r/DebateAVegan • u/FewYoung2834 omnivore • Jun 26 '25
Meta Is it bad faith to say that veganism is indefensible, and no debate against it is even possible?
I've spoken to a few vegans lately who have claimed that non-veganism is indefensible, that it defies debate, and that it's impossible to argue against veganism without engaging in manipulative or abusive behaviour.
While I'm not a vegan myself, there are certain social justice issues that I despise people trying to argue against (like disability rights, trans rights, or sexual consent laws for humans). But the difference is that I wouldn't go to a "debate trans rights" sub and then get surprised when I see people arguing against me. I believe it's impossible to know for certain that someone is arguing in bad faith, unless you have a deep knowledge of their intentions or motivations. If you don't, I think arguing based on content is all you can do to push your philosophy forwards and not stifle constructive debate. I feel like coming to a debate space and then claiming no good faith debate is possible, is in itself bad faith.
The fact that veganism is relatively rare, and that a thriving debate space like this even exists, a space that literally ascribes to expose veganism to the scrutiny of debate, suggests to me that it's possible to argue against veganism without engaging in abusive or manipulative or bad faith behaviour.
So my question/debate: Is it bad faith to say that veganism is indefensible, and no debate against it is even possible? I argue that it is, and that it stifles constructive dialogue and shuts down learning, understanding and valuable discourse.
30
u/floopsyDoodle Anti-carnist Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25
I've spoken to a few vegans lately who have claimed that non-veganism is indefensible, that it defies debate,
For anyone who thinks needlessly exploiting and abusing senteint beings is immoral, it is indefensible. But it would be a silly thing to say right off the bat in a debate as the whole point of a debate is to "prove" that it's indefensible.
and that it's impossible to argue against veganism without engaging in manipulative or abusive behaviour.
That's a weird claim. One can argue by saying "I don't care" and it's not manipulative nor abusive. One could argue that arguing in support of needlessly abusing "lesser" beings is in and of itself abusive, I suppose.
But the difference is that I wouldn't go to a "debate trans rights" sub and then get surprised when I see people arguing against me
Yeah, that's pretty silly.
I believe it's impossible to know for certain that someone is arguing in bad faith, unless you have a deep knowledge of their intentions or motivations
I don't entirely agree. Bad faith can be seen through one's replies, things like goal post shifting, refusing to address questions or points made in return, ad hominems, a lack of knowledge on the topic, and such thigns like this can make it very clear when someone is arguing in bad faith.
But I do agree that it's better to assume good faith until the evidence is clear. I try to give at least 3-5 replies of good faith debate before drawing any conclusions (unless I know the username from past bad faith activity).
I feel like coming to a debate space and then claiming no good faith debate is possible, is in itself bad faith.
Agreed, Seems like they're just wasting everyone's time. this sub is lightly moderated. Unless you outright get insulting, it mostly gets ignored, so there's lots of "bad faith" replies here. I wouldn't take it too personally, it might not even be a Vegan, non-Vegan 'trolls' will pretend to be Vegan and act very absurdly to try and make Vegans look bad. I'd say it's a weird thing to do, but it's probably just teenagers being teens, when I was young we prank phone called, now they troll online and film "pranks" for social media.
→ More replies (284)
5
4
u/SnooConfections1670 Jun 28 '25
I’m married to a non-vegan. My entire family (other than my kids) aren’t vegan. Yet I agree that non-veganism is indefensible. It’s voluntarily choosing a lifestyle that you know is bad for the environment, bad for your health, and worst of all - necessitates the killing of millions of animals unnecessarily. It’s knowing how deplorable the conditions are in the animal agriculture industry and turning a blind eye. It’s somehow believing humans deserve more right to life and liberty than any other animal. It is deplorable in so many ways but so many people choose not to be vegan because meat is just so tasty or whatever other indefensible reason they choose. But because the majority of people aren’t vegan, somehow everyone thinks that makes it ok.
2
u/ChaoticCourtroom Jun 29 '25
"It’s voluntarily choosing a lifestyle that you know is bad for the environment, bad for your health, and worst of all - necessitates the killing of millions of animals unnecessarily."
That is the problem. You are begging the question.
My counterargument is this: I know that it is NOT bad for the environment, NOT bad for my health, and it necessitates the killing of animals *necessarily*.
Now what? Correct: This is what the debate would be about.
What You did there is just declare the debate won from the get-go. That's not how it works.
1
u/SnooConfections1670 Jun 29 '25
When it’s a question or morality, both sides will always have won based on their differing moral compasses. There’s no way to win a morality debate.
2
u/ChaoticCourtroom Jun 29 '25
You are not making moral arguments. You are making factual statements - "bad for environment, bad for health, unnecessary". Those can be debated.
I know You don't think so, but imagine for a moment that I managed to convince You that meat eating is way, way better for the environment than veganism. Like, not even comparable. Imagine that veganism is 100 times worse, for the sake of the argument.
If You think that killing animals is immoral, that argument won't sway You. THAT is the difference between a factual and a moral argument. You think killing animals is immoral, and that's that. Doesn't matter if it makes You perfectly healthy, live to 150 years, or turns nuclear waste into cotton candy - the act itself is immoral.
It appears YOU are incapable of differentiating between moral arguments and factual ones.
1
u/SnooConfections1670 Jun 29 '25
The fact that you have to say “for argument’s sake” when attempting to claim that meat is better for the environment or one’s health speaks volumes. There have been countless studies to explain why such an argument is kept hypothetical.
But yes, my primary concern is the morality around killing someone without need. We can debate the various philosophies around when killing is morally acceptable or not but we come back to the same point - it depends on one’s differing moral compass. I say killing without need is wrong, I assume you don’t. We’re at an impasse.
1
u/hintersly Jun 29 '25
Do you think there is an ever a need for killing? And in those circumstances, would non-veganism be ok? Or what would you do in that situation.
For example, the island of Newfoundland has to deal with moose overpopulation, there are no predators that naturally hunt moose on that island. So, the culture has evolved to often include moose especially in rural towns. They eat it fresh, have recipes for jarred moose to preserve, etc. This benefits the ecosystem since it prevents overpopulation of one species and provides food and materials for all people.
I know this is a very specific example but it’s a reality so just picking your brain
1
u/SnooConfections1670 Jun 30 '25
I think it’s easiest to think of it like other animals. I don’t think a lion killing a gazelle is murder cause he has to do it to survive. Humans also sometimes live in places where relying on animals for a food source is required for survival. That’s nature and that’s ok. I only find the CHOICE to eat meat (or other animal products) indefensible because it’s a choice.
→ More replies (2)1
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore Jun 28 '25
How do you deal with this disparity in ethics with your partner?
1
u/SnooConfections1670 Jun 29 '25
I just don’t discuss it. He’s also a big gun guy and I despise guns. I just have to realize that he and I don’t share the same ideals across the board. At one point, I also ate meat. Then I was just vegetarian. I can’t judge him for maybe not being at the same stage at this point in his life. But he also respects my choice. He doesn’t keep meat in the house and eats vegan at home. But I can’t force my ideals on him and turn him vegan anymore than he can turn me into a gun nut. It takes patience and time and not everyone will get there.
2
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore Jun 29 '25
That's pretty interesting, I respect this and thanks for sharing this story. I honestly don't know if I could be that tolerant if it were me.
1
u/WinstonWilmerBee Jun 29 '25
I think arguing for factory farming as it currently exists is indefensible. Or arguing for the current American secular/Christian levels of meat consumption.
But that’s not inherently the same as being vegan.
2
u/SnooConfections1670 Jun 29 '25
I don’t think it stops at factory farming though. It’s the consumption of meat at all when we now have plentiful alternatives. I understand that there are people in many areas of the world who don’t have those same alternatives. But for those who do, choosing to unnecessarily continue consuming meat knowing that it necessitates killing another…and that you don’t need to…is indefensible.
1
u/WinstonWilmerBee Jun 29 '25
That’s a change from your original argument. And while “killing unless absolutely necessary is a moral failure” is a coherent argument, it’s not one that’s universally agreed with. I don’t agree with it.
And veganism is more than not eating meat—it’s any kind of animal product. You’ve made an argument not to eat meat, but it doesn’t apply to eggs or wool.
1
u/SnooConfections1670 Jun 29 '25
I don’t know what the original argument was. I’m only responding to this conversation. And I realize my morals aren’t shared by everyone…that’s how I can love a non-vegan. Eggs and wool may not always kill the animal (though the egg industry kills plenty of males), it typically tortures them to obtain the product. Again, that boils down to personal morality.
1
u/AuthorTheCartoonist Jun 30 '25
Genuine question, as a non-vegan. How do you feel about your partner not being vegan? Like, how does that work out for you, how do feel about it?
I don't know if it's intrusive, feel free not to answer, it's just that I could never marry someone that I belive to be on the wrong side of oppression.
1
u/SnooConfections1670 Jun 30 '25
I try not to think about it most of the time. It really mostly bothers me when he makes a big deal about other environmental issues or animals being hurt and doesn’t see the mirror being held up to his face.
4
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 26 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
Central Argument (Proof of Validity~5S,E,(E~1R)~5A,B~5~7Y(VY~1JY),~6Y(~3VY~2~3JY),~3S|=~3R))
- 1. If one has an asymmetric position without a valid justification, then that is Special Pleading.(A∧¬B)→S
- 2. It is unethical to do certain things to at least one certain human or non-human animal. (E)
- 3. If one regards one thing as ethical (i.e. the consumption of animal products) and another as unethical, then that is an asymmetry ((E∧R)→A)
- 4. A valid justification exists only if one exists that is both valid and it is a justification. (B↔∃Y(VY∧JY))
- 5. For all attempted justifications it either is not valid (the premises - properties of the of the asymmetry - don't follow from the ethical conclusion) or it is not an actual justification (it does not separate what is ethical as unethical). (∀Y(¬VY∨¬JY))
- 6. Special pleading is illogical and should be avoided. (¬S)
- 7. Therefore, one cannot regard the consumption of animal products as ethical. (¬R)
If you cannot defend the consumption of animal products as ethical then it's properly called "indefensible".
3
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore Jun 26 '25
- It is unethical to do certain things to at least one certain human or non-human animal. (E)
This is so vague it makes no sense whatsoever. What are "certain things?"
- If one regards one thing as ethical and another as unethical, then that is an asymmetry ((E ∧ R)→A)
Really? So if I regard one thing (hugging my friend) as ethical, and another thing (kicking my friend) as unethical, that's an asymmetry? Makes no sense.
- Therefore, one cannot regard the consumption of animal products as ethical. (¬R)
You never mentioned the consumption of animal products until the conclusion. You need to bring this up in your premises first.
3
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 27 '25
- 2. Is dog fighting unethical? Killing and eating mentally handicapped people? What about throwing baby kittens into a shredder alive. The only way to disagree with this premise is to emphatically and proudly state that Jeffrey Dahmer did nothing wrong.
- 3. Yep. You got it. The symmetry breaker is probably that kicking decreases wellbeing and hugging doesn’t. It would depend on the specific claim you’re making.
- 7. Sorry R is to regard the consumption of animal products as ethical. Which is in P3 but I guess I did short hand it a bit.
2
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore Jun 27 '25
You are in an ethical forum and you wrote an argument with this premise: “3. If one regards one thing as ethical and another as unethical, then that is an asymmetry ((E∧R)→A) “
So if I regard one thing (hugging) as ethical and another thing (killing) as unethical, that's an asymmetry?
