I'm not sure I would relate morality to docile nature — Xav

Peace, one of the greatest goals of mankind and yet, by their nature, unattainable, is docility isn't it?

Emphasis on the unattainable. Most people become very agitated in the search of peace. Thinking it can be found via routes such as ending suffering or a strong moral code. Look into the teachings of Zen if you want to see a culture that seems to have its head around peace. Modern western justice and ethics are probably some of the most chaotic ideals ever to be held.

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?

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.

The oddity of veganism (which may be what @DingoJones is getting at) is that it takes a principle requiring empirical data and treats it as if it did not.

If the goal is to reduce sentient suffering, then the only way we can be sure that our actions have brought about our desired goal is at the end of all time where we tot up the total suffering caused. Anything short of that is a speculation about what set of behaviours will minimise suffering.

Now we can base that speculation on a number of methods depending on how we prefer to deal with uncertainty. Some will simply take the latest research from the majority of scientists and use that. There's nothing wrong with this approach, but it's not automatically right either. Scientific research is flawed, the results definitely follow trends, and biases, as well as poor understanding of statistics, often cloud the results.

Others (myself included), take more of an Hippocratic 'do no harm' approach to uncertainty. Not interfering with our best interpretation of the natural order unless it is overwhelmingly clear that we need to.

The point here is that the solution is confused with the objective. Many non-vegans want to reduce suffering too. I might, for example, wear a woolen coat because I'm concerned about the effects microplastics from artificial fleece may have on the life in our oceans in the long run. I'd do this, not because of the scientific evidence, but because I know the planet is used to substances like wool, whereas substances like polyester represent an uncertainty.

The same can be said for grazing land being converted to mass vegetable farming. The current science might consider it possible, but it is an uncertainty (not having been tried before) and therefore the solution is not the same as the objective.

More to the point of the OP, however... I don't see an issue with an apex predator developing morality until you start extending that morality to our prey. That seems to me to be just a fundamental misunderstanding of what morality is.

The vegans I see wear recycled clothes, use bicycles for transport, minimise needless consumption and packaging, minimise power consumption and so on. — andrewk

But that's not what vegans are advocating with regards to meat eating though is it? Vegans are advocating eliminating meat, not minimising it. The uncontradictory equivalent would be to eliminate hot showers (above what is strictly necessary for health), eliminate transport (apart from that required for survival), basically eliminate the use of any and all substances which harm the environment other than those strictly necessary for survival.

The point is, what happens in reality is that people (those who care) reduce the harm their lives cause to others down to a minimum tolerable level of comfort. For some that might be no meat at all (but a shower every day and a few plane trips to explore the world), for others it might be a much more frugal resource consumption, but a considerable amount of free-range meat remaining in their diet.

It may be reasonable, and quite helpful, to reiterate what experts currently think about the harms various practices cause, what I think is unreasonable is the presumption that there is an action that anyone wishing reduce those harms should do as a result of that data.

Well, I don't know how to say this but perhaps the word ''relative'' is apt. Relative to the police with clubs, the unarmed but determined protesters are more peacable. Isn't that right?

The answer seems to be ''yes''.

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

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.

I don't mean what vegans qua people are advocating (how could any of us possibly know that without exhaustive survey), I mean what vegans as a philosophy are advocating, otherwise 'vegan' becomes meaningless. What's the significance of the difference between someone who eats 1 gram of meat a day (not a vegan) and someone who eats no meat at all (vegan) when compared to someone who takes one flight a year (no ideological name for this) and someone who takes no flights a year?

Veganism is making something significant out of an absolute (no meat) not a variable (amount of meat). All other environmental concerns are only variables, no ideology associated with absolute elimination. That's the point I'm making. Anyone who just happens to have set their meat intake at zero (no different to someone who just happens to have lowered their plane flights to zero) is just an ethical person doing what they can, same as someone who's lowered their meat intake to just above zero and their plane flights to zero.

So why does one have an ideology named after their decision and the other not? Because being a vegan is a statement, not about the direction our meat consumption should go in (less) but the final destination (none). That makes it different to other statements about environmental variables.

How does a vegan justify living in a society that is based around consumerism? 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?

How does a vegan justify living in a society that is based around consumerism? 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

Probably, they don't, any more than the average meat eater justifies eating cow but not horse, pig but not dog, sheep but not caterpillar, and so on. My own justification for not in general eating meat is that it is grossly bad manners to eat someone to whom one has not been introduced. Thus I will happily eat my own livestock or my neighbours, but avoid anonymised corpse-parts at the supermarket.

