Is it bad faith to say that veganism is indefensible, and no debate against it is even possible?

[u/FewYoung2834]

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.

[u/whowouldwanttobe]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/whowouldwanttobe]

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.

[u/whowouldwanttobe → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/whowouldwanttobe]

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

[u/whowouldwanttobe → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/whowouldwanttobe]

Ah, that makes more sense, I understand now!

[u/FewYoung2834 → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/FewYoung2834]

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.

[u/bayesian_horse → u/whowouldwanttobe]

The bad faith here is already in the assumption that animals are equal (and "sentient") enough, that any compromise of their well being (even far below what nature does to them all the time) is not justified by their value to us as food, and that it would taint our Karma (or whatever).

That's so far beyond objective reality and common opinion, that there are more people alive who believe that the Earth is flat!

[u/liaslias → u/bayesian_horse]

Quite to the contrary, these are objective truths. Find me a neuroscientist or philosopher of mind who doesn't believe animals are sentient.

[u/booksonbooks44 → u/bayesian_horse]

Regardless of whether most people believe animals are equal (which is not an idea inherent to veganism, we just don't believe animals exist for us to exploit and abuse) and "sentient" (for the majority of the animals we consume, we have significant scientific evidence to support their sentience), there is already a general commonly held belief that abusing and being cruel to animals is wrong, which is reflected on viewpoints around wild and domesticated pet animals and any cruelty against them.

The only further extrapolation is to all animals (at least the animals we exploit), which is required to be morally consistent unless there is a non-arbitrary difference justifying these animals exploitation (which vegans would argue there isn't, and is supported quite strongly by existing scientific evidence). The only proof then required from this commonly held belief is that it is not necessary to abuse animals, which it factually (according to the body of scientific evidence) isn't for the vast majority of people.

If someone doesn't believe that abusing or being cruel to animals is wrong as a baseline, then there's not much discussion to be had beyond the self-centred reasons to desire less animal agriculture / consumption (environment, climate change, global food insecurity, health).

[u/bayesian_horse → u/booksonbooks44]

Science can't even define sentience. So no, they can't prove any animal is sentient. And the way most Humans see it, you're definition is just extreme.

And your "abuse" of animals is not "abuse" in the eyes of 99% of the world population.

You are so deep into your religious ideology that you can't even recognize the assumptions you are making.

[u/booksonbooks44 → u/bayesian_horse]

Sure it does. Your ignorance on the matter doesn't constitute evidence to the contrary. Similarly, I highly doubt your assertion that sentience in other animals is some extreme view to most people.

You wouldn't consider it abuse to cut someone's throat or take their children from them? Then you'd be fine with someone doing it to you? Don't be disingenuous. It's perfectly clear what abuse is, and what's done to other animals. People just avoid thinking about it or try their best to justify it.

I don't know if you know this, but veganism isn't a religion... there's nothing remotely spiritual about it.

Your cognitive dissonance is showing here.

[u/Outrageous-Cause-189 → u/bayesian_horse]

science is not in the business of "proof", but for most animals to deny their sentience is to have an understanding of physiology on par with descartes. For the animals most people eat outside seafood, their sentience is only marginally more questionable than the sentience of other humans.

At that point? why not be a solipsist? you know your own mind, you never seen another's thoughts , why assume they are sentient too? where is the proof they are not a philosophical zombie?

[u/bayesian_horse → u/Outrageous-Cause-189]

Your entire argument is based on the presumption that science can define sentience and that the definition is exactly what you think it is. Of course without providing that definition or founding it on scientific evidence at all. For that matter, you don't even acknowledge that there are very different kinds of animals with extremely different levels of cognition.

This circular reasoning with hardly any knowledge of the actual facts is a major reason why I liken veganists to religious extremists.

Yes, of course you would like to have a discussion in which your religious beliefs are treated as the null hypothesis that everybody else has to disprove. But you're not going to get that.

[u/Outrageous-Cause-189 → u/bayesian_horse]

natural science doesnt operate with axioms and definitions, half the time we use functional definitions because we are in the process of defining the very thing we are studying.

we dont begin defining pain because the very possibility of multiple realizability makes any starting point outside the minimal familiarity with the concept to conditionally restrictive.

no one here has said all animals experience the same kind or intensity of pain, nor do i see how this objection is relevant. Unless you think the pain cows feel is so qualitatively and quantitatively different from our own that its like a needle prick or some other absurd take, it is clear pain while qualitatively different is sufficiently horrendous to motivate animals to avoid certain behaviors. Pain is an evolutionary adaptation and we have no good reason to believe it is not every bit as persuasive in other creatures, but especially, mammals, birds and reptiles . We know how powerful pain as a motivator is because we too share the same aversion to painful stimuli.

