I'd say this suffers from a impoverished view of happiness. — Moliere

Well you didn't clarify. All you said was, "what makes human beings happy rather than what is required to survive." - And what makes human beings happy, doesn't mean those things are moral or immoral. Therefore, the justification "what makes human beings happy" is not valid or consistent to base your actions on.

Namely that we are moral agents, and if aliens were sufficiently human-like to be moral agents then they'd be included and not treated like beasts. — Moliere

Some humans aren't moral agents, such as mentally disabled people; so there's your first problem. And if you appeal to species, an Alien species could come down and farm humans for food, and you'd have to be okay with that based on the same justification you use to farm animals.

I don't believe there are moral foundations at all. — Moliere

What I meant by this was, how do you differentiate between right and wrong? What mechanism do you use to morally justify an action as right/correct?

Which creates an internal contradiction. — chatterbears

And so in turn, a felt natural contradiction that ethical reasoning ought to aim to balance. no?

Like you agreed about self-defence for example.

And so in turn, a felt natural contradiction that ethical reasoning ought to aim to balance. no? — apokrisis

Not sure what you mean here. Can you rephrase and clarify?

Like you agreed about self-defence for example. — apokrisis

Self-defense is justified because that living being's rights have been violated and needs to protect itself out of necessity. Well-being is still at work here, as someone's well-being has been diminished. And again, this is a necessary harm (self-defense) that is taking place for survival. Eating meat is not a necessary harm in order to survive, therefore it is not justified. But even if we don't use necessary vs unnecessary, people cannot even be consistent within their own justifications for why they can eat meat. If you're going to deploy a justification for harm, at least do so consistently.

Can you rephrase and clarify? — chatterbears

It's what I already argued. Contradiction is to be what is expected. Cognition thrives on having alternatives to contrast.

So contradiction is not a fatal flaw like you suggest. It represents the fundamentality of choices that can be "equally good" in context. And so the job of ethics is to strike a reasonable balance.

Self-defense is justified because that living being's rights have been violated and needs to protect itself out of necessity. Well-being is still at work here, as someone's well-being has been diminished. — chatterbears

Well yes. We went over this. Well-being or flourishing is the generic goal. And then the "contradiction" is between personal self-interest and collective self-interest.

Society is founded on competition AND co-operation. It is essential that one does not exclude the other. It is also essential that as local vs global interests, they are fruitfully balanced within an ethical framework.

Eating meat is not a necessary harm in order to survive, therefore it is not justified. — chatterbears

But there are degrees of harm. And perhaps good reasons for recognising that.

Your monotonic absolutism makes it impossible for you to properly envisage that - even if in specific instances, as in killing in self defense, you feel forced to yield the issue.

You allow exceptions to the rule when things get so extreme your rule breaks. I prefer a more logically consistent approach that follows from seeking a fruitful balance of contrasting interests. That maps to reality more smoothly. It is how the real world works.

Half the world's grain crops are fed to the world's 65 billion farm animals. How many insects/worms do you think are killed in the process of harvesting these crops for the farm animals? — chatterbears

Here goes the second of your two regular vacillations.First you switch between death per se and pain/suffering to suit your argument, then you switch to the environmental impact of factory farming when we talk about the impact of farming vegetables. Please try to stick to one issue at a time so we can determine what your line of argument actually is.

To be clear absolutely no-one here is suggesting that modern factory farming of animals is fine and needs no intervention to make it better, so would you please stick to the argument that's actually being had, not the one you'd like to have. we're all trying to debate the morality of eating meat, the killing and consumption of another species of animal.

I only eat meat that I have either shot myself, someone I know and trust has shot, or has been locally reared on grass or kitchen scraps. So, if you're concerned about total number of deaths, one Red Deer shot in the wild causes one death (that of the deer), absolutely no impact on the ecology whatsoever (in fact it benefits it slightly) and will keep me in protein for months. To grow the equivalent amount of legumes you'd need to clear five acres of otherwise wild ecosystem, destroy all above ground life within that five acres, kill every single insect, mole, rabbit, deer, mouse that threatens that crop. Then you'd have to but it in a series of lorries and ships to transport it half way across the world, pack it, ship it again before it finally yields it's protein. There is no way the killing of one wild deer causes more environmental harm and animal death than the farming of five acres of legumes, so if you're using an environmental harm or total sentient deaths argument, then you should be advocating wild game and grass fed, free-range meat as part of a balanced diet.