You're touching on really interesting questions that I would love to further discuss. However, they fall beyond the scope of the question of this thread. The question here was whether there is a paradox at the heart of veganism, which there obviously isn't.

Maybe you could start a thread asking which, if any moral consideration can/should be extended towards animals? I'd love to discuss the difference between a moral agent and moral patient.

Oh, I see. You're talking about humans as predators and why would they be moral towards others, especially prey, at all. Interesting question.

For one, because we're social animals. We evolved to have empathy for others. It was meant for our group, but it's a skill that we can use on non-humans as well.
For another, we actually only fairly recently in evolution started being huge predators. Pre-tools, we only occasionally caught small mammals, birds, or fish. We ate lots of vegetable matter, grubs, and termites.

Also, we have a lot of impulses given to us by evolution that seem paradoxical. The human mind is able to entertain conflicting impulses. Like to be selfish or to share. To procreate indifferently or to be monogamous. I don't think it's paradoxical, though it is the root of much good literature and story telling.

Do you ever do charitable work? Or donate to a charitable cause? Or even just help out someone randomly? If yes, then why don't you donate all of your income? Why not become a saint or the next Mother Theresa?

A commitment to doing good, or at least reducing harm in the world does not equal a commitment to sacrificing your whole life. Are there areas all people could improve? Sure.

Again, the fact that we can't be perfect about our commitment to a better world does not mean we toss the baby out with the bathwater and just do whatever the heck we want.

Except a) that chickens and all animals spend a considerable amount of energy avoiding death, so it's safe to say they don't want it. B) you're taking any potential pleasures in life away from them. C) that's not what farms actually do, so it's not really a practical question.

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

Thanks for pointing out my poor choice of words.

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

One could say, of course, that mental evolution is out of step with evolution of our body. The latter still needs meat and, so, must resort to violence against other, and sometimes same, species but the former allows us to analyze and, perhaps, rue our inherent violent tendencies.

It could be considered ''good'' though; this odd combination of the predator feeling pain for its prey. Some may think it to be an ''awakening'' and we, as representatives of mother nature herself, have come to realize how cruel life can be.

What should we do now?

As I was saying to andrewk our minds have evolved ''faster'' than our bodies. Our body needs meat and our mind informs us that it's immoral.

Like you said, many other paradoxes can arise out of this disharmony. Tigers don't worry about strangling their prey to death because their brains match their body: they can't think of ethics and their body needs meat.

It's only us, humans, that are in this position. Is it a cruel twist of fate or is it an opportunity to make life for all living things better?

Do you ever do charitable work? Or donate to a charitable cause? Or even just help out someone randomly? If yes, then why don't you donate all of your income? Why not become a saint or the next Mother Theresa? — NKBJ

Yes but the term 'charity worker' does not only apply to someone who does the most charity work it is possible to do, the term 'charitable donor' does not only apply to people who give the maximum amount of money it is possible for them to give. The term 'vegan', however, (the subject of this thread) applies only to someone eating the minimum amount of meat it is possible to eat (ie none). So I'm unsure as to how accurate this conflation you're making is.

A vegan may well advocate eating less meat, they may also advocate a particular football team, but neither is what makes them a vegan. What makes them a vegan is eating the least meat it is possible to eat, hence the comparison I think @Tzeentch is making is fair.

Do you ever do charitable work? Or donate to a charitable cause? Or even just help out someone randomly? If yes, then why don't you donate all of your income? Why not become a saint or the next Mother Theresa? — NKBJ

Because I do not pretend to hold ideals that I cannot or do not want to live by.

A commitment to doing good, or at least reducing harm in the world does not equal a commitment to sacrificing your whole life. Are there areas all people could improve? Sure. — NKBJ

Then it is not much of a commitment. Would you call me committed if I were to live by my ideals only when it suited me? Ideals that do not lead to action are meaningless, mental vanity.

Again, the fact that we can't be perfect about our commitment to a better world does not mean we toss the baby out with the bathwater and just do whatever the heck we want. — NKBJ

An imperfect commitment is not an actual commitment. What one is in fact commitment to is an ideal that sounds a lot less appealing. Something along the lines of "I will live by ideal X as long as it is convenient for me to do so." One shouldn't lie to oneself or others about the nature of their commitment. This is something many do not like to confront themselves with, as it does not fit the image of a morally superior being they have of themselves.

