

It would only be a paradox if being vegan included a moral obligation to go back in time and stop our ancestors from eating meat. But there are no time machines and, as Kant pointed out 'ought implies can'. So there is no obligation because it would be impossible.

Hence - no paradox. Not even a dilemma.

There is no dilemma. Unlimited tolerance equates to complete indifference - to being an immobile lump. Nobody that has thought about it advocates unlimited tolerance. The debate will always be about what behaviours we extend tolerance to. The result is negotiated between parties that want to ban vs those that want to allow certain behaviours, and will vary between jurisdictions. But no jutisdiction has a blanket tolerance for murder (the word blanket is crucial there!).

I would be surprised to hear that Hume had written anything about Essence. Hume was an empiricist and a sceptic and believing in essences requires a metaphysical, rationalist approach - almost the opposite of Hume's worldview.

To deny that our confidence in the proposition that the Earth is round is the same as it has always been, despite everything we have learned, is to deny reality. — SophistiCat

Just wondering, did you mean 'To claim' rather than 'To deny'? Surely most people would deny that claim, on the ground that our confidence is almost certainly greater now than it would have been in 1000 BCE.

All observations are theory-laden. — Inis

I foresee this discussion heading towards Kant's CPR. While that is one of my favourite topics, it would probably be getting a bit far from the OP so I'll keep stumm.

It seems that the argument over the statement

(0) 'The man named "Nixon" might have had a different name'

arises because one side uses a method in which the DD is used as to pick out an individual in this world, and then to contemplate alternate worlds for that individual, and the the other uses a method in which the DD is also evaluated in alternate possible worlds.

These correspond to two different elaborations of the sentence:

(1) 'The man that is called "Nixon" in this world might have had a different name in an alternate world'

(2) 'The man that is called "Nixon" in all possible worlds in an ensemble S might have had a different name in one of those worlds'

So disagreement just arises from different ways of filling out the overly-abbreviated and hence vague statement (0).

N&N is not much help in resolving this as Kripke fails to address accessibility relations, which determine what the ensemble of possible worlds under consideration is.

These theories seem to go from being a controversial hypothesis to a fact of reality, and anyone who questions them is a crackpot. — Inis

Popper's position, and mine, is that when a hypothesis graduates to a higher state it becomes a theory. There is no higher state than a theory. To say that a theory is not a fact is not to question it, it is to acknowledge the proper accepted meaning of the word theory in the scientific community.

A fact is a raw observation, such as the measurements that Eratosthenes made, of times, distances and angles, and in some cases of even lower-level observations than that. He compared his observations with those that were predicted by a theory that the Earth was round, and found that they matched pretty closely. Accordingly that theory is accepted as the best one we have available regarding the shape of the Earth, and nobody to my knowledge has suggested we abandon it since at least the time of Magellan.

There is no "theory of a spherical earth". The earth literally is (approximately) spherical. The theory is the explanation of that phenomenon, and there have been a couple of those. — Inis

We can't directly observe that a planet, or any object, is spherical because we see in 2D and spheres are 3D. We have reams of data that are consistent with the theory that the Earth is approximately spherical so we adopt that theory.

I set the boundary between observations and theories much lower down - towards the very raw input end.

I think your reasoning is broadly fine, and accords with Popper, who says we can never prove a theory true. The only significant difference I would make is that I would not use probability, which implies a precision that is not possible here. I would rather say that we just become more confident in the theory as the number of fulfilled predictions increases. But as you point out, we can never have all predictions fulfilled, because there are infinitely many and we can only test a finite number.

Does the spherical Earth cast doubt upon Popper’s claims about scientific theories never been confirmed? — Craig

It could be that the Earth we see as approximately spherical is actually a 3D cross-section of an object that is actually a 4D hypersphere. We can never rule out more elaborate theories. But we don't need to. We just say 'this is the best hypothesis we have at present, and it has been working very well, so we'll keep on using that unless or until it stops working well'.

@Janus has suggested, and I currently agree with him about this, that there is no apparent logical difference between the use of a name like 'Richard Milhous Nixon' to refer to someone, and the use of the DD 'The person whose name is "Richard Milhous Nixon" ' (or 'the person whose parents named him "Richard Milhous Nixon" '). Under that approach, use of proper names is just use of a certain type of DD.

What are your thoughts on that?

I tried it today on IE on Windows 10. The Quote button is always at top right. When I select from top to bottom, the Quote works and when I select from Bottom to Top it doesn't.

So I'm pretty confident this is solved now: if a Quote doesn't work, try it again making sure you select the text from top to bottom.

I tried @Sir2us approach. I found that if I right-clicked on the Quote button after selecting text from bottom to top, the quote worked. One or two times early on that didn't work for me, but I've been unable to reproduce those failures and I don't know what was different about them.