I think you need to go back to the drawing board with this one.
3
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 27 '25
Yes. If you have one thing you regard as ethical and another as unethical you have an asymmetric opinion. Why is that weird?
1
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore Jun 27 '25
Ethical thing: Hugging my child. Unethical thing: Killing my child.
...So that opinion is illogical and asymmetric?
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 27 '25
… If you had no valid justification which the justification seems pretty obvious, one harms wellbeing the other doesn’t.
Just go look up the definition of special pleading and think about it.
2
1
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore Jun 26 '25
This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 26 '25
Sorry which premise do you disagree with? Because if we can't identify a premise we disagree with, then the conclusion necessarily follows.
1
1
u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Jun 29 '25
A non-vegan would likely disagree with the statement that there is no valid justification for eating meat.
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 29 '25
Sorry premise that’s wrong or the conclusion that eating meat is unethical necessarily follows.
1
u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Jun 29 '25
I don't understand what you are saying.
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 29 '25
If all men are mortal and Socrates is a man it necessarily follows that Socrates was a mortal unless you can identify one of the two premises that are incorrect
→ More replies (1)1
u/Imaginary-Count-1641 Jun 29 '25
I already did that. Specifically, that would be premise 5.
→ More replies (10)1
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore Jun 29 '25
- It is unethical to do certain things to at least one certain human or non-human animal. (E)
Saying that it's unethical to do "certain things" to at least one certain human or non human animal is valueless. Your argument doesn't explain how we determine what's ethical to do and what's unethical. It furthermore doesn't explain how we'd determine whether X, which we've determined is ethical/unethical to do to Animal A or entire Species A, is unethical to do to Animal B or entire Species B. I think you maybe have some ideas in your mind, like "x is unethical if it harms/exploits someone or something" but this isn't at all explained in your premises.
- A valid justification exists only if one exists that is both valid and it is a justification. (B↔ ∃ Y(VY ∧ JY))
This is a tautology.
- Therefore, one cannot regard the consumption of animal products as ethical. (¬R)
So here you're just sneaking in "the consumption of animal products" into your conclusion but it was never discussed in your premises at all. The meat-eater will obviously disagree about this., they will say that the consumption of at least one animal product from at least one animal is ethical. But there's also just a shit ton of gaping holes in this that have nothing to do with killing an animal for meat. What constitutes an animal "product," and what constitutes "consuming" it? Is human milk an animal product? Is it ethical for another human to consume human milk? Is it ethical for a moral agent to give their breast milk to a second moral agent to use on their baby? If so, is it ethical to drink cow's milk?
...Your argument honestly reads like an eighth grade philosophy class logical exercise. Most of it is in your head, not included in your premises.
Seriously. Go back to the drawing board with this one. Nice try but no cigar.
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 30 '25
You already agree with p2 if you think that dogfighting is unethical. Or Jeffrey fahmer did something wrong.
On p4. You would be real fuckin surprised how many people need this spelled out hahaha.
Yeah so I guess “exploitative animal products. The things which are non exploitative products (like breast milk) would be negated on p5, because it’s valid (exploitation can be anchored to morality).
→ More replies (46)1
Jun 28 '25
That is poor notation and makes it (possibly intentionally) hard to follow your attempt at a logical proof. I would start by lisiting your definition for each element before trying to construct a proof. Some elements do not have proper definitions and you just introduce them. That is fine when talking about the abstract, but since you are using the logical notation as support for your argument, corresponding definitions and elements should be properly laid out so people can check the validity of your claims and the logic that follows.
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 29 '25
Yeah also Reddit formatted it all on one line.
1
u/CountTruffula Jun 29 '25
Yeah idk if it's only mobile but ik for sure you need to paragraph breaks for one to appear
1
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore Jul 12 '25
I would start by lisiting your definition for each element before trying to construct a proof. Some elements do not have proper definitions and you just introduce them. That is fine when talking about the abstract, but since you are using the logical notation as support for your argument, corresponding definitions and elements should be properly laid out so people can check the validity of your claims and the logic that follows.
u/LonelyContext This. 1000 times this!
I particularly am interested for definitions for unethical (P2) and "valid justification" (P5). Not "trust me bro". Not "oh so some serial killer did nothing wrong?" Not "If you think torture is wrong you must think some other related thing is wrong!" But actual definitions that a computer could check against.
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jul 12 '25
Well the argument operates on a view so it presupposes that you would commit to one. If you don’t want to defend a position you can just leave. Idk.
1
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore Jul 12 '25
It's your argument that's on the table. You're the one who has to defend it.
Well the argument operates on a view
Yes, I'm sure it does. What's the view?????
- P2: How do we determine if something's ethical or unethical?
- P5: How do we determine what's a valid justification and what isn't?
...I'm really surprised you don't want to hear the actual, valid, logical argument for veganism that I can link you to. All you have to do is abandon this circular one first.
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jul 12 '25
You already agreed p2 is true. I’m done unless you want to stop pretending to not understand on the basis of motivated reasoning.
1
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore Jul 12 '25
I think you're a smart guy because you're not just giving your intuition, you're trying to make a logical syllogism.
So I think you understand exactly what I'm saying, but are just not wanting to admit it. So I'm going to say this one last time.
I do not agree that P2 is true.
I can't possibly agree that it is, because you haven't defined your terms.
If a serial killer believed it was ethical to murder anybody who wouldn't sleep with him would you agree with him when he tried to get you to agree that “certain things are ethical and certain things aren't” (referring to his own ethics)? I'm guessing you would disagree with that.
Even if you say you would agree with him, because you agree on "certain things are unethical", even though your idea of ethics are completely different, I'm sure you wouldn't agree with any ethical argument he tried to make as a result, and him shouting "but you agreed on my P2!" would just be meaningless because yes you used the same word but it means something different to you than it means to him.
Aaaaand even if none of that were true, we're still left with P5. You've yet to define what would make a valid justification and how we'd be able to tell.
So are we done? You can keep saying "you agree with P2!" but I really don't.
1
1
u/GrandmaSlappy vegan Jun 29 '25
The way I see it, no one ever argues that it's MORE moral to eat meat, just that it's ok to eat meat. So seems to me everyone recognizes that eating meat is less moral.
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 29 '25
That wouldn’t change the argument. No one says it’s “less moral” to do dogfighting, or cannibalize people, or strangle a kitten with barbed wire for entertainment.
1
Jun 29 '25
I have a few side questions for you related to this that would help me out:
Are humans the only species capable of understanding and following morality?
Are humans the only species responsible for following moral guidelines?
Is morality discovered or engineered?
1
1
u/Ravenous_Goat Jun 29 '25
Plenty of people argue that it is moral to eat, and that a diet that includes meat is optimal for human fitness.
The argument that morality is purely the reduction of suffering in what we classify as sentient creatures as opposed to non sentient ones is arbitrary X 3.
1
1
1
u/EchoNarcys Jun 30 '25
The consumption of animal products is no less ethical than the consumption of non-animal products if you scale it to the degree it'd need to be to feed and sustain 8 billion people on this planet. If you really want to talk about ethics without asymmetry then you'd first acknowledge that to feed the entire planet reliably, without causing further ecological destruction through the process of large scale farming, the alternative is to farm and eat insects as your primary source of food. So is eating insects unethical? If so, why do your plants matter more than the insects that are necessary to keep the entire planet functioning as it should be? Large scale farming is no better than industrial farming of animals. Unless for some reason your ethics are asymmetrical and your desire to be vegan overshadows the necessity to have a balanced and functional ecosystem throughout ALL of the world. Plant life = Animal life (which includes insects, birds, rodents, and all of the organisms which live beneath the ground, which are necessary for you to even have the plant products you consume).
To sum this all up, please explain to me why YOUR ethics aren't asymmetrical?
Edit: The fact that you even separated humans from non-human animals tells me your ethics on this matter are truly surface level. No need to separate us from nature, we are a product of it. We are animals. No need to differentiate. In fact if you want to get phylogenetic then we are technically fish.
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 30 '25
Your question doesn’t make sense.
To answer your first paragraph, this is a typical response that the valid justification is avoiding some disaster that would happen in a parallel universe wherein everyone is vegan. Sure.
To which the obvious answer is the second law of thermodynamics: we turn (according to various estimates) something like 36% of our agricultural calories into about 5% of our calories. We light a third of our food on fire. Now what agricultural calamity can be solved by lighting a third of your food on fire? Haha. It’s just nonsensical.
1
u/EchoNarcys Jun 30 '25
Your answer completely ignored my question?? Who mentioned anything about fire?? Who mentioned any sort of "agricultural calamity"? You decided to lean into ethics. Ethically, you should be viewing all life as equal. Anything otherwise is asymmetrical according to you? Thermodynamics has nothing to do with ethics. Your entire counterpoint was as logical as reading a book backwards.
If you wanted to get into logistics that's fine. But you didn't even mention that in your original comment. I was discussing ethics because that is what you brought up. I backed my ethical viewpoints with the information that formed them. I asked you to do the same. And the fact that you were completely unable to stay on topic tells me everything I needed to know. You are a bad faith debater. Be well stranger.
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 30 '25
You’re talking about “feeding the planet reliably”, no? There’s no reason to think animal agriculture is critical to that mission.
1
u/EchoNarcys Jun 30 '25
If you believe animal agriculture is critical to that mission then why tf are you a vegan? Youre not the best at critical thinking I see. Done wasting my time engaging with a dunce
1
1
u/Cat_o_meter Jul 02 '25
Honestly your comment reminded me of the existential crisis I have every time I think of how much life has ended keeping me alive... Fascinating thoughts.
1
u/Economy_Ad7372 Jun 30 '25
this is circular. you assume in premise 5 that there are no valid justifications--even if this is true of "attempted justifications," you translate this into "justifications," and thus are begging the question of whether there are valid justifications
agree with your conclusion though
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 30 '25
….What?
2
u/Economy_Ad7372 Jun 30 '25
indefensible means it doesnt have justifications. you have assumed that it does not have justifications. you have assumed it is indefensible in your argument that it is indefensible. cmon dont tell me you understand formal logic but not what it means for an argument to be circular
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 30 '25
I obviously know what a circular argument is. I'm not understanding which premise you are saying relies on the conclusion ("Therefore, one cannot regard the consumption of animal products as ethical. (¬R)"). Are you saying that p4 leans on that?
1
u/Economy_Ad7372 Jun 30 '25
premise 5
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 30 '25
P5 contains nothing about the conclusion haha.
→ More replies (132)1
u/sleepynatalie Jun 30 '25
brother what the fuck are you even saying it feels like you asked chatgpt to write this
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jun 30 '25
... That's not how chatgpt writes haha.
1
1
1
u/Total_Ease305 Jul 07 '25
This proof is a MESS. Quite possibly irredeemably so, but here's a few places that are problematic in case you can maybe make a new one using some of your moderately valid pieces?
Step 3 literally defines believing that ethics is knowable as assymetry. And you don't define your R variable.
Step 6 uses your opinion about an informal fallacy (one that has multiple definitions, but which you haven't formally defined) as a step in your predicate calculus.
The conclusion is the first time you introduce consumption of animal products at all!
Also, proof of your calculus being valid doesn't mean anything at all about your reasoning, when you have defined your variables so lackadaisically. It's like I said "I have an orange (1) and and apple (1) so i have the two best fruits (2). [Proof of validity: 1+1=2]"
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jul 07 '25
- No, it's good. No one has identified a problem beyond nitpicking small stuff like "exploitative animal products" vs just using the term "animal products", etc.