I don't see how we could reasonable judge whether or not it became unnecessary for a lion to kill a gazelle. — chatterbears

I've already given you the exact circumstances under which we can judge that - surplus killing. It clearly was not necessary for their survival for the wolf pack to kill those 18 Elk, they just left them there. So let's stick to the philosophical issue. Would you incarcerate or kill those wolves (in the same way as we would incarcerate or kill a psychopath) in order to prevent them from killing more elk that were beyond their food requirements?

Unless you are willing to only eat those animals who have died of natural causes, the eating of one implies killing it. Killing is a form of harm. The consequence of getting the flesh you want to eat is therefore harming a sentient being. Harming a sentient being is causing more harm than good. — NKBJ

I'm not going to write it all out again, so please see my comment above. The use of wild or grass fed animals to supply protein kills just one animal, to grow the equivalent quantity of legumes requires the deaths of hundreds, not to mention the destruction of the habitat of thousands more. Farming anything causes more death and destruction than obtaining meat from the wild, or from landscapes which are ecologically grazed by herbivores.

Well yes. We went over this. Well-being or flourishing is the generic goal. And then the "contradiction" is between personal self-interest and collective self-interest. — apokrisis

This is incorrect. People can be contradictory within their own personal subjective beliefs. It has nothing to do with the collective. As stated before, a person could justify their action based on REASON A, but then reject an action done to them based on REASON A. This is an internally contradictory position within the person's own ethical framework. You cannot hold simultaneous beliefs that contradict each other.

And just to clarify, flourishing is a goal, not a justification. The thing that people use for eating meat is a justification. And that justification needs to be consistent, NOT contradictory. Goals can have exceptions, but justifications based on unnecessary harmful acts, cannot.

Your monotonic absolutism makes it impossible for you to properly envisage that - even if in specific instances, as in killing in self defense, you feel forced to yield the issue. — apokrisis

There is necessary harm and unnecessary harm. That's the key difference here. Necessary harm can be an exception to the goal of maximizing well-being, such as in self-defense. But again, this is reference to a GOAL, not how people use justifications to commit unnecessary harm.

When you are committing harm, you need to evaluate whether or not it is a necessary harm. After that, are there alternatives to this that cause less harm. Then, how easily is this alternative to achieve. I think most people agree that eating meat is an unnecessary harm, but still use a plethora of justifications to continue doing it. These justifications need to be consistent within their own subjective perspective. If they are not, then they are wrong on two fronts. Wrong for not recognizing it as an unnecessary harm. And wrong for not being internally consistent within their own justification being used to commit this unnecessary harm.

Remember, maximize well-being as much as possible. This isn't absolute in any way, because there can be many gray areas to this goal. Similar to health, the main goal is to maximize the body's condition. But there can be many gray areas to this, such as a person who needs to consume more sugar sometimes due to a low level of blood glucose. Generally, health professionals advise against a large sugar intake, but a person with diabetes may need to sometimes consume a large amount of sugar to raise their blood glucose level. This is a necessary 'harm' the body NEEDS in order to survive. Just as self-defense is a necessary harm the body NEEDS in order to survive.

But again, I am never referring to absolutes in any sense, when regarding the goal. The only absolute, if you even want to call it that, would be have internal consistency within your justifications of moral actions that cause harm. So just like I would accept 'self-defense' as a valid justification for causing harm, I would also accept someone else using the same justification against me if I were to attack them. But this is never the case with meat eaters. As their justifications seem to be completely random and sometimes silly, such as "I eat meat because I like the taste". Ok, would you let someone eat you because they like the taste of human flesh? No. There's your inconsistency. And again, diet is something that is easily changeable. Other things are much harder, such as buying eco friendly transportation or growing crops yourself.

I don't really see an ethical difference between killing plants for food and killing animals for food — Tomseltje


Have you done any research on the harm caused from factory farming?

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1REgp2VreWfgHhatxycdk0GN6P9HyXID6UTzuNb4f7sY/edit?usp=sharing

Click the environmental tab.

It might be possible that humans could survive perfectly on a plant only diet, but it will be hard to convince me there is any practicality to it, seeing that even the most strict vegans eventually take supplements of animal origin. — Tomseltje


This is false. There are Vegan supplements, as well as fortified foods. Some of which are GMO.

only quoting half my statement on the subject seems disingenious. I don't like being misrepresented. My statement was:
"I don't really see an ethical difference between killing plants for food and killing animals for food, other than that for some/most animals, humans are able to increase their suffering by doing so."

