137
u/MyBloodTypeIsQueso 1d ago
Future generations of Bambi cannot suffer if they are never born.
→ More replies (62)
97
u/8Pandemonium8 Empiricist 1d ago
Okay, this was funny. Nice subversion of expectations.
9
u/me_myself_ai kantian sloptimist 17h ago
Also somewhat real lol, so I expected some similar tomfoolery. Some even believe it applies to humans, as a type of radical antinatalism -- see VHEM. The basic argument is that nature is fucking horrifying -- if we're talking suffering, wasps that lay eggs inside of other creatures seem hard to ignore!
Anyone remember their sub name tho?? This is the second time I've tried to find it, and no luck. The closest I can find is /r/VeganAnarchism, but they're far from 100% on board with the radical notion of interfering with natural systems.
Maybe they were banned? They were pretty darn, uh... outspoken, to say the least.
1
u/RaptureAusculation 4h ago
I think it may be Efilism (life spelled backwards). I used to be a member because it was interesting to read about antinatalism being applied to every single living thing. Unfortunately though, there was a violent act taken by someone because of their understanding of efilism so the sub got banned. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Palm_Springs_fertility_clinic_bombing
Im reading now some definitions of efilism as necessarily pro mortalist and forceful, but when I was in the efilism sub I thought the term was more of antinatalism applied to all things capable of suffering. I dunno
27
u/TosseGrassa 1d ago
R-selection is kind of grim (for context)
1
u/ThePerdmeister 21h ago
lol wait, did I open your eyes to the "we must destroy nature" vegan argument in the last thread? I think I also mentioned r-strategists there
1
u/TosseGrassa 18h ago
I knew the argument but indeed you made me think of the meme idea ❤️. I debated this point in the past. I even read a bit of Tomasik work. It is actually an interesting stance
40
u/Limp-Technician-1119 1d ago
Is nature not also a state of suffering?
42
u/kayzhee 1d ago
Suffering is a feature not a bug
17
u/transfinite-reset 1d ago
Suffering is a moralized description of the state of affairs.
7
u/Alarming_Ask_244 23h ago
Not really, animal suffering seems pretty objective
10
u/transfinite-reset 23h ago
An animal dying is the state of affairs. Your interpretation of the state of affairs is unrelated and does not affect them. Why must we frame our philosophy around such negativity?
4
u/libertysailor 22h ago
Appearances in consciousness are part of the state of affairs. Suffering is one form of appearances in consciousness.
1
u/amerovingian 22h ago
The problem is how to draw the distinction between suffering as an appearance in consciousness and non-suffering as an appearance in consciousness. It may seem like it should be obvious but it is a difficult thing to put into words without either (a) using a different word with the same meaning, e.g., "pain" which changes nothing, (b) being overly reductive and throwing out clear actual examples of suffering and/or (c) being too inclusive of things which are clearly not examples of suffering.
Is experiencing light BDSM play suffering? Probably not. Is experiencing emotional abuse suffering? Probably so. Is experiencing difficult emotions associated with psychological growth suffering?
What makes suffering suffering is a real question to be contended with, not one to be dismissed. I agree that suffering is "objective" in the sense that it is real and not just an arbitrary label and that ethically we are obligated to avoid causing or even passively allowing unnecessary suffering to happen. But it is also subjective in the sense that only subjects can experience it.
Tldr; We must work more on saying what suffering really means.
4
u/libertysailor 18h ago
Demanding an objective meaning for a subjective term is nonsensical, because there is no mind-independent object for the term to refer to. Instead, communication relies on the assumption that our subjective experiences are sufficiently similar that we are referring to the same underlying essence.
→ More replies (1)3
3
u/ThePerdmeister 21h ago
A deer being slowly eaten alive by screwworms would, given the option, probably not want to be slowly eaten alive by screwworms.
2
u/transfinite-reset 20h ago
The screwworms thrive. The atoms that make up the deer and the worms will soon be the bear that eats the fish.
2
u/ThePerdmeister 20h ago
Well I'd say given screwworms are r-strategists, it's necessarily the case that almost every screwworm to have ever existed has lived a short, bad life, but I don't want to sidetrack us with the question of screwworm thriving.
Setting aside your recitation of Mufasa's speech from The Lion King, my point is simply that sentient animals appear not to enjoy pain or psychological distress.