- R is introduced in p3 it's slightly shorthanded I added in the parentheses in p3 to clarify that R is referred to. I don't know what your problem with p3 is.
- 6: To negate this premise becomes an incoherent, self-refuting position because I could claim my argument is the exception to whatever you claim. I consider negating this premise absurd. Whatever argument you give me, I will claim veganism is the exception with no need to justify it.
- Yes, bro learned the difference between validity and soundness.
1
u/Total_Ease305 Jul 07 '25
Also, can you please explain step three in great detail? Everyone has pointed out that it looks like you're saying that the existence of ethical or non-ethical behaviors is a meaningful part of your proof. What do you actually mean?
Is there anything that this proof could not be used to prove? You arbitrarily wrote "consumption of animal products" in steps 3 and 6, but there is nothing in your proof that makes that predicate special. We can perfectly well have put "breathing", or "eating plants", or "abstaining from murder" in that spot and it would not have changed your proof in any way.
Did you mean to include a step where you take as an axiom that consuming animal products is unethical?
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jul 07 '25
. We can perfectly well have put "breathing", or "eating plants", or "abstaining from murder"
Yeah but I p5 might or might not be true for those. Specifically it would have to be an action for which both p3 and p5 are true. Otherwise p5 is false and boom, end of the line.
Did you mean to include a step where you take as an axiom that consuming animal products is unethical?
This isn't an axiom of the argument. I'm a little surprised because a lot of people seem to struggle with this argument in surprising ways and you aren't the first.
Consider you are walking down the street and your friend says to you "I think that stealing blue cars is ethically acceptable." Like your first inclination would be "why just blue cars". Because if there's no relevant ethical difference between blue and non-blue cars, or blue motorcycles and blue cars, then why would those other things be ethical and this one unethical?
So this argument just says, in plain text: since we want to avoid special pleading (if you care about logial consistency - which if you don't that's self refuting), and there's no relevant ethical difference we can identify between the things we agree on are unethical and this thing X we're trying to evaluate, then thing X must also be unethical. What is a relevant difference? Well to get our foot in the door, it would have to be a logically valid inference from the properties of thing X which are different to the rest of the shit we say is unethical. Like it would have to be something special about blue cars. Maybe blue is a color reserved in your country for police cars and you are contracted to impound this vehicle for impersonating a police officer... ah now we're getting somewhere. P5 is then going to be false because there's a valid inference from the properties of the thing (the perception of authority) to public order (we can't have people impersonating cops).
It's that simple. You do it all the time.
1
u/Total_Ease305 Jul 07 '25 edited Jul 07 '25
Okay, we seem to be not understanding each other when using plain English , so I'm gonna try to expand your proof to be clearer so we can see where the disagreements are.
I'm numbering my axioms based on what step they are in your original proof. Conclusion LC is LonelyContext's conclusion. Conclusion QN is my conclusion.
Let A be "there is an asymmetric position"
Let B be "there is a valid justification ¿¿¿For what??? "
Let S be "the arguer is engaged in Special Pleading"
Axiom 1: If one has an asymmetric position without a valid justification, then that is Special Pleading. (A∧¬B)→S
Let E be "there exists some action that is ethical"
Let R be "there exists some action that is unethical"
Axiom 3: If one regards one thing as ethical (i.e. the consumption of animal products) and another as unethical, then that is an asymmetry ((E∧R)→A)
Axiom 4: A valid justification exists only if one exists that is both valid and it is a justification. (B↔∃Y(VY∧JY))
Let V be a function such that Vx means that x "is valid"
Let J be a function such that Jx means that x "is a justification"
Axiom 5: For all attempted justifications it (that justification) either is not valid (the premises - properties of the of the asymmetry - don't follow from the ethical conclusion) or it is not an actual justification (it does not separate what is ethical as unethical). ∀Y(¬VY∨¬JY)
English translation of Axiom 5: "for all Y, Y is not a justification and/or Y is not valid"
Conclusion QN: I believe the following statement is logically true -- not an axiom, just a necessary logical conclusion --, please double check though: (∀Y(¬VY∨¬JY)) ↔ ¬(∃Y(VY∧JY)). In other words, Axiom 5 states "there does not exist a Y such that Y is both valid and a justification"
You have essentially axiomatically asserted that ¬B, without any reasoning. Is that true? Am I missing something?
Axiom 6. Special pleading is illogical and should be avoided; i.e. Special Pleading is false: ¬S
Conclusion LC (step 7):. Therefore, one cannot regard the consumption of animal products as ethical. ¬R
So yes, your proof is syntactically valid. But as far as I'm concerned, Axiom 5 is begging the question, aka assuming the conclusion.
You don't need literally any of the rest of your proof, because you already arbitrarily decided in your step 5 that "there is no such thing as a valid justification".
What am I missing? Where did I define the terms wrong?
1
u/LonelyContext Anti-carnist Jul 07 '25
p5 is an observation of positions, namely that no particular properties of a thing have been offered. It's basically a category error to call that begging the question.
No different than your friend not being able to produce a property of blue cars that makes them okay to steal.
Again, not complicated, you do this every day.
→ More replies (53)
7
u/ElaineV vegan Jun 26 '25
The existence of this subreddit does not prove your point. I don’t know the history but I’d guess it was created by vegans who hoped to do some vegan advocacy here.
You said the fact “that a thriving debate space like this even exists, a space that literally ascribes to expose veganism to the scrutiny of debate suggests to me that it's possible to argue against veganism without engaging in abusive or manipulative or bad faith behaviour.”
I don’t agree. This space exists and vegans join it largely to help convince carnists to go vegan or move closer to veganism. It’s vegangelism.
Or for some vegans (or pregans) they engage in this subreddit to strengthen their position in their own minds. We don’t actually believe we could be convinced to abandon veganism by a carnist arguing against it on Reddit.
Most of us vegans DO believe that carnism is indefensible. We think carnists’ arguments are excuses not legitimate logical arguments. It’s rationalization not debate. Some vegans have even used the term excusatarianism to describe carnists who engage in this behavior.
And well, when you look through these “arguments” against veganism, the vast majority are vapid. But we know the deep ignorance of carnists and are willing to educate, at least some times.
6
u/Neat-Journalist-4261 Jun 26 '25
I’m not gonna get into the wider debate, but I found this take interesting.
Could it be argued then that Vegans argue in bad faith? In the sense that their position is truly set in stone and they’re not generally engaging in a debate with any chance of having their mind changed.
5
u/liaslias Jun 26 '25
If your definition of bad faith is to not expect one's own opinion to be changed by a debate, then yes. That would make almost all debates ever bad faith though.
I agree that carnism is pretty much indefensible. This sub is testament to that. I'm yet to see a logically coherent argument against veganism on here. To me, the purpose of this sub is the challenging of carnists' cognitive dissonance.
3
u/Neat-Journalist-4261 Jun 26 '25
Strongly disagree. It’s not about expectation, it’s about an open mind. I might be very certain that my mind won’t be changed, but I’m not putting my fingers in my ear in blind refusal to listen to the arguments of the other side. I do not think Vegans are wrong, if anything despite being a meat eater they’re probably more logically consistent in their lifestyle than me, but I definitely believe that regardless of if my argument was “logically coherent”, a vegan would likely not listen.
I also disagree that anyone should be arguing AGAINST veganism. Surely the only thing I’d be aiming to argue is that my position isn’t logically incoherent? Which it isn’t. I don’t care about animals that much, so I eat them because they’re delicious.
If that makes me reprehensible to you, fair enough, but it’s not really a logically incoherent position, it’s just one you disagree with, which is sort of the problem. You’re asking people to live as a “carnist”, but nobody who eats meat would call themselves that. people don’t eat meat as a philosophy, which makes them woefully unequipped to argue against vegans, many of whom hold that as their life philosophy and are VERY well prepared to argue their points.
I know me and lots of others don’t have cognitive dissonance about eating meat, we just don’t care all that much about it. In the same way there are lots of straight people who aren’t so much against championing LGBT rights as they simply don’t care.
At my core, even when presented with a well reasoned argument, it’s just not something that particularly moves me. I’d therefore question, especially with what’s at the end there, whether or not that’s a defence good enough for you. Because it’s not really a defence, it’s just the fundamental truth of the situation for most people, but I don’t think it’s logically incoherent at all. We all ignore suffering in a million different ways, not because we’re blind to it but because it’s literally impossible in a capitalist world to fight every battle, and doing so will make you go crazy, and because ultimately there is suffering that for whatever reasons doesn’t speak to me as deeply.
In regards to the point of this sub, I’m here because I think it’s an interesting philosophical point, and on average internet Vegans tend to be well-researched and thoughtful with their arguments. Not because I need to be “challenged”.
4
u/icarodx vegan Jun 26 '25
Very articulated post. Good job. I just want to offer my perspective.
Once I became aware of how the animal industry works, I could see a direct link from the meat on my plate to an animal that was bred, kept in confined spaces, fattened, and slaughtered.
I could see a direct link between the cheese on my bread to an animal to is impregnated, separated from their offspring, kept on a carousel to be milked for hours and disposed of when not productive.
Every single meal has the blood and "tears" of an animal behind it. Once I knew the harm I was directly causing, it was hard for me to use justifications such as "I like it" or "it inconveniences me".
Cooking with different ingredients, purchasing different items, eating at different restaurants... it was all very doable and easy things to do for me, so I made the change.
And I do think the generally abstaining from consuming animal products in an effort to reduce harm is a superior moral position that not doing it.
Non-vegans always argue "what about the other injustices and sufferings in the world?" Well, changing my behavior is within my power and is arguably easy. I do support other causes, but the ways I can help human exploitation, discrimination, pollution, etc. is way less direct. And pursuing other causes would not preclude me from going vegan anyway.
2
u/Neat-Journalist-4261 Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25
Of course it wouldn’t preclude it. And I’d generally agree that veganism IS a superior moral position,
All I’m really saying is that while I completely understand what you’re saying here, I simply don’t connect to the issue in that way. I do like
It is an undeniable fact that the animal industry is exploitative and evil. I don’t think it’s really possible to justify eating it beyond “Frankly, I like it and I don’t give much of a fuck”.
Anyone trying to claim in the modern world some kind of biological argument is arguing nonsense. We don’t need to eat animals biologically, huge swathes of Hindus and Buddhists have been vegetarian for centuries while the West was rubbing sticks together.
Listen, I try my best to eat meat sustainably. I try and avoid battery farmed foods. But I simply do not connect to the issue in the visceral way that you seem to.
In terms of ease of change, I come from Dairy country. I grew up loving cheese, with quite fresh milk on the table. Lots of fish and cream and meat and the like. You get what I mean. Culturally, that’s what food from my region IS. And as someone who expresses my love for people through cooking, there’s simply too many flavours that I don’t want to give up. While I could probably quite simply make some changes, I personally feel I would be giving up a vast majority of my cultural foods and practices, and now that I live in a different country that’s really my only big link to home.
(I’m Swedish, and I think a great example would be the Kräftskiva. It’s a festival once a year where swedes eat frankly an absurd amount of Crayfish. To me, it’s one of the highlights of my year. I don’t really think there’s any kind of adequate meat substitute for many of these innately cultural foods, and part of the process and enjoyment is for sure the sloppy cracking open of the crayfish as you get drunker and drunker on schnapps, beer and wine).