I don't really see why me doing research on the harm caused from factory farming is of any importance for the topic. The question wasn't wether animals are suffering from factory farming, the question was wether it was ethical to grow them for consumption without excluding the possiblity that this can be done without causing any (additional) suffering to the animal.

In my first post I stated:
"Seems to me that the question wether it is ethical to farm animals for consumption gets conflated with the question wich animals are ethical to farm for consumption and the question wether our treatment of the animals we currently farm for consumption is ethical."

Seeing your question about factory farming (adressing the 3th question) as a response to half a statement I made (adressing the 1th question) , I conclude this conflation still applies. Please start treating the different questions seperately.

My objection was to the practicality, I didn't claim there weren't 100% vegan alternatives, I claimed that (for most I've seen) it was inpractical to obtain them. Perhaps they are easier to aquire where you live.
Did you consider people living in countries that banned GMO? Are you aware that some supplements sold as vegan still contain substances of animal origin without this being mentioned on the product?

Here goes the second of your two regular vacillations.First you switch between death per se and pain/suffering to suit your argument, then you switch to the environmental impact of factory farming when we talk about the impact of farming vegetables. Please try to stick to one issue at a time so we can determine what your line of argument actually is. — Pseudonym

Pain and death go hand in hand, as they are both causing harm. Environmental impact is also in reference to harm. They are all regarding harm, so I am not sure why you are saying I am not sticking to one issue. The issue I care about is NOT causing more harm than we need to. If you want to put it on a scale, let's just say it this way, for the sake of argument.

Meat farming: Causes a 9 out of 10
Vegetable farming: Causes a 5 out of 10

Even though both cause harm, there is a significant difference between the two. And if possible, we should get rid of the one causing the most harm, and then work on making the second one better. Vegetable farming is a perfect utopia that is free from causing any harm. But it is better than what we are currently doing in factory farms. That's just an objective scientific fact.

To be clear absolutely no-one here is suggesting that modern factory farming of animals is fine and needs no intervention to make it better, so would you please stick to the argument that's actually being had, not the one you'd like to have. we're all trying to debate the morality of eating meat, the killing and consumption of another species of animal. — Pseudonym

You may be, but other people haven't stated they care at all to improve factory farming. But again, why improve it when it is not necessary to begin with? It's like saying 200 years ago, "Hey we should improve our slavery techniques and practices. It's a bit cruel, so let's be a bit nicer. We can still own humans and property and sell them like furniture, but let's just improve the business a bit." - How about no? Something that is unnecessary (which causes harm) needs to be removed, not "improved".

There is no way the killing of one wild deer causes more environmental harm and animal death than the farming of five acres of legumes, so if you're using an environmental harm or total sentient deaths argument, then you should be advocating wild game and grass fed, free-range meat as part of a balanced diet. — Pseudonym

I agree with you. But to feed 7.6 Billion people, almost a billion of which don't even have the proper food to live a healthy life, we need to create food on a mass scale. This is why we breed and kill 50+ Billion farm animals every year, to feed as many people as we can. If it were possible for all 7.6 Billion of us to kill one deer and live off the protein for months, it would be much better than both vegetable farming and meat farming. But since that is not possible, vegetable farming is the lesser of the two harmful industries. And again, I am not asking for some utopia. I am asking for better than the current. And I am asking for consistency in any justifications that would be used to cause unnecessary harm.

But as a side question, let me ask you this. Would it be possible for you to grow some of your vegetables, grains, nuts, etc...? And whatever you cannot get, buy at a local store?

It clearly was not necessary for their survival for the wolf pack to kill those 18 Elk, they just left them there. So let's stick to the philosophical issue. Would you incarcerate or kill those wolves (in the same way as we would incarcerate or kill a psychopath) in order to prevent them from killing more elk that were beyond their food requirements? — Pseudonym

As I have stated before multiple times in this thread, animals cannot analyze moral actions in a complex way like we can. But even so, we do not know the exactly reason for surplus killing. Researchers say that animals surplus kill whenever they can, in order to procure food for offspring and others, to gain valuable killing experience, and to create the opportunity to eat the carcass later when they are hungry again.