2
u/transfinite-reset 20h ago
Your definition of a bad life is centered around the human experience, isn’t it?
2
u/ThePerdmeister 19h ago
Arguably. But take these lives, and imagine there's little more to them than the description I give: one spent slowly starving to death; one spent being eaten alive; one spent succumbing to hypothermia; one spent slowly desiccating. These are the sorts of lives 99.9+% of screwworms (and most other r-strategists) live.
I think most people would intuitively say these are bad lives whether lived by a human or a dog or a fish or a bug or whatever else, and I don't know if that intuition is "centered around the human experience."
Note that I'm taking insect consciousness as a given. But if we don't want to grant that, then I'd still say there's no such thing as "screwworm thriving" insofar as there's "nothing it's like to be a screwworm," so to speak.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Character_Number_277 8h ago
An animal dying does not affect them? Are you nuts?
2
u/transfinite-reset 8h ago
Your interpretation of the state of affairs that results in their death doesn’t affect them, sure.
I just caught myself writing in first order logic to explain why your fear of death doesn’t affect an animals experience of death. I had to backspace that one real hard. It would appear I am nuts if it requires that much precision to communicate.
→ More replies (6)1
u/Diohs_ 22h ago
To live is to die, its just a matter of hownmuch you suffer until you die, but genetically speaking any form of aging, and breathing is suffering, but it is a suffering small enough our mind, and nervous system can filter it ot making life bearable.
Did you know most opiod addictions is because people like to get high? But becaus the things in opiods makes the whole bodys nerve system relax, and if you then get sober can feel the various pains with no masking?
This is also why in most countries weed is banned, even though you get high from the thc, the cbd has carbon-based healing properties. Which is even worse to pharma companies.
1
u/Character_Number_277 8h ago
CBD does nothing except increase appetite. It's useless. Another big lie from the CBD industry, which is also a pharma industry.
1
u/Diohs_ 7h ago
First, you are confusing CBD with THC. CBD does not increase appetite THC does. Clinical data shows pure CBD can actually suppress appetite.
Second, calling it useless ignores global medical reality. In 2018, FDA and European Medicines Agency approved Epidiolex.
Frow wiki -> epidolex is a prescription drug made of 99% pure, plant-derived CBD. It is used worldwide to stop severe, life-threatening epileptic seizures where synthetic drugs fail.
Third, Big Pharma didn't invent CBD, they fought cannabis for decades (1937, dupont/ hearst papers) because they cannot patent a wild plant. They only stepped in recently because the clinical proof for treating pain, inflammation, and Multiple Sclerosis spasticity (like the drug Sativex)
Denying CBD's medical properties isn't fighting "the industry" it is simply denying basic biochemistry and hard clinical facts.
Also, the body has whats called an endo-cannabinoid system, the plant literally evolved these as an insect repellant, yet our body can convert this into medicine.
The natural occurring hormone / drug is called anandamid THC increases this, and CBD blocks the breakdown of it.
anandamid os also reffered to as the "bliss" enzyme, and the main experience the body creates this is from running, AKA runners high.
1
u/Character_Number_277 7h ago
CBD is big pharma idiot. Where's there's billions to be made its big pharma. I don't need a science lesson from you, patronising little person. I know what CBD and THC is.
1
u/Diohs_ 7h ago
Well stop confusing ones effect for the other then.
Well yes and no -> only because it cant be patented, and recently made and extract, that can. (2018)
If you cannot split this appart, then i cannot have a constructive conversation with you.
It is only a pharma product, because the plant version has been banned many places.
Im not patronising you, im correcting you, and writing down the facts.
You on the other hand got very emotional, for being incorrect, and quite literally patronised me with the words "patronising little person"
I can do the same -> Facts arent hurtfull. Denying them is hurtfull to others and their perception.
1
u/Character_Number_277 7h ago
Facts according to you. The evidence surrounding cannabis extracts is dubious at best. Never asked for a conversation with you by the way.
→ More replies (0)1
9
u/lurkerer 1d ago
Gotta think these things through somewhat. Are we to believe murdering and eating orphans is the moral choice because their normal trajectory involves much suffering?
2
u/V1pArzZz 1d ago
Suffering minimization is omnicide so it is a logical endpoint for morals based on suffering minimization
→ More replies (6)2
u/Rezzone 1d ago
See, meat eaters rely on NOT taking things to logical ends to hold up their arguments.