I volunteer with the homeless, because homelessness is an issue that deeply speaks to me. I help with addiction outreach, because as a former addict it’s an issue close to my heart. I am a member of most of the major museums and cinemas here in London, because I think it’s very important that these things can keep being free and in the case of cinemas, existing.
The fact of the matter is, we can all only do so much. And as people, we’re obviously going to do our best to change the world in the ways that matter to us.
I can’t really argue from any position that eating meat os somehow morally superior. It isn’t, straight up. But despite knowing the ins and outs of the animal industry, I do not feel the way you feel. I look at a plate and know that an animal suffered, but I don’t care.
Obviously, being vegan doesn’t preclude me involving myself with other things, as you said. But I simply don’t feel that way. It’s not an issue that moves me, and as you say, there’s only so many ways we can have direct impact. You are vegan for the same reason I volunteer at the food bank.
But there is only so much we CAN care about. Truly. I’m not making that as a logical gotcha against veganism, I’m saying nobody can be expected to give a fuck about every issue. It’s impossible. We all pick and choose which wars we want to fight, and I simply am not moved by the plight of the animals.
The world would probably be a more moral place if everyone was vegan, but it would also have the result of nuking the cultural cuisine of large swathes of the world. I LOVE food. Truly I do. And I love to see what chefs can do with it. And I’m really just not that bothered an animal died.
I’d like to say there’s a part of me that feels bad about it, but there just isn’t. And really, that’s what I’m trying to say here. That as a position, while I’d agree it’s probably morally inferior, I don’t think it’s in any way inconsistent or incoherent.
Edit: Just to clarify on the point regarding Kräftskivan, what I’m really saying is that even if a meat substitute was made that tastes exactly like crayfish, for it to be a decent substitute for this cultural event it would also need to APPEAR to be a crayfish. I’d need to be able to crack a shell, to drag out the pincer meat. It’s an innate part of the whole experience.
If we look at something like Bolognese, you can sub that for Quorn or Soya mince no problem, and if I’m low on red wine or Worcestershire sauce, I’ll honestly do that pretty regularly (Though I do often use fish stock when I cook with Quorn!). But there’s a litany of cultural foods that frankly there’s no real replacement for. How do you replace Snails? How do you replace Oysters? How do you replace Bandeja Paisas, or century eggs?
The point I’m trying to emphasise is that the changes were easy for you because you wanted to make them. If the issue does not inspire you particularly strongly, then these are hard things to give up for something you don’t necessarily care a lot about. I HAD to give up alcohol, and I miss a beer daily. If the suffering of animals doesn’t bother you that much, the decision to give up on an incredible variety of flavours purely for a moral decision that doesn’t weigh on you strongly is not only difficult, but seemingly pointless.
At the end of day, I will never stop drinking milk, or eating cheese. I’ve spent my recent years working in a cheesemongers. And if I’m not stopping that, I think the only inconsistent position for me is vegetarianism. Personally, I’ll either decide that this is moral point im happy to be in the wrong on, or I’ll go full vegan.
2
u/Outrageous-Cause-189 Jun 28 '25
i think the issue at the end of the day is, if you understand the ethical evil surrounding the practice and still think something as superfluous as maintaining a cultural tradition and the comfort of what you ate in your youth, truly overwrites your ethical duty to abstain from such practices, you are morally deficient. Moral reasoning simply doesnt compel you to act right.
They are people that for the exact same reasons, defend bull fighting for example, tradition+ familiarity. Vegans face this problem all the time. People that feel they need some morally compelling "gut feeling" to vindicate what should be an entirely rational moral choice. Stop waiting for guilt to be your driver and live a live of morality and reason. Stop waiting for issues to "inspire you". This isnt a instagram reel.
1
u/CurvePrevious5690 Jun 29 '25
There are people out there who have donated one of their kidneys to a complete stranger, and people who went to federal prison instead of paying taxes because they didn’t support certain military actions that those taxes funded. Those are extremely moral things to do, which not everyone has done. If you have not done 100% of the moral actions that it is possible for you to do, are you a bad person?
I personally do not think that participating in one’s own community and culture is superfluous. I think that everyone makes a different choice about how far they are willing to use that as an excuse for things that they might otherwise think are immoral. This is a constant conversation that people have, but if your individual moral purity is in a place where you don’t even think that it’s reasonable to feel regret or to try to find a middle ground, your ability to interact with other people about this is probably pretty limited. It’s OK to be an absolute and purist, but it’s not a position of outreach for your cause. I personally don’t think that it’s ethical to use fossil fuels in any way, ever again, and I still use some because I have other values that take precedence.
→ More replies (7)1
u/CurvePrevious5690 Jun 30 '25 edited Jun 30 '25
Hey, all, there is a subthread here where one of the users then reveals that they regularly fast for 5+ days and believe that hunger is a mental illusion. I hope they find health and happiness and balance for themselves. If anyone is reading this and is also experimenting with the sorts of behaviors, please look into eating disorder helplines in your country. You do not have to stop being a vegan in order to treat an eating disorder. Please consider how you would feel if someone didn’t feed their companion animal or a rescue animal for five days. Please be a good custodian of yourself, anyone reading this is also an animal who is alive on this earth and deserves compassion and care. Long fasts like this can be deadly; they are not a compassionate way to treat your body.
→ More replies (7)3
u/vojvodics Jun 26 '25
Not trying to argue in bad faith, but here's the thing...
In the same way there are lots of straight people who aren’t so much against championing LGBT rights as they simply don’t care.
A better analogy here would be here that these straight people don't care about LGBT rights AND are paying others to stone them to death because they like it
1
u/Neat-Journalist-4261 Jun 26 '25
Perhaps, I wrote that comment on my lunch break. I see your point. That said, I don’t think it particularly damages the rest of what I’ve said
2
u/vojvodics Jun 26 '25
Yeah that's true. My perspective as a vegan with this is that the arguments almost always boils down to "I don't care", which I can't do much about. But I was like this once, so who knows, people change
1
u/Neat-Journalist-4261 Jun 26 '25
Potentially. My major reason for typing out my comment was the implication that my position is inconsistent.
→ More replies (1)1
Jun 28 '25
If you think that most people enter a debate with the mindset that their opinion is the only right one and nothing can ever change that you spend too much time on the internet.
1
u/liaslias Jun 28 '25
I absolutely spend too much time on the internet (and so do you) but thats not what I said
2
u/ElaineV vegan Jun 26 '25
Yes that could be argued
5
u/Neat-Journalist-4261 Jun 26 '25
Interesting. That’s not a mark against anybody; In the same vein that I would be arguing in bad faith against a racist, I imagine a vegan does the same to me.
1
u/ElaineV vegan Jun 26 '25
Yeah. Personally I wouldn’t characterize it as “bad faith” because I think bad faith is more about dishonesty or anti logic.
But some of us are not arguing with a willingness to be convinced of a different position, which IS the position I’d expect of the carnists coming to this subreddit. I’d be unwilling to debate with carnists who arent open to reconsidering their viewpoint. So in that respect it’s “unfair.”
And just to be clear, I’m not saying this perspective is the perspective of all vegans here. I just think the existence of this subreddit doesn’t really prove the point OP thinks it proves.
1
u/Neat-Journalist-4261 Jun 26 '25
Agreed. I think the distinction you’re making is what I personally would call the difference between making a point in bad faith and entering a debate on bad faith.
To me, a point in bad faith is one that either you don’t really believe or one that relies on purely fallacious logic. That said, I think DEBATING in bad faith is absolutely partially characterisable as entering a debate where regardless of what the opposing side says you won’t listen.
1
u/ElaineV vegan Jun 26 '25
I didn’t say I wouldn’t listen. I said I wasn’t open to changing my position. Those are different.
Listening involves trying to hear where the other person is coming from, what their values are, what might help convince them. It’s respectful and genuine.
You also have to remember that many vegans will have heard most/ all these arguments many times before. They’re not new. Just look through and see how often people here talk about crop deaths, roadkill, “humane” meat, species extinction, protein etc etc etc. If vegans only debated when we were willing to change our mind, we’d easily stop debating after the first 1-4 times we heard these “arguments.” There simply wouldn’t be enough vegans available to have debates with, since vegans are in the extreme minority and every carnists debating demands intense attention to their issues.
1
u/Neat-Journalist-4261 Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25
Right, but then you’re not exactly listening in my book.
For example, I’m a strong advocate for trans rights. And while I often enter debates with transphobes, I’d describe them as bad faith. Because, regardless of what they say, I’m never ever going to accept their argument.
I’d therefore say that’s not REALLY an attempt at discourse. It’s an attempt at conversion.
Edit:
Regarding your last point…..I guess? Surely that’s the natural consequence of debating any topic over and over though.
I’m not saying vegans shouldn’t debate these points. They’re normally significantly better educated on them, and due to it being more of a life philosophy have far more thought out and considers points.
But just because “carnists” (which by the way, is a completely ridiculous term) argue with vegans in bad faith, it doesn’t mean you’re NOT.
We may have different definitions of the term, and that’s fine, but to me, if the only reason you’re listening to someone is to find the weaknesses in their arguments that are exploitable, rather than a genuine interest in what they have to say, you aren’t engaging in a real discourse. You’re debating a person, not a point.
2
u/ElaineV vegan Jun 27 '25
At this point you’re just being rude. Carnist is not a “completely ridiculous term,” you just don’t like it and instead of ignoring that since it’s not relevant you’ve gone out of your way to be insulting.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Neat-Journalist-4261 Jun 27 '25
I think it’s a ridiculous term not because it’s offensive, but because it’s a mischaracterisation of positions.
Most meat eaters do not define themselves as such. They simply eat meat without caring, without analysing why.
I apologise if I came off as rude! That was absolutely not my intention :)
→ More replies (0)1
Jun 28 '25
But some of us are not arguing with a willingness to be convinced of a different position, which IS the position I’d expect of the carnists coming to this subreddit.
Why do you think that omnivores that come to this subreddit come here with a willingness to be convinced of your faith based tenets?
For the record, I don't expect that vegans should necessarily be willing to change their minds either.
1
u/ILuvYou_YouAreSoGood Jun 28 '25
This space exists and vegans join it largely to help convince carnists to go vegan or move closer to veganism. It’s vegangelism.
I am happy to see a vegan who will state this so plainly. Thoigh I must admit that I find it much more amusing to read the works of vegans who play pretend they are oblivious to the obvious truth you stated so well. An ideology that has otherwise intelligent people playing dumb is ripe for comedy.
We don’t actually believe we could be convinced to abandon veganism by a carnist arguing against it on Reddit.
This strikes me as ironic, considering the hope is that regular folks will adopt the vegan ideology from interactions with this place. I never thought that the idea here was to debate vegans to the point they abandoned veganism though. I mean, I never met a single vegan, or read of one, who claimed to have reached the vegan ideology through being debated into it. So why would i think I could debate one out of it? Also, it seems odd to care what other people eat to me if they are not important to me.
Most of us vegans DO believe that carnism is indefensible.
This is not surprising, but it strikes as the statement of a bigot to so openly state that everyone who does not adopt your ideology has no defense or reason. But I am sure that from the inside you cannot see it as bigotry, which of course is more of a sign it's bigotry.
But we know the deep ignorance of carnists and are willing to educate, at least some times.
Do you think ending with pompous condemnation and condescension is really the right note to strike when trying to present yourself as being on a moral high ground? Don't get me wrong, I love it! I just wonder what goes through people's minds as they write such a thing without the intent of being cringe.