As stated before, animals tend to do things based on survival instincts. Yes, sometimes they can commit unnecessary harm, but they do not have the intellectual capacity to deeply analyze their actions on a level that we can. We, as humans, have a higher intellectual capacity. And with that higher capacity comes a higher obligation to living beings around us. Since we can conceptualize the harm and effect that we have on the environment and everything around us, we should be more conscious of our decisions and if they can be improved. So in the same way I wouldn't expect a 3 year old to understand a deep level of right and wrong, I wouldn't expect it from a wolf either.

To answer your question, no I wouldn't incarcerate the wolves because of everything I said in the previous paragraph. We incarcerate humans because they have a higher ability in thought, and can understand a deeper level of right and wrong. We cannot ask the wolves what their reasoning was for killing so many elk. But we can ask a psychopath his reasoning for why he killed so many people. And we would incarcerate that person to prevent him from causing more harm to other people. Wolves, and most animals, based their decisions on survival. Humans do not. And grow adult humans have a higher understanding of morality, and therefore are held to a higher accountability.

And as a last thought, I wouldn't see a problem with protecting your farm animals from the harm of other predators. And by farm animals, I don't mean the ones you would raise just to kill for bacon. I am referring to people who own farm animals and allow them to live without harm or death. These people usually see their animals as part of their family. And if their family is being harmed, it would be a form of self-defense. Similar to a person defending his daughter from being attacked by a wolf. Self defense is different than infringing on two animals in nature. Otherwise you'd have the problem of trying to decipher whether or not wolves are killing for survival, or are committing a surplus killing. Initially, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference, until the damage has already been done.

My objection was to the practicality, I didn't claim there weren't 100% vegan alternatives, I claimed that (for most I've seen) it was inpractical to obtain them. Perhaps they are easier to aquire where you live. Did you consider people living in countries that banned GMO? Are you aware that some supplements sold as vegan still contain substances of animal origin without this being mentioned on the product? — Tomseltje

Is it impractical to obtain plant-based products where you live? Because as i have stated before, every single person I have talked to, owns a computer. They also live near a grocery store, which sells fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts and grains. It is as simple as going down a different isle, nothing more. And yes, I acknowledge that some places have it harder to achieve a plant-based diet, but everyone I have talked to does not. So to refer to other places is a deflection, as I want to know why YOU have not changed your diet.

The main vitamin that Vegans need to worry about is B12. Which can be found in fortified foods, or supplementation. And yes, I am aware that we cannot know 100% of where our food/vitamins are coming from or how they are being created. But the point is, do the best that you can with as much research as you can, and make an informed decision. If you find out later than the supplement you have been taking for B12 was actually created from substances of animal origin, look for another supplement.

We can't even get past the idea that eating meat is immoral and worse for the environment, let alone which supplements are better than others. And as far as practicality, is the vegetable isle too far from the bacon? Practicality isn't a valid justification for people who live near a grocery store. Which i can reasonably assume, all of us in this thread do live near a grocery store.

Ah now I see where your confusion comes from:

I am referring to people who own farm animals and allow them to live without harm or death.

I'm sorry to be the one bringing you the bad news, but even those animals suffer, eventually they all die. Allowing animals to live without harm or death is not within the capabilities of humans. All humans can do is reduce the suffering. They can't prevent all suffering, nor death.

I'm sorry to be the one bringing you the bad news, but even those animals suffer, eventually they all die. Allowing animals to live without harm or death is not within the capabilities of humans. All humans can do is reduce the suffering. They can't prevent all suffering, nor death. — Tomseltje

Preventing suffering is one thing. Causing suffering is another. Eating meat CAUSES suffering. Not sure how you don't see the difference here? I am not suggesting we prevent all suffering from every animal in existence. I am suggesting that we prevent any suffering that we are causing them directly, if reasonably possible.

And to say that even the farm animal suffers because they eventually die, is like saying us humans suffer, because we eventually all die. That's not even remotely comparable to what factory farms are doing, which is direct harm, torture and abrupt death caused by humans.

Is it impractical to obtain plant-based products where you live? Because as i have stated before, every single person I have talked to, owns a computer. They also live near a grocery store, which sells fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts and grains. It is as simple as going down a different isle, nothing more. And yes, I acknowledge that some places have it harder to achieve a plant-based diet, but everyone I have talked to does not. So to refer to other places is a deflection, as I want to know why YOU have not changed your diet.