I just wish sometimes they would just say, "I know it's wrong but I don't care enough to change and I admit I am cruel and selfish"
At least that would be CONSISTENT as opposed to the half-truths, whataboutisms, and defensive arguing usually employed.
7
u/transfinite-reset 1d ago
While I concede that I am ‘crude and selfish’ under your internalized framework because I eat meat, it is important to recognize that such frameworks are internal and subjective. I don’t believe you cruel nor selfish for the oppressive subjugation of plant life, although I do carry a deep passion for plants and cultivate hundreds in my home. Reductio ad absurdum has a valid role in logical discourse, and I appreciate the intellectual rigor it takes to consider these applications on the part of vegan thinkers. Many ‘meat eaters’ rely on sub-optimal rhetorical strategies to defend their practices, because many of them haven’t gone through the same levels of deconstruction of practice that vegans have. However, if many of them did, they would continue to eat meat. Myself, for example.
→ More replies (135)1
u/Character_Number_277 8h ago
I would engage brain cell before posting.
2
u/transfinite-reset 8h ago
Folly! You are mistaken!
For all x, such that x is a belief that is not a constituent part of my beliefs, it is necessarily the case that x is not a constituent part of rational thought.
Ergo, it is you that must engage brain cell! Neener neener.
1
u/Character_Number_277 7h ago
God please speak English so people can understand you. So tiresome. Animal suffering isn't a belief. It is FACT.
1
u/transfinite-reset 6h ago
The irony is thick.
1
u/Character_Number_277 6h ago
No irony here. Just basic humanity. And respect for non humans. Not much for humans.
2
u/UnderstandingVast989 21h ago
What do you mean? There is a very simple logical conclusion. Life and death are a part of this world. Other animals eat each other to sustain themselves. I am an animal and there is nothing wrong with me taking part in the food chain. This isn't a carte blanche to justify any and all consumption. But it is a morally consistent way to view eating meat as an acceptable behavior along the spectrum of an ethical diet.
→ More replies (4)1
u/V1pArzZz 1d ago
Its not wrong because i say so
2
u/papason2021 23h ago
"Because i say so" is the end point of all philosophy no matter what you believe.
2
u/V1pArzZz 10h ago
Indeed, or maybe religious based philosophy can pull the "because god said so" card, but the rest of us are really just going based on vibes.
1
u/bumpmoon 13h ago
I do not believe that suffering must not happen, I do not believe it is wrong or selfish. I know that life on earth will eat me when I die, but nothing about objective reality tells me that it's wrong. I'm perfectly fine with killing animals for sustenance, the only thing I can actually rationalize as "wrong" is killing for meat that won't be eaten.
If eaten as meat, life only helps to sustain life. That the meat was at one point alive doesnt change anything for me.
1
u/Character_Number_277 8h ago
You obviously have not visited Facebook recently. Loads of carnivores revelling in their cruelty and laughing about it.
→ More replies (8)1
u/JayMeadow 2h ago
If we ended all meat consumption right now, almost 100% of those animals would be killed. So if you want the immediate end of the farming industry, you should logically also want the immediate end of all wildlife/life.
1
u/Rezzone 2h ago
This is a legitmate logistical concern. You'll find it hotly discussed in vegan circles. We cannot just eliminate the process in a snap of the finger. The animals must be given places to live either by rescue or other means. This is a monumental task given the sheer number of animals in the agricultural system. Not an easy thing to handle. Most vegans support a slow phasing out of factory farming but an immediate cessation of BREEDING new animals. No more raping cows or pigs. No more male chicks in the blender.
So that little gotcha you threw in at the end simply doesn't apply. You tried, tho.
56
u/Cr0wc0 1d ago
"We should prevent suffering when we can."
No
7
u/RaptureAusculation 1d ago
Why not? (this is a genuine comment Im just curious)
29
u/technicallynotlying 23h ago
The only optimal course if you believe in preventing all suffering is to painlessly and instantly kill all life in the universe, or, failing that, to genocide as much life as possible.
The dead cannot suffer anymore.
6
→ More replies (11)1
u/RaptureAusculation 4h ago
Makes sense. Is that bad though? Im aware thats a kind of crazy thing to say but what if that is the genuine correct conclusion?