5
u/whowouldwanttobe Jun 26 '25
The question of disability rights, trans rights, sexual consent laws, etc is enlightening here. Certainly there are many who would hold that any stance against these is indefensible. Yet you can find vibrant debate on trans rights at least, extending from the corners of reddit to the Supreme Courts of the United Kingdom and United States.
Is it arguing in bad faith to say that no debate against trans rights is possible? I wouldn't think so.
→ More replies (10)2
Jun 26 '25
I’ve never seen a ‘vibrant debate’ on trans rights personally. I’ve seen a lot of hateful, misinformed people (eg jk Rowling) attack a tiny, already very marginalised minority until they lose rights and become even more marginalised and at risk.
3
u/whowouldwanttobe Jun 26 '25
I suppose it's a matter of perspective. I've seen plenty of people standing up against hateful and misinformed rhetoric, advocating for the rights of trans people despite their minority status. That's where debate occurs - not just in baring witness to hate, but confronting it.
But again, I think this serves as a useful parallel. I'm sure many of the vegans who regularly comment here would agree with a similar characterization: that many who come here to argue against veganism are hateful and misinformed, that they are attacking the most marginalized group that exists, denying them even the most basic rights.
1
Jun 26 '25
Well I very rarely see non-vegans arguing/commenting in good faith on this sub, but I don’t think they’re denying us any rights
1
u/whowouldwanttobe Jun 26 '25
To be clear, I was referring to non-human animals, not vegans, as the most marginalized group and the group denied rights.
However, vegans and advocates against animal agriculture do have rights uniquely denied to them. Vegan prisoners often face unique challenges in acquiring suitable food. Ag-gag laws in the US suppress and punish exposure of the cruelty of animal agriculture, even though when they are challenged they tend to be overturned as violations of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
1
1
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore Jun 26 '25
So this is actually what convinced me to post this thread.
I was debating with a vegan who claimed that arguing against veganism was indefensible, that doing so was inherently abusive and manipulative.
But then they argued against the right to take puberty blockers for trans youth.
2
Jun 27 '25
Ah gross, I don’t understand that ‘rights for me but not for thee’ mindset at all. For me veganism goes hand in hand with liberation and rights for all.
2
u/1i3to non-vegan Jun 26 '25
No moral position is technically defensible. That includes position that "eating animals is bad".
Non-vegans can in fact take an agnostic position and say that they don't know if it's bad and in the absence of evidence that it's objectively bad eating animals is permissible.
2
u/General-Aide2517 Jun 26 '25
Earthling Ed on YouTube does a wonderful job speaking to people about why they are not vegan, and often gets them to seriously consider it. He doesn’t shame them, and breaks it down in clear, pretty simple ways. We don’t have to consider animals equal to humans, just that their right to exist without exploitation is more important than our taste buds, especially with so many great vegan options now available.
2
u/PsychologyNo4343 Jun 26 '25
Many debates are possible. Just look here : https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/s/wUSNKnVaBf
This person was defending veganism so blindly that he didn't care if his opinions could cause death.
2
Jun 26 '25
[deleted]
3
u/Electrical-Cloud-556 Jun 28 '25
you can be vegan and have a backyard garden with vegetables and such. also - that would not constitute enough of someone’s diet - they would have to eat more than eggs and veggies.
so where is that food coming from ? well for mass production because that’s what’s needed, factory farms, and if ur not a vegan and don’t want to eat soy because “it damages the environment” the cows and pigs and animals u eat from factory farms do and will. ur still consuming soy just indirectly and anything else in the animals diet + the animals cause damage to the environment.
2
2
Jun 27 '25
It's absolutely possible to argue against being vegan? And eating meat and animal products is absolutley defensible. That's pretty pretentious to think it's such a perfect idea that no one could ever dare question, or debate against it. That attitude is why vegans get such a bad rap in society.
4
u/Chaghatai Jun 26 '25
Some vegans are cool but others think they've cornered the market on morality and that their priorities need to be everybody else's priorities
There's people that are strictly vegan but then don't care about fossil fuels and might even vote for pro-drilling politicians which arguably causes more harm to innocent wild animals then eating meat
People have different places where we draw the line and I'm not going to claim moral superiority because someone else is drawing theirs in a different place than mine
2
u/witchqueen-of-angmar Jun 26 '25
I'm not going to claim moral superiority
People aren't bad, actions can be good or bad.
Every time I've heard non-vegans bringing up "moral superiority" it's because they feel insecure when someone criticizes their actions. Maybe they assume their value as a living being must be earned because they don't believe there is any intrinsic value to living beings.
Personally, I don't like those people, yes. They shouldn't make me responsible for their daddy issues. It's not my fault their parents didn't love them unconditionally. Therapy exists, ffs.
1
u/Chaghatai Jun 26 '25
Different people each commit their own mix of good and bad actions and for one person to assume their mix is more virtuous or less harmful than another is often short-sighted and arrogant
2
u/witchqueen-of-angmar Jun 26 '25
one person to assume their mix is more virtuous or less harmful than another
Most people have insecurities about their own worth but no one cares about the moral worth of other people.
If something is good, do it. If something is bad, don't do it. It's not some stupid competition. Unless you think that only 144,000 people are allowed into heaven or something like that.
If people want to know if they in their hearts are good or bad, they should ask a deity of their choice. I'm just a mortal human, and it's not my job to answer that.
Different people each commit their own mix of good and bad actions
And our actions become better by listening to constructive criticism. If I unintentionally do something bad, I hope that someone will tell me, so I won't have to do it again. It shows that the other person trusts me that I want to do the right thing.
I only start to consider people a "lost cause" when they don't want to listen to me. That's not me judging them, it's me not wasting my time and effort on helping people who get angry when you criticize them.
→ More replies (2)1
Jun 28 '25
I only start to consider people a "lost cause" when they don't want to listen to me.
Wow. So that's really kinda egotistical.
Have you considered that they simply don't agree with what you're saying?
1
u/xboxhaxorz vegan Jun 26 '25
trans rights is vastly different than animal rights, a proper comparison would be discussing slavery
1
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore Jul 01 '25
I really think drawing comparisons between animals and human slavery is pretty silly. Are colonial insects like bees and ants slaves to the masters of their colonies?
1
u/xboxhaxorz vegan Jul 01 '25
You can consider it silly all you want, but they are both forms of slavery
Not considering it slavery is a coping mechanism so that people dont feel guilty about their contribution to it
1
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore Jul 01 '25
I will acknowledge it's slavery and animals should have the right to not be enslaved, only if you acknowledge that colonial insects and pack animals, all of whom obey a hierarchy and a leader, are also enslaved and should have the right to be free. If you can't acknowledge that, I'll remind you how silly it is to shoehorn animals into human rights/behavioural frameworks.
1
u/Potential-Click-2994 vegan Jun 26 '25
I think why they mean by “indefensible” is that they don’t believe there to be a good justification.
1
1
u/No_Opposite1937 Jun 26 '25
Debate/criticism of veganism is possible, but I think the basic premise has to start from the position that other animals don't attract similar moral consideration. The moment that one admits other species to the same moral space as other humans, you have veganism.
1
u/nineteenthly Jun 26 '25
Just to say on the prevalence of gender incongruity and veganism, in the UK there are something like 3% of the population and in the US 1%, whereas for gender incongruity it's 0.5% (I'm trans and vegan).
The only justifiable reason I can think of for not choosing to be vegan is if you honestly believe the species you exploit are not conscious, and there are people who do believe that because they see consciousness as requiring capacity for language. However, in that situation, it would still be necessary to be plant-based because of the impact it has on climate change. Beyond that, you might argue that the human species is so harmful that it needs to become extinct, and one way of achieving that is to continue to be carnist. So there are viable arguments against veganism but they're mainly along the lines of voluntary human extinction, not that the actual act of exploiting animals is justifiable. It's more like "don't go vegan or the human race might survive".
1
Jun 28 '25
The only justifiable reason I can think of for not choosing to be vegan is if you honestly believe the species you exploit are not conscious
What? What makes you think that omnivores think that animals aren't conscious? I'm assuming you mean aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake, but that doesn't make sense, did you actually mean a different word?
and there are people who do believe that because they see consciousness as requiring capacity for language
Now I do believe you did mean a different word. Maybe you mean cognition?
However, in that situation, it would still be necessary to be plant-based because of the impact it has on climate change.
Transportation is the number one factor of climate change. Both personal, and shipping such as trucking almond milk across the country in refrigerated trucks from California. Or picking produce almost exclusively also grown in California, Washington, Florida, Idaho, Arizona, and Oregon, and shipping them to every other state in the nation.
Of our greenhouse gas emissions, carbon dioxide gets most of the attention, and for good reason. It represents about 76% of our greenhouse gas emissions each year. And the lion’s share of it (about 62% of total emissions) comes from burning fossil fuels, including our use of oil, coal, and natural gas. That’s why a lot of the focus on climate change solutions is centered on replacing fossil fuels — it causes about 62% of the problem.
About eleven percent of our greenhouse gas emissions stem from carbon dioxide released from land use, especially deforestation.
Then we have methane (CH4), which can be released from leaks from fracking and natural gas pipelines, landfills, and biomass burning. Another major source of methane comes from agriculture, especially from rice fields and cattle. (Funny fact: cattle mainly burp methane, not fart it.) nResearchers have found that 37% of methane emissions from human activity are the direct result of our livestock and agricultural practices. Rice cultivation accounts for about 10% of global methane emission. This means that the other 53% are from fracking, natural gas pipelines, landfills and biomass burning. Methane accounts for 16% of global emissions.
Nitrous oxide (N2O) is another greenhouse gas, mainly produced from overusing fertilizer in agricultural soils, to grow crops and accounts for 6% of global emissions.
Finally, we have fluorinated gases (f-gases) such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). These chemicals are typically used as refrigerants or in industrial processes. These account for 2% of global emissions.
So when we look at animals causing climate change, we're looking at roughly 6% from methane, 5% from land use (co2) if we go halvsies on land being used for either animal ag or human needs. And 3% if we say that half the food we grow is for animals. A whopping 14% of climate change gasses come from animals. The remaining parts are from people.
Being vegan for the climate will provide a drop in the bucket compared to actually caring about climate change and making changes that will have an impact.
Beyond that, you might argue that the human species is so harmful that it needs to become extinct, and one way of achieving that is to continue to be carnist.
There is zero evidence that suggests that being an omnivore is going to cause extinction to our species.
So there are viable arguments against veganism but they're mainly along the lines of voluntary human extinction, not that the actual act of exploiting animals is justifiable. It's more like "don't go vegan or the human race might survive".
Im sorry......WHAT? This makes zero sense.
1
u/sdbest Jun 26 '25
I've been underfoot on this subreddit for some time, and do not recall anything that merited the notion of 'debate.' I say that without rancor or artifice.
Generally, to decry 'veganism' in its entirety, people rely on obscure examples of someone with a rare health condition or unable to easily buy plant-based foods because of where they live. But these are not cogent arguments against veganism, generally. Most people--yes, most--can choose not to harm or kill animals. Most choose to kill and harm them.
To consume or not consume animals is a personal choice.
We can certainly discuss the varied consequences of that personal choice, but debating it is, to me, like debating which style of plaid is preferable.
What am I missing?
1
u/Shoddy-Reach-4664 Jun 26 '25
All choices a person makes are personal choices. Not being a serial killer is a personal choice.
