Humans are the first animals known to have what we call morals. — TheMadFool

This is speculative knowledge. There are some traits of what we called morality in the natural world. What does it matter being first? The question is are we 'only'.

Morality has, ironically, evolved in the apex predator on Earth - humans — TheMadFool

Wrong, we evolved into the apex predator long before we understood morals.

Veganism is not automatically moral, some very bad people indeed have been vegans or have held some other important moral positions. Wasting any food is more immoral than eating animals, animal products have become so cheap that they are regularly wasted. I think that factory farmed meat / eggs / milk is immoral, eating a little bit of meat and not being vegan isn't immoral and being vegan doesn't make you moral.

a) Chickens do a lot to avoid death when confronted by a recognizable danger but I could easily stroll up to a domesticated chicken with a gun or perhaps even a knife and likely not cause alarm.
b) I am not entirely sure chickens posses the wide range of emotion humans do but I could also be sparing it any unpleasant experience such as being brutally murdered by its' natural predators
c) I didn't ask the question to apply it to real life, I am just trying to understand what you're trying to achieve with your veganism (which from a lot of perspectives I agree with - especially in terms of what we could be feeding the 3rd world but instead we fatten up our livestock).

Define "reasonable", because there are alternatives aplenty depending on what one finds reasonable or 'convenient'.

I'm not sure there's much point replying in this thread as it seems clear now that the paradox the OP was referring to was not the paradox I thought it was, rendering this entire exchange rather off topic. But for the sake of clarity, I will try to explain.

Imagine that there are exactly ten behaviours in everyone's lifestyle which cause suffering to others. Each can be carried out at an intensity on a scale of 0 to 10, 0 being the least extent possible (whilst remaining healthy) and 10 being the most harmful extent.

Anyone who cared about reducing suffering would campaign for (and hopefully achieve in their own life) a reduction in the total extent of harm yielded by all these behaviours (0-100). In reality people do not even aspire to reduce all to 0, but rather to reduce them all to a level they feel is 'fair'.

The paradox I thought the OP might have been referring to is that veganism seems to be justified by a concern for reducing suffering, yet it advocates the reduction of one specific form of suffering down to 0 and remains silent on all the others.

What vegans as people may advocate is neither here nor there in respect of this argument. Vegans 'as people' have advocated anything from giving away all our excess wealth to the extermination of the Jewish race so I don't see how their actions are relevant to a discussion on Veganism as a philosophy.

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.

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

Name some.

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. — andrewk

Again, you're missing the point of my bringing it up with respect to this thread. I'm not just randomly saying that veganism doesn't make sense because they're not also advocating a lower level carbon footprint. I'm saying that veganism in the context of this thread (or rather what I thought it was about) contains an inconsistency because it proposes a target level (rather than a direction) in one aspect of life where none is warranted by the problem it is claiming to address.

The problem "how can we reduce the suffering of sentient beings (without completely ruining our own lives)" is not solved by the solution "reduce one source of harm to zero (and potentially ignore all others)". Veganism is not a solution to the problem it claims, in this particular instance, to be addressing. Its nothing to do with the fact that veganism only addresses one aspect, it's to do with the fact that it proposes zero as the solution when reduction is actually the solution to the problem as posed. This is borne out by the fact that when vegans address these other aspects, reduction is the solution they adopt there. Reduction down to what the individual considers a 'fair' level is the solution to the problem both adopted and advocated in all areas except animal use (where elimination is both adopted and advocated). That is the inconsistency to which I am referring.

One could migrate to a country where life is less taxing on the environment. One could renounce his life of material wealth and consumerism and retire to a cloister. One could live self-sufficiently in some remote area (there are even communities of such people). Even voluntarily becoming homeless would effectively minimize one's negative influence on the environment.

I'm sure all these alternatives to consumerism sound horribly inconvenient to you, but they're not unreasonable. You wouldn't be the first one to make such a choice.

Why is free speech good in your opinion? — TheMadFool

Valuing free speech is foundational for me. It doesn't rest on something else.

Out of 1000 rapes, 994 perps walk free. — NKBJ

And we know the stats of rapes that are occurring where perps are walking free via?

In other words, you're somehow establishing that a rape occurred (how?), where in those cases the perps are walking free (because?)

A) I'm not sure what your point even is. Because the chicken cannot recognize the instrument of its death, it deserves to be killed? Or that it therefore doesn't reeeeally want to live? Walk up to a baby with a gun and he'll want to play with it.
B) They do not need to possess the full range of any of our abilities. It suffices that they possess the abilities to suffer and feel pleasure. (I mean, they can do more, but that's all moral consideration requires.) You're not killing them to save them from anybody. You're killing them for the pleasure of eating them. But even if you were trying to protect them, that's not the way to go about it. Again, you can't take a child, say "you're gonna die someday, so I'll just kill you now to spare you the rest."
C) I feel like you're being purposefully obtuse here: vegans don't want to participate in the slaughter and torture of billions of sentient animals.

I get it. You just don't want to believe victims. The entire legal system from police officers to prosecutors to defense lawyers to judges know that the vast majority of perps walk free despite credible testimonies because of people like you who demand the impossible from innocent persons.

This is going nowhere, because you have an ideological position about free speech that you will cling to no matter how many lives suffer because of it.

But I'm not sure why I even continue this conversation after you basically said a victim of a rape is at fault unless she took defense classes, set up a security system, and decided to sacrifice the life of her own baby.... It's obvious you're just biting the bullet or you're just amoral and so it's pointless to discuss this any further.

Are you saying that you're using mere testimony as sufficient evidence that a crime occurred?

The whole point of my comments (in this regard) is that epistemically, testimony isn't sufficient support of empirical claims.

So what if there's two eye witnesses? Or three? Or one hundred?

Yes, there are special circumstances where we must decide on testimony alone, and where that testimony is convincing enough to convict.

But again, I think you're just too stubborn about your absolutist free speech thing to budge.

So what if there's two eye witnesses? Or three? Or one hundred? — NKBJ

Testimony isn't sufficient no matter how many people testify. You don't believe every major religion, do you? There's no shortage of people testifying there.

Argumentum ad populums are fallacies.

It is inherently illogical for a deity to exist. Not so with crime.

It is inherently illogical for a deity to exist. — NKBJ

Then testimony alone isn't sufficient for you.

Testimony needs to be logical, coherent, and believable.

Believability can't be bootstrapped by testimony alone, it requires something additional.

Maybe not for you.

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.

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.

Fair points, I suppose the only way I can justify my meat consumption is that if an intelligence form with as much on me as I have on the chicken comes along it can slaughter me to suit its own agenda too.

My question is how do you justify it. The fact of the matter is that while in some instances one sacrifices comfort to reduce the suffering of others, in other instances one consciously makes choices that increase it.

Does one feel by these sacrifices one has done enough and is justified in enjoying these comforts?

Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good. — andrewk

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

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.

I never suggested you should not be doing these things, so do not pretend I did. Meanwhile, why don't you answer my question?

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?

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

No.

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

That there are possible alternatives within reason, which is something that was denied by you earlier.

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. — andrewk

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

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

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?

I'll gladly answer that for you, but I think you owe me an answer first.