The main vitamin that Vegans need to worry about is B12. Which can be found in fortified foods, or supplementation. And yes, I am aware that we cannot know 100% of where our food/vitamins are coming from or how they are being created. But the point is, do the best that you can with as much research as you can, and make an informed decision. If you find out later than the supplement you have been taking for B12 was actually created from substances of animal origin, look for another supplement.

We can't even get past the idea that eating meat is immoral and worse for the environment, let alone which supplements are better than others. And as far as practicality, is the vegetable isle too far from the bacon? Practicality isn't a valid justification for people who live near a grocery store. Which i can reasonably assume, all of us in this thread do. — chatterbears

So you are not actually interested in the philosopical ethical discussion as much as you are interested in my personal choises in the matter. Well sorry to dissappoint you, but I'm not gonna let you know. Especially not since you make unwarrented assumptions about me clearly demonstrated by your statement " I want to know why YOU have not changed your diet."

How do you know I didn't change my diet?, and why is it even relevant to the philosophical discussion about the ethics of eating animals?
Wether I choose to do the ethical thing or not is totally irrelevant to the discussion about what is ethical.
I'm here for the discussion about what is ethical, not for polarizing the community in this forum by pointing out the ones behaving according to my (possibly flawed) ethics and the ones who don't.

The discussion wasn't about eating meat, the discussion was about the ethics of growing animals for food. Single celled sessile animals can be eaten, but are not meat, since meat is the muscle part of an animal, not all animals have specialized muscle cells. You only find those in multicelled animals. you keep conflating the three questions. So I will sum them up again and accompany them with my answers to them:

1 Is it ethical to farm animals for consumption?
Obviously yes, since it's possible to do so without causing any additional suffering, especially in the case of farming animals without a nervous system.

2 Wich animals can ethically be farmed for consumption?
All animals as long as it is done without causing additional suffering to the animal.

3 Is the treatment of animals we currently farm for consumption ethical?
Commercially no, we still have much to improve before all commercially farmed animals no longer endure additional suffering that could have been prevented.
Yes in some cases where people have their own farm and treat their animals well as a part of the family untill they start suffering too much from old age.

Pain and death go hand in hand, as they are both causing harm. — chatterbears

No, they don't. For many people living in pain is worse than death, a short but happy life may be considered by many to be preferable to a long but miserable one. Pain and death are most certainly not sufficiently similar that an argument about one can be substituted for an argument about the other. It is perfectly legitimate, for example, to argue that the shorter but comfortable life of an humanely farmed cow is preferable to the perhaps longer but less comfortable (diseases, fear of predators, variable food supply) life of that same animal in the wild. I personally would not agree with that argument because I value autonomy and the freedom to express our natures and so I extend that value to sentient animals, but it's certainly not as cut and dried as you're making out. If your argument is to minimise net harm you could easily argue that that could be satisfied by taking an animal from the wild and rearing it for meat, giving it a shorter but much happier life. That is why, philosophically it so important to get at the distinction between death and suffering.

If it were possible for all 7.6 Billion of us to kill one deer and live off the protein for months, it would be much better than both vegetable farming and meat farming. But since that is not possible, vegetable farming is the lesser of the two harmful industries. — chatterbears

The Forestry commission in Scotland alone kill 30,000 wild red deer every year and that is still not quite enough to keep their population stable (numbers are still increasing and they're also spreading geographically). One deer produces about 9kg of meat, enough to meet a persons protein requirements (by RDA) for half the year, so Scotland's forestry estate alone could feed 1% of its population. Since the forest Estate occupies less than 1% of Scotland, a move to greater consumption of wild meat would be far from insignificant, yet your advocacy of vegan ism would have us ignore such a valuable contribution.

If you add to this the amount of grass-fed and scrap-fed animals in farming (almost the entire world's lamb production, for example, is grass-fed), you can see why people are accusing you of fundamentalism. You've taken a very sound argument against mass production of corn-fed beef, caged chickens and factory pork, and concluded that it's therefore immoral to eat all meat. The way meat is grown seriously needs reforming. The way vegetables are grown seriously needs reforming (see the impact of pesticides on the world's bee population, for example), and all of this can be affected by our consumer choices, but none of it requires that we give up eating meat.