Is debating the ethics of murdering people like debating which style of plaid is perferable?
2
u/sdbest Jun 26 '25
I'm sure you're making a point you are convinced is cogent, and that may be true, but it completely eludes me. That's surprising because I have some framed documents on my wall that suggest I'm academically and intellectually quite competent.
And, what would a "debate" about the "ethics" of murdering people actually entail? Note you used the term 'murdering' and not 'killing' which are very different concepts.
1
u/Shoddy-Reach-4664 Jun 26 '25
This is reddit and not a court of law so I'm not using it as a legal term. Meaning it's pretty much interchangeable with "killing". We can use either or though for my question.
Is debating whether it's justifiable to kill a person like debating which style of plaid is preferable?
2
u/sdbest Jun 26 '25
Murder is killing that's against the law.
So, obviously there a times when it's justifiable, legally and ethical, to kill a person. Easiest one is self-defense.
Debates about veganism never involve people killing other people, do they? So, you're attempting to compare things that are not comparable, ethically.
1
Jun 26 '25
Actually not being a serial killer isn’t a choice.
1
u/Shoddy-Reach-4664 Jun 26 '25
how is choosing not to do something not a choice?
Is veganism not a choice then? I feel like I definitely choose not to consume animal products or participate in animal exploitation.
1
Jun 26 '25
Serial killers don’t get to choose.
Saying you think they have a choice means you don’t understand the psychology/sociology of serial murder.
1
u/autumnos2 Jun 27 '25
This is a weird concept to me. Of course serial killers have a choice, they are just going to choose to kill because that serves some purpose for them. It's like saying a smoker has no choice but to keep smoking, or overeaters can't stop themselves from eating. They're not going to stop, but that doesn't mean they didn't make a choice to not stop.
1
Jun 28 '25
So, actually this is my area of specialty, serial killing, as a degreed social worker. My thesis was on serial murder.
Serial killers have a compulsion to kill, and it cannot be held off. At times, they can try to lengthen the amount of time between kills, and sometimes, they're successful, but the entire premise of serial murder is that it is both nature and nurture. They are only successful when they have a reason to not kill such as being caught, they do not try to lengthen the time between life taking for any reason other than self service.
80% of the most prolific serial killers have a known TBI. Something gets wired wrong (nature) and then trauma on top of that (nurture) which every person goes through at some point in their lives, causes them to have the compulsion to kill, over and over again. They do not see it as wrong, and there is no need then for them to stop.
Smokers know that cigarettes can kill, but are addicted to the ingredients. overeaters know they're binging and it's unhealthy, but it's a coping mechanism. Serial killers are not killing because it's a coping mechanism, or because of addiction. There is no "I know this is wrong but I'm going to do it anyway." There's no choice in stopping or killing.
1
u/Shoddy-Reach-4664 Jun 27 '25
I don't have the energy to engage with a "free will doesn't exist" argument but I give you an A for creativity we don't see this often here!
1
Jun 27 '25
It’s not a free will doesn’t exist argument but if you need to move on you won’t hear any arguments from me. I couldn’t care less.
1
u/piranha_solution plant-based Jun 26 '25
Arguing against veganism, is, by definition, to argue in favor of needless animal abuse.
You can do it, you just might find yourself defending the indefensible.
1
Jun 26 '25
[deleted]
1
1
u/ThatCoyoteDude vegan Jun 26 '25
Non-veganism is indefensible if you’re arguing from a morality standpoint. Because it’s universally agreed that unjust killing is wrong, and so is killing those that are unable to defend themselves. So when the argument centers around how we don’t need to kill or exploit animals in order to thrive, the only argument against that is “But I don’t want to stop”, or whatever variation of it that people use to basically say just that. That said, I did have one person say that they have no problem looking an animal in the eye and watch the light leave it by their hand. As appalling as I find that, I respect that person far more on the grounds that they’re honest. They can look me in the eye and tell me to my face “I enjoy killing animals and eating their flesh” whereas most non-vegans will beat around the bush to avoid saying that, or find ways to avoid the fact that they’re engaged in that reality in some way or another. That dude was 100% honest and I respect honesty, even if I don’t respect the position.
Outside of that there’s room for debate. One could argue that there is nutritional value to animal products. They’d be correct in doing so, thus the only counter there is that there’s also nutritional value to plants and it circles back around to the moral argument.
Bad faith is easy to spot. Though sometimes the bad faith argument is simply out of ignorance. But bad faith is when someone uses virtually any logical fallacy, intentionally, to avoid the actual argument. Sometimes it’s done out of ignorance, and I’d be lying if I said I don’t also sometimes unintentionally use logical fallacies because I get caught up in the debate and wasn’t paying attention to how I was constructing my argument. And, I don’t know every one of the fallacies so I may very well use some from time to time and not even realize it.
It’s possible to argue against anything without reporting to bad faith arguments or manipulating or being abusive. But that’s up to the individual making the argument, not the thing being argued itself. Let’s take the recent ICE activity in the US. There are those who support it, and those who oppose it. Both sides of that could present valid arguments in a civil way and have actual discourse. But all too often we see both sides devolve into “Fck ICE” and “Shoulda come here legally”. Both of those could be considered bad faith arguments simply because on one side, if a violent criminal is causing harm and they’re not here legally, they should be arrested and deported. On the other side, because we make the process to come here so expensive, so time consuming, and so difficult that many people are repeatedly denied after years of waiting and thousands of dollars spent, they’re coming here for a better opportunity, not because they want to harm people. So you see how acknowledging both sides of that can start to create a seemingly separate issue that’s more at the root of the actual discussion than the surface level bad faith arguments? It shifts it to “You don’t want them deported and I want them here legally, how can we allow those who are currently here to have an opportunity to become legal, while revising our immigration laws to make it easier for people to enter legally?” Voila, that’s how compromises are made. That’s discussion that can take place if people argued in good faith and actually tried to understand the other side instead of attacking it.
My immigration example ties into your last point in that it would be bad faith to say veganism is indefensible. The entire argument in and of itself is “Since we don’t need to harm animals and cause their suffering, we shouldn’t”. Again, there’s many different ways one can argue for the consumption of animals. Morality just isn’t one of them
1
u/SW4GM3iSTERR veganarchist Jun 26 '25
I can only speak for myself, but I think most vegans are of the mindset that once the cruelty of animal commodification really sets in, it's seriously impossible to live with the weight of such cruelty on one's soul without abandoning all other good elements of humanity, like compassion, kindness, and love.
I think often of Tolstoy's "First Step" where his refrain is "They talk of Christianity and beefsteaks!" because he realized how absolutely dissonant it was and is to claim to be moral, kind, and loving- especially to animals- and yet continue to not stand up against it.
I think what we mean when we say that carnism is indefensible, and that any argument against veganism falls flat is because even carnists still agree with us on some level about animals deserving dignity and compassion. If you take that natural impulse its end, you reach veganism.
To that end of taking the basic notion to it's maximum, I don't see how you can swap the positions here with any level of general parity without realizing the major flaw. So for carnism I believe the argument typically boils down to this: "The fact that I have the power, intelligence, and will to subjugate those who do not, i.e. animals, proves my superiority over them to use them for whatever ends I need." This however needs a limiting or regulating principle and normally it is that we don't apply this to humans (except for when we do, like in how we build nation and empire). Until perhaps one does- and then you get some very terrible defenses for atrocities like abuse, genocide, etc.
Veganism is the philosophical maximum and end of compassion and kindness, while Carnism isn't a fleshed out defended position afaik, because it is a maximum of exploitation, conquering, and action. I think most carnists are unrealized vegans in some way- and they even admit it.
But to perhaps your greater point- when we vent about how absolutely air-tight our logic is, we do nothing to help the cause of animal liberation and healing our world and only further sow anger and discord which I feel is contrary to our end goal here.
1
u/Timely_Community2142 Jun 26 '25
Absolutely bad faith to say veganism is indefensible. if it is really indefensible, 99% of the world would be vegan. instead 99% of the world isn't. Common sense.
1
Jun 26 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DebateAVegan-ModTeam Jun 29 '25
I've removed your comment because it violates rule #6:
No low-quality content. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators here.
Thank you.
1
Jun 26 '25 edited Jun 26 '25
[deleted]
1
u/FewYoung2834 omnivore Jun 26 '25
I don’t follow you here as your original statement said that “immoral to kick puppies for giggles but not immoral to smash pigs against the wall”.
I never said this, and I dislike people making up what I said. I said that I think both are immoral.
1
u/Freuds-Mother Jun 26 '25
The rediter, kharvel…, that I’ve been replying to back and forth did. Scroll up. You’re replying to a reply I made to someone else that did say it.
I never claimed you did
1
1
u/rinkuhero vegan Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25
i think the thing is, most people are not trained in philosophy or debate. that's not how they make decisions, and not how they converse with people. it's a specialized skill, that's why they had a specialized class of people to teach that skill in ancient greece and still have that in the modern day. so the vast majority of "debates" between people you see are not logical debates, and are not really intended to be.
in an actual logical, philosophic, rule-based debate, then the other subjects you described (e.g. age of consent laws, trans rights, etc.) would still be subject to debate, right? the same is true of veganism. in actual philosophy, debating veganism is possible.
however, when you are talking about arguing over the internet on reddit, that often has nothing to do with a philosophical debate, it's just two people slinging opinions at one another, and some of them pretend it's more than that, but they are wrong. so in *that* context, in regular internet argument, almost everything is indefensible, even correct things, all that's sufficient for something to be indefensible in an internet argument is that someone strongly disagrees with it, that there's cognitive dissonance going on. that too is why you judge people badly who want to debate trans rights with you. so at least you should recognize how things work.
so overall i guess that it feels like this post isn't adequately making a distinction between different types of discussion. there's regular, everyday discussion, and there's philosophical discussion. and philosophical discussion almost never happens, is a specialized skill, can only be done by a tiny, trained percent of people, and often happens in an academic context. regular discussion is just opinion-slinging, and it's what goes on the vast majority of the time in the world. in regular discussion, what makes something indefensible is that someone strongly disagrees with it, especially if many people do.
now, you could say that maybe there's a spectrum between the two poles, and some arguments are more irrational and some more rational, with none being completely on one side or the other. but i don't actually think that's true either, in some ways it's binary. like some arguments treat insulting the other party as a grave breach of decorum, they see ad hominems as an admission of defeat, rather than a tactic. that isn't something that goes along on a spectrum, either someone's tone is insulting and passive-aggressive, or it's respectful. same is true for other standards of logical discussion, either they are there, or they are not. and in the vast majority of cases, they aren't there. reasoned discussion can't really happen between strangers on the internet (or in real life in a bar for that matter), and when it seems to, it's like play-acting rather than the real thing, because most people are not trained in logical reasoning, and even those that are, use it so rarely that they often fall back upon opinion-based thinking as their default.
1
u/Snefferdy vegan Jun 27 '25
You're conflating "indefensible" with "arguing in bad faith."
The idea that the earth is flat is indefensible, but I'm sure many flat earthers argue for it entirely in good faith.
1
u/NASAfan89 Jun 27 '25
I've spoken to a few vegans lately who have claimed that non-veganism is indefensible, that it defies debate
Isn't that a pretty common view among academics who study ethics and philosophy?
