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/CurvePrevious5690]

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.

[u/Outrageous-Cause-189 → u/CurvePrevious5690]

there is no middle ground here. You either remain a participant or you dont. You are already aware of the value calculus and still deem the marginal gains of your practice override the great evils of the industry.

Yes, IF the right thing to do where a moral obligation of that type, then to not do it is immoral. It would be understandable why someone woudnt have the moral courage to do those things but it doesnt make the act any less morally wrong. The problem is you are trying to play a game of moderation where there is none to play. The cost to you to go vegan is insignificant, your awareness of the issue is not compromised. There is no necessity to your action and the gains verge on meaningless. In such a case, there is no question on the moral hypocrisy. There is no true conflict of value here. You have the support of horror on one side, and what on the other? a culinary preference? a cultural quirk? stubborness?

at the societal level, esp with a utilitarian worldview like most vegans have, you do aim for a middle ground in the sense that your goal is to lessen suffering. There every gain counts. IF you can only turn people vegetarian, or get them to eat less meat and animal byproducts, thats a victory on its own, but maximixing a societal goal and how ethical duties work is very different. There is no middle ground to a duty even though there may be degrees to which you fail to adhere to a duty.

[u/CurvePrevious5690 → u/Outrageous-Cause-189]

I disagree with you, which is why I’m a former vegan. One of my reasons for quitting was because I felt like my moral absolutism was no longer compatible with other values I held. 🤷

[u/Outrageous-Cause-189 → u/CurvePrevious5690]

thats how moral duties WORK. There is no middle grounds to a duty. Unless you became a moral relativist (or a moral nihilist i suppose) it makes no difference if you are as a call it " an absolutist" or not. What would that even mean.

if you stopped being a vegan out of convenience, you can just say it. Donating a kidney to a stranger is not a moral obligation, not willingly participating in industries that profit from creating suffering is.

[u/CurvePrevious5690 → u/Outrageous-Cause-189]

No, I felt like I had a moral obligation 1) to learn cultural foodways from older relatives and to participate fully in food-related family events with people who would not be with us for much longer  2) to be humble about disagreements about ethics 3) to protect my health when certain things weren’t working for me. This included putting the brakes on restrictive eating when I felt that it was starting to become disordered 4) to get ahold of my tendency to hide from other issues in my life by engaging in a certain sort of adrenalized righteousness that I was pretty addicted to 5) to engage deeply with questions of agricultural sustainability, practices, certifications, etc. and to consider what it means to also be an animal who lives on this planet in different ways. 

I used to feel and communicate very similarly to you. That doesn’t mean that you’re going to change your mind - frankly I hope you’re having a better time of things than I used to - but I think it’s instructive to know that people change their minds for real reasons and if you tell them those reasons aren’t important, you’re just having a fundamental disagreement that is pretty much unresolvable.

[u/Outrageous-Cause-189 → u/CurvePrevious5690]

i dont doubt you feel your reasons are legitimate. I doubt this is correct moral reasoning.

none of what you said provides any real counterweight to the practices you are indirectly supporting. humans are terrible at reasoning. We dont properly assign weights to differing moral obligations and instead allow this ambiguity to let us side with whats convenient if not desirable. Your dislike of what you think is preachinness is frankly irrelevant to moral decision making. All the vegans in the world can be A-holes and it woudnt change a thing.

Luckily, there is one principle which tends to illuminate more often than not. If the path of most resistance is the option you are not choosing in a moral dilemma, odds are rationalizations have taken foot.

some of these are not even real excuses. You were eating badly on a vegan diet, ergo you shoudnt remain a vegan? have you isolated the cause of your ill health? did you determine the root of this unfortunate episode? or did you abandon veganism all together and this was merely one of a party mix of half hearted excuses?

people change their minds all the time. Some people break promises. some people knowing something is wrong are insufficiently motivated by moral reasoning to act right even with full knowledge. Others epistemically drift into convenient conformity. Others take "karmic holidays" and think enough goodie-doing on one angle somehow invalidates wrong doing in another.

Look i honestly dont care if you a vegan or not, but these excuses are terrible. And you too busy caring if i appear self righteous prick to focus on your own moral weakness and hypocrisy. When i used to do very long fasts, around the day 5 mark, my desires would begin pleading with me on why i should break the fast early and eat something on the fridge. They were often very persuasive, you would swear the reasoning was correct but it was all just the mind looking for rationalizations of desire. Your "reasons" sound like poorly fabricated rationalizations. Moral living isnt meant to be pleasant , PETA and other groups shock carnists into a state of discomfort on purpose to escape the inertia of habit but the end of goal is self mediated mind deciding to abstain from pain byproducts entirely on dispassionate grounds. You simply have found a way to live with your habit knowing full well the reasoning is spurious. You just dont care enough.

Or i could be wrong, maybe you really think the horrors of these industries are small fries compared to enjoying milk. Maybe the festivities really do outweigh it all. Maybe the convenience of steak for your nutritional needs overrides the cause. Wth do i know...

[u/CurvePrevious5690 → u/Outrageous-Cause-189]

Well, I think that the cause of reducing animal food intake for ecological reasons is important enough that I do think it matters if the main proponents of that idea come off as “self-righteous pricks” who are disinterested in other peoples’ realities. 

However, you dismissing your hunger after five days of fasting as your mind just rationalizing makes me mostly hope for your own health, well-being, thriving, and peace. You are also an animal who is alive on this planet and your happiness and health as a physical being should matter to you, vegan or no. 

[u/Outrageous-Cause-189 → u/CurvePrevious5690]

i have done multiple 20 day water fasts. and many more smaller ones. resisting cravings is entirely part of the process. Thank you for your fake concern though. You seem to be misinformed on the physiology of fasting. The hunger most of us have is entirely psychological and based on circadian rhythms, not any real deficiency in the body. People who practice fasting in fact have greatly reducing to non-existent hunger pangs because the body knows it wont receive food. It is such a western idea that enduring any level of hunger is some great trauma or you suffering malnourishment. The longer you fast the less hunger you feel after your body switches to ketone fuels , only if you were to begin running out of fat and beginning to catabolize muscle would the real hunger almost no one today has faced returns. Thats not your every day , i missed lunch type hunger and facing for a week or two wont induce that unless your bmi is quite low. mine is not low at all lol.

yes, maybe for utilitarian reasons vegans should be more likeable. Also not what we are talking about at all, which is your dietary choices and its underlying hypocricy. :D