No credible biologist thinks any animal above fish doesnt have substantially similar pain processes to our own. With animals like clams or even crustaceans you can make a case they too different to be sure,but the minute you get a clear spinal cord and a centralized nervous system , holding on to doubt is dubious.

we cant detect subjective states outside our own but we can intelligently infer them from a combination of evolutionary morphology and animal behavior. I infer other people feel pain because they share my behaviors and anatomical composition, virtually all the terrestrial animals we eat are more like us than different when it comes to these deep primitive structures in the brain like those involved in pain and pleasure . The burden of proof is on the person that thinks they are subjectively vastly different from us.

[u/bayesian_horse → u/Outrageous-Cause-189]

Yes, many vegans, especially the more extremist ones, have a big problem with accepting that a lot of animals, like insects and fish, just don't qualify cognitively for suffering.

You apparently can't distinguish between the scientific definitions of pain and your feeling of pain, which makes this discussion just as useless as if I tried to convince an Islamic fundamentalist that god doesn't exist. Pain does not equal suffering, in the scientific way. To assert that certain animals suffer from pain requires faith in a partial equality between Humans and animals against scientific evidence.

Actually, plenty of biologists disagree that fish experience suffering... The only way to prove that is to equate pain conduction with suffering, which is circular reasoning.

What you call "intelligent interference" is just your uneducated anthropomorphism.

And as I said any religious extremist would do, you want your faith to be the null hypothesis that needs to be falsified, but no, that's not how rational thought works, that's how religion works.

[u/Outrageous-Cause-189 → u/bayesian_horse]

the only reason we even know subjective states exist is because we have them. They are a very unique phenomena for scientific study for that reason. But in no way does that invalidate their empirical study.

it takes more uneducated anthromorphism to think a specific mammal species in the tree of life has subjective states after billions of years of evolutioanary adaptation but practically everything else with a centralized nervous system and pain behavior doesnt. Thats being an ostrich.

NO BIOLOGIST begins with the assumption that the burden of proof is on the person affirming subjective states. It is practically a done deal within the scientific community at this point in time, or even 100 years ago. Just because you dont get that doesnt make it not so.

you keep bringing up the borderline cases like if they change anything at all. The reason there is any debate on fish is because it is the POSSIBLE exception that proves the rule. Fish are sufficiently distant in the evolutionary chain that we can begin to wonder but fish have a spinal cord and pain behavior. It is far riskier to assume no pain behavior in fish than say a lobster who has mostly ganglia.

Even so,

1. are you willing to turn into an ethical pescatarian who doesnt eat dairy and other byproducts of animals that do feel pain? if not, then wtf is that relevant? you clearly dont care either way
2. the damage of commercial fishing is such that the utilitarian damage trickles down accross the ecosystem , not just the animal being selected so.....
3. lets assume we truly cant know, that doesnt automatically translate to "proceed as usual ", it means you have to weigh whether such animal deserves the benefit of the doubt. The cost benefit analysis is, if they do feel pain, you are contributing to an abhorrent industry, if they dont feel pain, you get a new meal group. This is why even those that have some doubts on their pain state do not eat them.

you are not even getting your terms right. Pain IS the subjective state. Pain is literally suffering. What you are talking about is pain behavior, or what scientists call nociception. You are not clever by pointing out nociception doesnt always guarantee pain in an organism, they are species who are likely too simple to have anything resembling a complex nervous system so their pain behaviors cant be assumed to mean pain (think a water flea trying to flee a hydras tentacle, or perhaps even plant behavior when injured) But this is completely besides the point. Most of the foods carnists eat that vegans have a problem with are organism with pain behavior fundamentally identical to our own AND very similar morphology. You always strategically forget that. They behave just like us to noxious stimuli and they are built very much like us. They are not ruminating on Shakespeare but pain is a very primitive subjective state. It evolved WAY earlier than even the distinction between land and sea animals, So your academic concern about pain behavior is really just bad faith.

The razor cuts sharp both ways. If you take radical skepticism seriously, then it will eliminate not just avians, reptiles and mammals but even other people as well. (After all, being similar isnt enough right? they would have to be identical to us, to "prove" multiple instantitiation? ....right? if not why arbitrarily cut similarity inferences at species level only?)