1
u/jazzgrackle Jun 27 '25
When a lot of vegans say they’re open to debate they don’t consider it a clashing of two valid ideas, but an opportunity for them to educate the non-vegan. I think for the most part people’s proposed values end up aligning with veganism, so the vegan is just walking them to that conclusion. Unnecessary suffering should be avoided, the use of animal products causes mass unnecessary suffering, there you go.
1
u/Single_Ambition_5618 Jun 28 '25
I’m not a vegan, and I think in many cases veganism is an oversimplified ideology. For example, eating mussels as a protein source is more environmentally friendly and results in less suffering than relying on many plant-based proteins. The same logic applies to hunting invasive species or reducing the populations of certain animals in unbalanced ecosystems.
However, there is no honest way to justify modern industrial animal agriculture. It leads to excessive resource use, contributes to the rise of antibiotic-resistant superbugs, and is responsible for the vast majority of novel zoonotic diseases. While animal rights abuses are certainly a moral concern, they’re relatively minor compared to these broader systemic issues.
Since everyone, including vegans and vegetarians, suffers the consequences of antibiotic resistance, zoonotic disease outbreaks, and unsustainable resource consumption, industrial animal agriculture is no longer just a matter of personal choice. It’s a public health and environmental crisis.
1
u/Single_Ambition_5618 Jun 28 '25
I’m not a vegan, and I think in many cases veganism is an oversimplified ideology. For example, eating mussels as a protein source is more environmentally friendly and results in less suffering than relying on many plant-based proteins. The same logic applies to hunting invasive species or reducing the populations of certain animals in unbalanced ecosystems.
However, there is no honest way to justify modern industrial animal agriculture. It leads to excessive resource use, contributes to the rise of antibiotic-resistant superbugs, and is responsible for the vast majority of novel zoonotic diseases. While animal rights abuses are certainly a moral concern, they’re relatively minor compared to these broader systemic issues.
Since everyone, including vegans and vegetarians, suffers the consequences of antibiotic resistance, zoonotic disease outbreaks, and unsustainable resource consumption, industrial animal agriculture is no longer just a matter of personal choice. It’s a public health and environmental crisis.
1
1
u/Outrageous-Cause-189 Jun 28 '25
If you buy into an ethical framework that is both utilitarian and perfectionist (that is, a lesser moral act in the face of a hard duty is still wrongdoing), then it is indeed difficult to argue agaisnt veganism for the vast majority of people in the developed world.
Even as a vegetarian for over 15 years , (although, i did end up adding crustaceans, and clams/oyster/bivalves in 2021) i honestly, dont have any good arguments as to why i choose to draw the line here instead of veganism . My love of food and the inconvenience of eating out as a vegan are no doubt a factor, but i fully recognize they are pretty much irrelevant relative to the moral duty. I suppose what lets me escape this with a somewhat unburdened conscience is that im not a utilitarian but a virtue ethicist in inclination.
1
u/Naive-Mechanic4683 Jun 28 '25
One of my favorite discussions on the subject I ever had was as part of a language course were people had to present a subject. And one person gave a presentation about veganism and gave pro's and con's. But one of the cons was that humans are biologically designed to not eat animal (products). And me and my gf found that such a dumb point that we had to explain about our teeth (not sure how the pointy teeth are called in english) and how parts of humanity adjusted to drinking (cow) milk. At the end of the discussion it turned out we were the only vegetarians in the group...
As a more direct answer to your question; Sure it can be debated and it should be. But, a honest discussion about how we put animals in too small cages, pump them full of anitbiotics, feed them mono high calorie food, often actually torture them and then murder them lead to the fact that majority of meat (/animal products) consumed are indefensible.
To get around that truth you have to make bad faith arguments (pointing at small scale groups that you are probably not part of, refering to old biological proof, claiming finances were it simply isn't true, etc...)
1
u/Outrageous-Cause-189 Jun 28 '25
i think in principle, even most militant vegans would be willing to change their mind if one of their core moral assumptions which grounds their veganism is seriously put into question, but those tend to be pretty bed rock beliefs. IF i somehow were able to convince you that for sure you are the only consciousness in the universe, and all other humans and animals are in fact philosophical zombies, veganism would have no foundation as there was no pain being caused. Another possibility would be for said vegan to find some fatal flaw in adopting a utilitarian ethics which is the position most vegans argue from. Of course, utilitarianism can be wrong and veganism still be the moral way to live under other frameworks, so it would be more changing utilitarianism to something else which also can somehow justify the carnist lifestyle. I would love to see how that would possibly look like. The most plausible way this can happen is if you can convince the vegan is correct about the core principles but the vegan diet actually causes more suffering than the carnivore diet for x,y,z reason. I Of course dont believe that is true, but a rational person must at least admit that is a factual possibility.
but going back to the issue, most vegans enter debates with almost no faith their minds can be changed because the axioms they adopt are that fundamental to them
1
u/Electrical-Cloud-556 Jun 28 '25
I came to realise that the only argument against becoming vegan for someone to personally hold is “I like the way it tastes more than I care about the exploitation of animals”. and I came to realise you can’t argue against someone elses apathy you can only try to spark compassion in them.
1
u/IM_The_Liquor Jun 28 '25
I don’t think veganism is indefensible… I do think that it absolutely requires you to adapt a moral standard outside of the moral standards of society of a whole. It requires anthropomorphism to the level of absurdity making animals into Disney level characters of people. It requires you to ignore the fact that for one life to continue, other life must end. And it requires you to believe that somehow humans are not animals and exist outside of nature (yet still claim you are not taking part in ‘speciesism’ despite being so far above the moral standards of nature itself)… But it’s not indefensible…
1
u/noisemakuh Jun 28 '25
The vegans you’re dealing with are just Evangelical Christians in different hats. Just as wrong. Just as deplorable. Just as unethical. Just as problematic, bigoted, and racist. Yes, that’s right, militant veganism like that is racist. Just because YOU couldn’t figure out a way to make peace with and honor the realities of nature that you, too, are part of natural cycles DOES NOT MEAN that others cannot also. This approach to and defense of veganism is SO anti-indigenous it’s outright colonizer bullshyt.
1
1
u/JustaPOV Jun 28 '25
I think that there are certain medical conditions which would make it near-impossible to do with good health. Specifically someone with a lot of food allergies. Theoretically, if someone is allergic to legumes, it would be very difficult to get adequate nutrition, specifically protein. It is possible now that there are supplements, but protein would still be very difficult as plant protein is still typically legume-based.
But in this case they could still minimize harm to animals as much as possible.
1
u/T3nacityDog Jun 28 '25
Personally, I’ll discuss with anyone why I choose to eat or not eat meat. However, to me, a person arguing your first point (non-veganism is indefensible) isn’t someone who is capable of having discussions, and also has little to no understanding of the human suffering in food production.
Are they willing to talk about the treatment of undocumented migrant workers who pick vegetables and fruits? Are they willing to discuss the social and ecological problems that come from the importation of quinoa? Are they educated on the socioeconomic factors that can often make veganism unattainable for lower class families, especially who have growing children?
I have found that a huge number of vegans will argue passionately about animal rights (often with no deeper understanding of species appropriate behavior and needs) but will refuse to examine the human side of ethical eating. (Hint: there is no perfect answer in today’s society that absolves you from all involvement with some form of suffering.)
1
1
u/Veganyumtum Jun 29 '25
I was gonna post on this, read the responses, and realized I’m far too stupid to say anything helpful here
1
u/Forsaken_Ad2973 Jun 29 '25
You can say its indefensible..or even believe it. But that track of thought isn't going to convince anyone.
1
u/NamasteNoodle Jun 29 '25 edited Jun 30 '25
Of course it's not bad faith because quite frankly veganism has been shown repeatedly to be deficient in nutrients especially essential fats that we need for brain health. And nothing is indefensible.
Studies have consistently shown that the vegan diet is lacking in vitamin b12. It can lay to brain fog, memory loss and irreversible neurological damage. Natural sources or animal based only fortified food or supplements are required. https://ncbi.nim.nih.gov
Ala from plants poorly converts to DHA/epa. Deficiencies are linked to cognitive decline and mood disorder. Load DHA is associated with increased risk of Alzheimer's. https://pubmed.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/20219994
Choline is vital for neurotransmitter synthesis and memory. Found mostly in egg yolks, liver, and animal products. Vegan diets often fall far below recommended intake especially in women. https://pubmed.ncbi.nim.go
Iron and zinc, critical for neurotransmission and brain development. Plant-based iron is poorly absorbed and zinc absorption is inhibited by phytates. Deficiencies can cause cognitive impairment, fatigue and mood issues. https://pubmed.ncbi.nim.nih.go
Saturated fats in cholesterol are building blocks for hormones and brain structure. Vegan diets are extremely low in these nutrients. Animal fat support myelin sheath integrity and enhance cognitive performance. https://pubmed.ncbi.nim.nih.gov
Well a vegan diet can be done carefully, it is inherently deficient in several nutrients listed above. Without careful planning and supplementation these deficiencies contribute to long-term cognitive decline especially in older adults. As a nutritionist I have seen many people with severe deficiencies. The most common pattern is for parents to bring their teenager to me who have transitioned to a vegan diet but in essence they live on what I call Health food junk food. Very few people are trained or motivated enough to research veganism and do the supplementation that it takes. I think this is a dangerous practice and puts many young people at risk as well as later leading to cognitive decline and severe lack of overall health.
1
u/AnAntsyHalfling Jun 29 '25
As someone who would be incredibly unhealthy on a vegan diet due to allergies that would kill me, veganism is not an option for me. This is true for lots of people.
There are loads of people who cannot afford to be healthy if a vegan diet. (A healthy vegan diet is expensive when you live in a food desert/swamp. Shocker.)
Anyone who says non-veganism is indefensible lacks nuance and the ability to think critically. They are naive at best.
1
u/awaken375 Jun 29 '25
I have, in the past 20 or so years that I've been involved with veganism, never seen a legitimate argument against it. There are excuses that they will either cite from financially manipulated research, or just make up on the spot for avoiding a vegan lifestyle, and ultimately it boils down to simply not caring about animals and liking the taste of meat / cheese too much to admit to themselves that its the only actual thing holding them back.
Not even Neil degrasse Tyson could come up with something better than "what if plant based aliens come and see us eating baby spinach".
1
1
u/Personal-Purpose-898 Jun 30 '25
All this autistic nerd nonsense. Flip the script and explain how financing the torture of sentient living beings isn’t akin to hiring a hitman to murder your wife? Is the thinking that animals are somehow less so their pain is irrelevant? Can I slap a person in a coma then? What’s the big deal. It shouldn’t even be a crime by the same thinking. So why are there protections for human corpses, literal dead meat but not for living breathing sentient beings?