Would it be possible for you to grow some of your vegetables, grains, nuts, etc...? And whatever you cannot get, buy at a local store? — chatterbears

Of course it would, I'm pretty much self-sufficient in leaf and pod vegetables, but to grow enough legumes to meet my protein requirements would require the clearance of another few hectares of land. Plus all deer, rabbits, pigeons, and squirrels threatening the crop are shot and eaten, moles, mice and voles are controlled by lethal trapping if required (I don't eat them, but perhaps I should?). All this death would have to be expanded to expand my vegetable growing. Any food I buy at the store simply entails someone else doing all that killing for me, except I expect most of their meat just goes to waste.

Preventing suffering is one thing. Causing suffering is another. Eating meat CAUSES suffering. Not sure how you don't see the difference here? — chatterbears

Nonsense, in case of scavenging I can eat meat without causing any additional suffering, the animal is dead already.

I am not suggesting we prevent all suffering from every animal in existence. I am suggesting that we prevent any suffering that we are causing them directly, if reasonably possible. — chatterbears

Then the discussion should focus on what one considers to be reasonable possible instead. Again my position is that as long as humans can do it in a way it causes equal or less amount of suffering to the animal than it would suffer otherwise in nature without being farmed, it's ethical enough.

And to say that even the farm animal suffers because they eventually die, is like saying us humans suffer, because we eventually all die. That's not even remotely comparable to what factory farms are doing, which is direct harm, torture and abrupt death caused by the humans. — chatterbears

Life is suffering, ethics are about what people do in order to increase or decrease suffering. I made it clear already that I consider the abusive treatment disproportionally increasing the amount of suffering to the animals in said factories for monetairy gain to be unethical.

We incarcerate humans because they have a higher ability in thought, and can understand a deeper level of right and wrong. — chatterbears

We eat animals because they have a lower ability in thought, and cannot understand a deeper level of right and wrong.

What I meant by this was, how do you differentiate between right and wrong? What mechanism do you use to morally justify an action as right/correct? — chatterbears

I don't think there is such a thing as a mechanism which justifies action as morally right or wrong. Differentiating between right and wrong takes judgment, choice, and a willingness to look at the effects of your actions. The various calculi proposed can help in thinking through any choice, but they are just tools for reflection.

There is only judgment, action, and living with the choices you make.

Some humans aren't moral agents, such as mentally disabled people — chatterbears

I don't think this is the case at all. If you are human then you are a moral agent, and deserve the respect that this entails. There are circumstances of character or environment which mitigate responsibility, but that does not then mean that the person is not a moral agent.

Consider, for instance, how strange it would be to hold your dog as morally responsible for digging through the trash. That's just silly.

I'm going to violate my earlier self-imposed ban on this thread.

I wanted to make some general comments to chatterbears. As I said before, I'm also a dedicated vegan, so on a practical level we are on the same wavelength. Watching this debate unfold, I've noticed you have provided different kinds of justifications for veganism. You started out with a valiant Kantian attempt, a kind of categorical imperative that should be universally applied. You then shifted to some utilitarian reasons in the later stages of the debate. I think it's this bouncing around between deontological and utilitarian reasoning that has a lot of people confused, and rejecting some of your arguments. For me, it's much easier to defend veganism on utilitarian grounds: it's good for our health, it's good for the ecological basis of civilization, and it simply makes you feel good (whenever I think about meat, I remember how hard I wanted to punch myself 10 minutes after finishing at McDonald's). There are lots of great, positive, and utilitarian arguments in favor of veganism. I explained some of them in my first post in this thread. There may be some kind of categorical imperative for it too, but I think it's going to be extremely difficult to find a consistent moral standard for why you shouldn't eat meat. This thread has already gone down the toilet, so maybe you can consider this advice going forward, when you debate other people on the merits of veganism.

Having said all that, I can empathize with the routine nonsense you have encountered here, because obviously I've encountered it too in my life (Don't vegans need animal supplements? How can you eat plants, which are also living things?). The first time anyone finds out I'm a vegan, that person immediately becomes an expert nutrionist, economist, scientist, philosopher, and every other academic professional you can imagine. In reality, these people are just projecting the fears of the capitalist system, which needs people to eat and consume garbage so the profits can keep flowing to the meat and dairy industry. As I emphasized in my original post, this debate is no longer about normative ideals, but about the hard descriptive reality that people have power over animals and can treat those animals as waste and fodder for profit.