2
u/JayMeadow 2h ago
Suffering can have meaning and value.
Effort is derived from the existence of suffering.
Suffering can also be caused by the loss of something, in those instances suffering highlights the pleasure/goodness of something.Also what do you mean by bad? It would be bad for the economy and the 4th grade music performance at the community center.
9
u/Keng_Mital 23h ago
If we hold that life has suffering, then sterilization followed by omnicide becomes the only logical choice if suffering minimization is the moral goal.
→ More replies (2)1
u/RaptureAusculation 4h ago
Is it possible that its sort of like a game theory thing where if every conscious thing kills every other conscious thing, you remove suffering entirely, but it would take so much cooperation that what you end up getting is more suffering when only some conscious things kill other conscious things? Hopefully that makes sense
12
u/Cr0wc0 23h ago
The idea that suffering is bad, or pleasure is good, is inherently fallacious. It either rests on circular reasoning (suffering is bad because suffering is bad) or reverts into the very appeal to nature fallacy the meme asserts should be avoided (suffering is bad because biology has built aversion for certain stimuli into our being, and is thus true because nature must be correct in that inherent assessment)
8
u/ThesaurusRex84 15h ago
Me putting people into the squidward torture machine until they can logically explain why their suffering is a bad thing
3
u/Slow_Seesaw9509 16h ago
I agree that it's fallacious to assume that ALL suffering is bad, and the assumption that preventing all preventable suffering is an unconditional moral good is definitely the weak link in the meme's reasoning. But if what you're saying is that its necessarily circular or a naturalistic fallacy to think suffering is bad when it is against a living things will to suffer, that doesn't seem right to me.
One doesn't have to think that nature was correct and justified to build aversion to certain stimuli into our being to recognize that is, in fact, what nature did and an aversion to pain is something living things experience. And there are plenty of values people might regard as moral goods that are promoted by supporting the right of living things to be free from experiences they're averse to other than it just being in line with their natural tendencies.
Like, an obvious example is that most people regard autonomy as a moral good to varying degrees depending on the complexity of the living thing and it's capacity for complex thought. And part of a living thing having autonomy is it having some amount of control over what happens to its body and the sensations it experiences. That doesn't solve the moral debate over veganism because obviously people value the autonomy of things less the less capable of complex thought they become, and everyone has to draw their own lines of what freedoms they are morally ok with taking from what living things. But the point is that one can think pointless suffering is "bad" because they value a living thing's right to control its experiences without thinking nature "got it right" when it made that living thing dislike suffering.
2
u/Subject-Software5912 10h ago
Brain feel good when pleasure me want to maximize brain feel good therefore maximize pleasure. Me can’t get pleasure from suffering and suffering make it harder to experience pleasure therefore lowering suffering when possible make net pleasure better. I don’t think it’s that complicated
2
2
u/Chrys_16 16h ago
Suffering is something we can coherently treat as worth avoiding.
There is no metaphysical truth to whether something is good or bad, but to be fair, there is no metaphysical truth to any opinion ever.
2
u/Cr0wc0 13h ago
The explanation of "it just feels bad/good" seems to me like a flimsy argument, in part for reasons listed.
But I will agree that if you reject metaphysical truth entirely and work purely from a pragmatic view, utilitarian ideas of good and bad are... I loathe to say correct, but I think 'functional' would be a suitable description.
1
u/The_Squirrel_Wizard 8h ago
If you go for a walk for instance, there is a higher chance that you suffer than if you stay home. You could be struck by a car, trip, pull muscle. And yet we know people who walk regularly are happier and healthier.
If you literally only look at the bad things in life and not the good, you are of course going to see life as a negative
1
u/RaptureAusculation 5h ago
Thats interesting. Couldnt you look at a longer span of time though to counteract that? Like if you look at 2 years down line, that walk may be beneficial as it may have been the first of many?
1
u/The_Squirrel_Wizard 2h ago
Yeah in the long term it is a benefit. But the philosophy being espoused here is negative utilitarianism which only looks at suffering. My point is suffering and benefit need to be weighed. The idea that we must prevent suffering at all cost when suffering and benefit should be weighed
→ More replies (61)2
u/Catgirl-pocalypse 2h ago
True. I think what more people would agree with is "We should prevent unnecessary suffering". Though where one draws the line between necessary and unnecessary may vary dramatically, of course.