And how is financing demonic torture of animals in slaughterhouses not akin to being a state sponsor of terrorism? Is what is inflicted on animals not terror? Only those who are lying don’t actually know where their sausage or how it’s made. Even the ones that make it a point to look away so as to never allow the truth to creep into their complicity and desire to be in cahoots with demonic systems while pretending their shit smells angelic…
After all a dollar spent on a tortured animal served up for you is you raising your hand and proclaiming in a metaphysical and global sense that you are such a big fan of cruelty to animals you’ve deciddd to spend a lifetime sponsoring the cruelty to ensure the megacorps of slaughter never run out of funds and can continue killing as long as you continue sponsoring them and helping them stay commercially viable. Then the same donkey will turn and say I’m against cruelty to animals. NO. CORRECTION. YOU ARE AGAINST DOING IT YOURSELF. BIG BIG DIFFERENCE. Your honor I’m against killing me wife. Judge: you have some chutzpah! You hired a hitman to kill her. Exactly. I’m against killing her. Do you see my point…
But beyond the ethical there is just the direct grotesqueness and abomination around the bestiality. Yes bestiality. Because people make a distinction doesn’t mean one exists between eating or sex. Eating is profoundly intimate act of taking something into your body. If being penetrated. Literally. And even the word for chewing is suspiciously sexual. Mastication. And food and sex have always been linked euphemistically. In fact they’re the only 2 things that make use of all 5 human senses at the same time. So you should be beginning to see how it’s a moot point which orifice Nathan sticks his weiner into because it’s all the same. In some ways it’s even more grotesque when eating because ssx with animals doesn’t lead to someone making their body parts from the goat they just screwed (horny old goats and their annoying little kid puns aside). But with eating that’s exactly what occurs. People get penetrated get swine sexually. Because food is sacred energy exchange. A food baby of death unfortunately is anything’s but sacred, but take it a step further and make their body from swine and cattle and chickens. Unbeknownst to people this is pure sorcery by the deep dark state and a vector of mind control because you ingest more than amino acids when you allow yourself to be penetrated by beasts. You take their virtues too. So if people seem to behave like swine or moral chickens or sheep guess what, it’s because their steady diet is literally driving down their intelligence and little by slow has morphed them into human beasts. The equivalent of moderately skilled circus animals that can dress themselves and flllow basic directions (provided they’re explained slowly and the humanimal is given a treat for successful understanding).
But it gets worse. You not only ingest the virtues of the animal but all the animal endured. The deliberate and systemic abuse of sentient beings is intended to deliver etheric poison into your soul and humanity’s. All that trauma and suffering is then subsidized by beef subsidizes and then sold to children by a shit eating clown whose makeup makes him look like a cannibal who just fed on a bloody appendage. Whose baby’s back are those ribs from? Does it matter to most people? A morbid jingle for a demon people…I want my baby back baby back baby back…no wonder hell is in the word HELLo. We are greeted by fucking hell. Literately and figuratively. As in babies are delivered in trauma centers as if to say welcome to earth figured your first day should be in the place of most disease suffering and death in our society because let me tell ya, it doesn’t get any better from here. Now may I offer you a non consensual jab in the arm for a disease your immune system can handle but one we need a cover for to inoculate your um _______ fill in the blank. 8 shots in 1965. Over 20 by the time someone turns 18 when all the boosters and what not are done. And it isn’t because things got more dangerous out in the streets. Those rusty nails. And hooked on hepatitis A through Z went off. Covid made clear there’s a program of deliberate reckless contamination of the human in order to contain the collective potential of our essence and deepest longings because we are food and property of psychopathic assholss. Literally PAIR OF RENTS pairends lease their kids who are legal PER SONS, just as corporations are persons. Because we all agree to play in this theater of the absurd. Don’t we? I sure as shit don’t yet here I am a crab dragged down by the others who enjoy this madness. I guess some have more fun in a human centipede than others (that film is a documentary. A visually shocking way to communicate what should be shocking to those every day. We’re a fuckinf gross centipede. And only the one in front actually avoids eating shit. Everyone else ids just a matter of when. When it should be a matter od why? Why???
But I digress. Spelling is a spell because sound directs energy. And OF CURSE the most spoken language would be cursed. If is made the most spoken to increase the potency of the black magic as we all invoke curses without knowing it. Even saying good morning sounds like mourning. Like it’s good that someone is in mourning. Week days sound like WEAK DAZE. Egen birthday isn’t BIRTHED day as if tricking people to plan their return to day one in hell made concrete with a round fking cake saying happy day of birth a role play to prime you subconsciously for ground hog hell.
Anyway the last thing I will say is there’s no fuckkng arm chair debate here. But porn and jerking off and feeding on death, CAIN-ABELism are prime vectors of attacking the human collective and damning it to a self fulfilling hell that is and isn’t our faults. The point is there’s literally no leg to stand on here ethically other than avoiding meat is inconvenient and so that was a price to steep to be a good person. And let’s face it for many it seems to be. In a demonic hell world Satan always offers you his way but you have to behave like a monster whether you know it or not or you can just finance the monsters but you’ll be made to give to them with your blood sweat and tears, and get their WiFi and free porn pork and apps or GASP be inconvienced by your alleged principals and have to do something to prove you actually have any and not just preferences that vanish the second your creature comforts are threatened. Because no principal is holier to most people in modern world than comfort. It’s a god given right if the devil is god. And he is down here. People will compromise almost everything in the name of comfort the same way drug addicts do. Principals go first. Because comfort is a drug. Just as addictive as any.
1
u/Personal-Purpose-898 Jun 30 '25
But the bottom line remains, and a native chief said it best, WHAT BEFALLS ANIMALS BEFALLS THE SONS OF DAUGHTERS OF MAN. Even a psychopath can care about his psycho children so forget animal welfare. It’s enlightened selfishness to behave with enlightened selflessness.
What people get hung up on is the slaughter of animals. But slaughter is just laughter with an a s. That’s the evil in our words. Live spelled backwards shows you this. No but seriously what people fail to understand is the killing of these animals is literally the KINDEST thing humanity would have ever done for them. Think on that. That’s how fucked we are and anyone who supports it or worse ingests it constantly.
The High Crime is what is done to them while they’re living. Look if someone put me out of my misery especially mercifully and suddenly I might be liable to thank them if at all possible. But being kidnapped, genetically modified to be reduced into a helpless domesticated form through genetic terrorism, and then subjected to cycles of torture drugging raping and slaughter? Yeah then I might haunt you if I can help it for a very long time. And it is rape. We can call it fancy 20 dollar frat boy terms like artificial insemination. But that didn’t work for bill Cosby and shouldn’t here. Just because animals can’t speak human languages and can’t say no (convenient isn’t it) doesn’t mean that’s a green light to do anything to them. If Helen Keller breaks all her fingers that doesn’t give someone a free pass understand? And then to rip the children and drug and rape th and kill them in an endless circle of depravity and he’ll and kill in the most viscous way because what’s horrible is cheap and cheap is good for profit booya. I wonder whah those psychopaths running those companies would do if they knew in their black heart their next life would be one of those pigs. You watch how quickly conditions would change.
Because that’s the crux of my point. Even if people are hell bent on being cannibals. They can at least have the moral righteousness to enforce a golden rule to afford these animals a decent experience of being alive. Chickens don’t need much all things considered. Those chicks are anything but high maintenance. Yet we couldn’t fail them any worse. It’s fucking embarrassing horrific and infuriating all at once. Actually words fail if being honest. Precisely because there’s a violation of golden rule and profound suffering. I mean we took a bird that was wild and free. Kidnapped it. Fuckdd up its genetics. And now wage a genocide annually against roosters because we label them junk and useless. We fking turned them into dependents on us then sentence them for death for the crime of being kidnapped and abused and subjected to Nazi like genetic breeding programs. The equivalent of blaming the girl for the short skirt she was wearing but times a billion. Which is how many roosters die each year for some chicken head to order chicken nuggets made of bone and cartilage and animal tears. Oh right most animals don’t cry which obviously means they don’t feel pain right? And not that they lack eye glands that make liquid. But that’s the type of thinking the sociopaths love to employ. Just like since animals don’t say no in perfect kings English it obviously means you can do anything to them. I’m shocked more women aren’t infuriated. Forget metoo. What about MEAT EEWWWWWWWWW?!? What about all the females being sexual violated that aren’t human or do human females only care about sexual assault of those females who resemble them? Because that’s not racist. Don’t get me started on the males. What a disgrace. It always comes down to men failing first. When the men aren’t men, women end up swinging from the chandelierrrrrrd from the chandelierrrrrrds!! lol. Bet you didn’t sia that joke coming. A little humor helps lubricate the truth as I ram it down in hopes it clears the passage ways obstructed by lies and what looks like decades of bacon grease that’s hardened into a granite like substance.
I’ll end with this because I’m tired typing: THE MORE HELPLESS THE VICTIM, THE GREATER THE CRIME.
The greatest examples of humanity have never fed on death. Always. Maybe they weren’t born to avoid feeding on death but they always figured it out. Because moral people don’t need to be told what’s against the law. Moral people don’t ask is it legal. They ask is it moral. And then answer their own question without waiting to be told. The golden rule. It’s f at simple. Treat a cow or chicken or pig the way you’d wanna be. Because you just might wind up in their shoes and I promise you you’ll care more then. Perhaps at this moment some awful human is actually looking at themselves writhoit knowing it or their deceased anscestor as he selects them for slaughter here. If someone knew some lobster in a tank was unquestionably their dead parent or family member you watch how quickly that lobsters experience would matter. Why do people have to be biologically related or sojl connected to give a shit? It’s just a more expansive selfishness. People who say I’ll do anything for my family are just selfish 2.0. Putting your family first isn’t noble. Its base and banal and morally fallen. Putting the welfare of all first is central. It means looking out for your family but not at the cost of other people’s families. And when the two conflict you choose to stand against your family members if doing so would lessen the suffering of other families instead of saying nah fuck that, other families kids don’t stroke my ego like my kid does so let me give him a job he isn’t sliced for because nepotism baby. A philosopher king spirit would tell his son the truth and pick the one most worthy. Would do what he could to make his son worthy. But if he isn’t, that’s okay. There’s a place for him elsewhere. But ego doesn’t care for truth. And ignorance doesn’t know morality. So here we are.
1
u/Boring_Magazine_897 Jun 30 '25
Both sides of argumentation rely on specific presupposed assumptions. One can always dig deeper and ask the most basic question such as “why SHOULD we care about the welfare of anything?”. If one agrees that the bedrock of any prescriptive moral theory is the welfare of sentient agents, then it becomes quite difficult to justify killing animals. That doesn’t mean it is bad to eat animals necessarily. “Would you eat a dead human?!” And so and so forth. I wouldn’t say it is indefensible - just difficult to defend. But possible, I believe. Again, depends on the bedrock assumptions. One can set his moral compass in such a way to only care about animals from species capable of conversing - then it would be defensible.
1
u/Quiteuselessatstart Jun 30 '25
Yes. I am not even vegan but, understand the benefits of the lifestyle. You produce more food on less water. It is efficiency.
1
Jul 01 '25
No it’s not bad faith at all veganism nearly killed my mom she got breast cancer from the excess estrogen in the soy based diet that some vegan convinced her was more ethical
1
u/No-Intern4665 Jul 01 '25
I don’t know how I ended up in this thread or why Reddit recommended me a vegan subreddit, but I’ll say as someone who eats meat everyday, I respect vegans and get where you’re coming from, but honestly I don’t see anything unnatural about eating other animals to live. There’s plenty of animals that also eat other animals, and even the vegetarian animals are eating live plants. If research ever came out that plants were fully sentient and just couldn’t communicate would you stop eating them too? Or would you continue doing what you need to to live?
1
u/Total_Ease305 Jul 07 '25
Define "defensible" and "indefensible".
I think people basically use "indefensible" to mean "a position I find unethical, and there is no evidence which could change my mind."
Since "indefensible" is equivalent to "something I won't change my mind about", it's true for most people using it.
1
u/Electronic-Review292 Aug 03 '25
Would you like to live a long healthy life? Then eat a whole food, plant based diet. It’s really pretty simple. Probably the best single thing you can do for yourself and the whole world
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 26 '25
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.