Anyway, I appreciate the valiant effort you have shown here in defending veganism.

For me, it's much easier to defend veganism on utilitarian grounds: it's good for our health, it's good for the ecological basis of civilization, and it simply makes you feel good — Uber

In this thread, as well as other people I’ve talked to in person, they have rejected the health evidence. They think it is just as healthy to include meat into your diet. They reject the environmental evidence, and state that farming vegetables causes as much harm as farming animals. They also say the opposite in regards to what feels good. They have actually used it as a justification for continuing to eat meat, which is “eating meat gives me pleasure.”

I switch to different arguments depending on how much science and fact they are willing to reject. As you said, people suddenly turn into health and environmental experts when the topic of Veganism is brought up, while rejecting the actual scientific evidence.

I find it most effective to argue from a consistency standpoint. And this can be done through universal rights or even an empathy/compassion perspective. Or you don’t have to bring any of that up and just simply ask “why are you ok killing one living being but not another?” - From there you push for consistency within their own subjective views. This leaves no room to talk about what science they want to reject for health or environmental factors.

But people reject scientific evidence quite often when the rejection helps to justify their lifestyles. Exhibit A: climate change. Of course there will be people who insist that eating meat is healthier than being vegan. That's not a reason to stop pressing the scientific evidence. It's an opportunity to educate the ignorant.

Agreed. Which is why I have posted my google doc multiple times throughout this thread. But even with that, people throughout this thread have appealed to God or have stated things like “Animals feel pain in a different way than we do, so they should be treated differently.”

Arguing with meat eaters is like playing whac-a-mole. Once you get rid of one justification, another one pops up.

Like I said, this thread went down the toilet a long time ago. I'm talking about beyond this thread, when this issue comes up again in your life. I think you will find the greatest success by emphasizing utilitarian thinking. Doesn't mean there is absolutely no room for Kantian ethics, of course. But just know that this latter route is littered with mines. You can try and cross it, but it will be very difficult.

people suddenly turn into health and environmental experts when the topic of Veganism is brought up, while rejecting the actual scientific evidence. — chatterbears

I've literally just given you the scientific evidence. The UK forestry experts agree that deer need to be culled in order to allow natural regeneration of woodland. Killing a wild deer causes one death, farming the equivalent protein quantity of legumes requires the deaths of tens, if not hundreds of potential pests (deer, moles, voles, rabbits etc). Not to mention the fertilisers, eutrophication, pesticides, herbicides, habitat loss, soil degradation, etc. Wild or grass-reared meat is better for the environment because it's the best way to manage open space, it causes least deaths overall, and it provides healthy meat. So please don't accuse me of ignoring the scientific evidence. I have a degree in ecology and a masters in countryside management I know how ecosystems respond to grazing and I know how they respond to intensive arable treatments.

Admittedly it is much harder to apply one type of argument to multiple people, such as in this thread. In person discussions have went much more smoothly for me, as I tend to focus on what one person finds important and work from there. If they are health freaks, I can point them to the health benefits. If they are environmental minds, I will supply them with the evidence for that. There’s no one good argument for Veganism, as I think there are many. Just really depends on your audience, their current scientific knowledge and what they are willing to accept.

:D

Vegan apologetics spoken like a true believer. It reminds me of missionary work -- if the person you wish to convert believes this, then respond with that, if something else then this argument works better.

except Veganism has scientific evidence to support its claim. And philosophically, I can use reason and logical consistency to back up my position. Missionaries do nothing of the sort, as they have automated responses that they were told to say. I have done research and created my own perspective by myself.

Every missionary has their bible and their conversion story. But without a passion for a value the reason and logic won't do the work that the missionary does.

I don't know how much attention you were paying in your ecology classes, but it looks like you missed a few important things. Mouthing off about your degrees will impress no one.

You may have missed the fact that a substantial fraction of all agricultural land globally is devoted for grains to feed and fatten livestock, 60 billion of which are slaughtered every year. Ending factory farming would free up much of that land for human food production. 'Grass-reared' animals is a very funny joke, kind of like 'cage free' chickens. Factory animals are kept in confined spaces and fed whatever is necessary to put meat on those bones. Do you honestly think this capitalist system cares about providing them healthy or nutritious food?

this is the only post I will ever write on this thread — Uber

What a terrible waste of pomposity.