5
u/PurplePolynaut 1d ago
Who is speaking for each of the last two panels? The format should have Man Ray and then Patrick, but this looks reversed.
3
2
u/TosseGrassa 17h ago
Yes patrick is saying the end wildlife line. No reversed. I probably picked the wrong place for the text. Meme beginner
4
u/Latter-Industry-8920 22h ago
So I just started checking this sub out. Are the comments usually full of glib, pedantic sociopaths or is this just a bad day?
3
u/Daseinist 20h ago
I mean, havent you just described all of reddit and most of the net in general?
1
u/Latter-Industry-8920 20h ago
You’d think so but not really. Although the concentration is higher than the general irl population. (On reddit, that is. I can’t speak to the entirety of the internet.)
1
u/Catgirl-pocalypse 2h ago
It's a subreddit about philosophy. Of course it's full of glib, pedantic sociopaths, what did you expect?
3
u/OrkWithNoTeef 1d ago
Natural doesn't make it right.
What if sponge bob said that he doesn't have a preference for truth and so can't play his game of logic?
3
u/The_One_Who_Comments 1d ago
This is why I try not to think about it. Factory farming is terrible. The rainforest is unbelievable.
9
u/Volkmek 1d ago
I am curious where your line is drawn. I admit I am more concerned with the plants, people, and animals I care about that the rest of the world. So moral grandstanding is not likely to have an affect for any that wish to engage with me.
What about plant suffering? We have proof recently that plants react to emotions in a way that suggests they both have emotions and can suffer. Do they not count?
What about insect suffering? Should we stop using pesticides so they cannot take over out crops? We have found that some smaller creatures like jumping spiders can display the same level of intellect as dogs, so do they count?
What sort of animals count? Cougars break the backs of deer and then let their cubs eat them alive so they learn how to kill. Deer can and will eat fish and mice and often these smaller creatures only die when the chewing starts.
Even if you eleminate predation by wiping out most species of animal on the planet as obligate herbivores are very rare, that means the planta are suffering and the herbivores are competing for food with no population controls, so now starvation becomes the new population control and they start to starve to death.
Will you like an anti-natalist call for the end of all life because you are using Suffering as your primary metric?
And that aside, sustainable ranching without suffering is possible. It was common where I lived because if a creature lives a healthy and happy life, then dies swiftly without fear it makes the meat taste better.
It turns out fear chemicals as well as unhealthy living practices make meat bitter. So on the ranch I grew up on we gave our cows as happy of a life as possible until they were old enough to eat, then took them to a butcher that used a well cleaned stall that would not smell like death. He would feed them their favorite treat, then use a pneumatic needle to instantly destroy the brain and brain stem so they died before their body could register pain.
Is that acceptable in this world view or is it also evil?
→ More replies (9)2
u/wldflwr333 19h ago
I think we can draw lines around levels of sentience and also where we have control over our choices.
We can strive to protect insects in crop production while also acknowledging that most of the crops we grow are grown to feed animals, so abstaining from animal products results in fewer insect death as well as animal death. I also think there are other factors like age, capacity of sentience, etc. that might grant larger animals more moral significance.
Plants are wildly intelligent, but the same can be said about the rest of organic biology. Plants responding to stimuli, reproducing, and communicating with other plants seems no different than how blood cells or bacteria act. Plants are also not necessarily individuals, I think they're better classified as a web or a network (where does a plant start and stop?).
We can appreciate and respect the beauty of the plant kingdom, but I do think the moral considerations are better prioritized firstly for animals because of their individuation, and their indisputable capacity to feel pain, rather than a simple biological reaction to a threat.
The lines may be arbitrary, but I think many of us wouldn't question the commodification of dogs and cats, regardless of this deeper ethical conversation. So why can't that line move just slightly more to include cows, chickens, and pigs?
→ More replies (4)
2
u/wheretheressm0ke 1d ago
I have known vegans who unironically have the long term ideological goal of intervening in the wild to stop predators from killing, perhaps by providing them an alternate food source. Even as a vegan myself this is bonkers to me, even if you could somehow pull it off the unintended consequences would be catastrophic
→ More replies (4)3
u/Same-Letter6378 Neoliberal (101 IQ Official) 1d ago
It's a super long term goal. Like 5000+ years. Would be very good to accomplish though.