If a person when asked, "Do you eat meat?", would reply, "Yes, but I don't drive a car", would a vegan feel like the person made an equal sacrifice? Most likely not. But the person is showing the exact same selectivity as a vegan.

In short, doing good things is good, whatever one's ideals. However, preaching ideals that one does not follow themselves is not.

Our body needs meat — TheMadFool

No. It doesn't.

Is it a cruel twist of fate or is it an opportunity to make life for all living things better? — TheMadFool

Depends on what we decide to do. Currently we are destroying the planet and murdering billions of animals for our taste for flesh, so it seems the bad part is winning. It all depends on how many people can ultimately choose to put the needs of others and the planet before a pretty trivial desire. And if they can do so in time.

You're missing the point.
Charity workers and vegans alike are working towards reducing harm. Both are aware of the impossibility of total elimination of suffering. Both still find it to be a worthwhile endeavor to reduce suffering.

An imperfect commitment is not an actual commitment. What one is in fact commitment to is an ideal that sounds a lot less appealing. — Tzeentch

That's not true. Almost all commitments we make are imperfect. Do you try to be a nice person? Thoughtful? A good partner/spouse? And if you ever find yourself falling short of an ideal you hold, do you seriously just give it all up? Nope. You do what you can. That necessarily, practically involves being selective.

Veganism is one part of a larger approach to reducing harm in the world. It's not the only thing you can do. It's not the magic final solution. In a phrase from logic 101, it's a necessary but insufficient condition.

And "preaching" is a red herring. This thread is about whether veganism in and of itself contains a contradiction. Whether or not certain vegans seem to you preachy is entirely beside the point.

You're missing the point.
Charity workers and vegans alike are working towards reducing harm. Both are aware of the impossibility of total elimination of suffering. Both still find it to be a worthwhile endeavor to reduce suffering. — NKBJ

The comment of yours which I took to start this little exchange was;

It's a commitment to reducing suffering by avoiding animal products. It's not about eliminating suffering altogether, since that is likely impossible. — NKBJ

So the point very much is why avoiding animal products? If one is not attempting to eliminate suffering altogether, and one admits (as you seem to) that even vegans could do more to reduce suffering overall, then why eliminate animal products entirely? We've just established that "because it is possible to" is not adequate because its possible to do more charity work, or use less resources, but you don't. That's what makes veganism seem ideological, hence the charge of inconsistency

To put it another way, if the maxim of the vegan is "cause as little suffering as possible", then they are inconsistent in carrying out any activity which causes harm that is not strictly necessary.

If, rather the maxim is "cause as little suffering as possible without impacting too heavily on one's comfort" then vegans have nothing to say in campaign, because how would they know the ethical meat-eater was not already doing this?

That said the common thread that links all forms of morality is happiness and suffering. The former to be actively sought and encouraged while the latter discouraged and forbidden.

Of the two, happiness and suffering, greater weightage is given to suffering. This is perhaps succinctly expressed as ''if you can't help then at least do no harm''. — TheMadFool

I what I'm going to comment on here isn't what you're focusing on in this thread, but my moral views are not at all based on suffering, harm or happiness. I think all of those concepts are way too vague to base any moral stances on.

That's not true. Almost all commitments we make are imperfect. — NKBJ

And thus you will find that there aren't many things people are truly committed to. An imperfect commitment is nothing other than the pretension to be perfectly committed, when one is in fact committed to a lesser ideal, as we've discussed. However, as I have pointed out several times before, this does not mean one should give up. One should be more conscious about how they view themselves and others.

You do what you can. — NKBJ

You do what you want.

And "preaching" is a red herring. This thread is about whether veganism in and of itself contains a contradiction. Whether or not certain vegans seem to you preachy is entirely beside the point. — NKBJ

Sometimes in a discussion other topics come up.

Lol. Okay, well, duly noted, vegans aren't perfect. We never had that illusion, but if it makes you feel better, here again in all caps: VEGANS AREN'T PERFECT!

Veganism is still not paradoxical.

Vegans have recognized that animal use causes a hugely disproportionate amount of harm in relation to the happiness gained from eating them/using such products. They choose not to participate therein at minimal personal cost. And actually they gain a lot health-wise.

It's just an obvious, easy choice that others are too stubborn to make. Like recycling, but more impactful than that.

It's just an obvious, easy choice that others are too stubborn to make. — NKBJ

Obvious to you, perhaps. Do you think on the whole vegans are better people than non-vegans?

That's a weird question.
I think veganism is better than omnivorism.
Any other personal qualities will vary from person to person.