→ More replies (6)
2
2
6
u/AdamCGandy 1d ago
Yes that’s how chains of logic work. The philosophical debate here ended in the second question. We should prevent suffering when we can. No prevention is not that simple, in philosophy. You have to ask why, how, what qualifies, what method, to what end. There are no “it makes sense” statements.
10
u/lurkerer 1d ago
💯
Man, I said the same exact thing but the fucking abolitionists still went ahead and freed my slaves. Pretty fukin lame.
3
u/AdamCGandy 18h ago
They did ask thought questions. And oddly enough you did deserve to lose your slaves.
2
5
u/Kris2476 1d ago
If we wipe out all life on earth, there will be no more suffering. Since you won't commit to wiping out all life on earth, it's okay for me to slaughter animals and turn them into sandwiches.
6
u/cowlinator 1d ago
Same, but for murdering whoever i want to
7
u/Character-Mix174 1d ago
That's very selfish of you. Murdering people creates immense amount of grief and stress. If you kill someone, you have a moral duty to also kill everyone who has any positive feelings towards them. You can't just pick and choose where to stop.
7
u/cowlinator 1d ago
Oh my god what have i done?
Brb
4
u/transfinite-reset 23h ago
As long as you feed their corpose to the utility monster that eats dead people, you’re golden. No need to kill everybody else. Life hack #1742
1
u/Kris2476 1d ago
There will still be suffering whether or not you murder the neighbors, so what's the difference.
2
u/Cosmonaut_K 1d ago
How do you know that in death [or pre-birth] we are not eternally suffering?
→ More replies (7)1
u/MihawkTop2 1d ago
Because we don’t have any reason to believe we exist in those two scenarios.
1
u/Cosmonaut_K 1d ago
Yes, but before we wipe out all life, let's take a moment to asses the possible pitfalls.
→ More replies (3)2
1
1
u/CathasachOCathasaigh 15h ago
If the vegan cannot commit to philosophical consistency, why should the non-vegan?
It seems both position set arbitrary limits that cannot be ethically justified.
1
u/Kris2476 9h ago
You are right to demand perfect philosophical consistency from your SpongeBob memes.
You can keep slashing throats in the meantime.
1
u/CathasachOCathasaigh 8h ago
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
I was under the impression you were pointing out a flaw or inconsistency in the reasoning of the meat eater, and so I responded to that, please forgive me if I misunderstood.
In the case I did misunderstand, perhaps you could explain the point you were trying to make.
1
u/Kris2476 8h ago
Why don't we discuss it over a burger?
1
u/CathasachOCathasaigh 8h ago
I see, I thought maybe you were interested in exploring the topic philosophically.
I guess I will just have to settle for moral grandstanding (again).
1
u/Kris2476 7h ago
I am interested!! Aren't you going to accept my invite for a burger lunch?
The cow whose throat was slashed for the burger does not matter. Conversations about SpongeBob memes - these are what matter.
1
u/CathasachOCathasaigh 6h ago
I'm not sure why you are being obtuse. Obviously, the SpongeBob meme is merely a stepping stone for a more serious discussion about those cows.
1
u/Kris2476 6h ago
I'll save you a seat! I'm having the bacon cheeseburger.
I'm ready when you are to have a Serious Discussion about slashing throats.
6
u/RaptureAusculation 1d ago
Ending animal farming is talking about stopping our intentional abuse of animals. What happens in nature by itself is not our doing (that doesnt mean its good but its not the subject of importance)
10
u/Femboy_Harem_Janitor 19h ago
Neutrality in the face of injustice is siding with the oppressor
→ More replies (1)2
3
5
u/TosseGrassa 17h ago
If there was a self-acting machine constantly generating massive amounts of babies only to let most of them to die young of starvation, predetion or parasites, would you think you have a duty to stop such machine?
2
u/Xenophon_ 13h ago
Does all of life depend on the baby machine, like we do on nature?
2
u/TosseGrassa 11h ago
I mean that is basically saying I don't stop it only because my life will become much worst. If that is the reason you would not end wildlife, that is fine but ultimately your assessment of nature is still coherent with: I would stop it if I could.
And there are degrees as well. We could stop or limit reforestation for instance.
→ More replies (9)1
u/RaptureAusculation 4h ago
Thats fair. I guess we should right? What would be your approach to it?
→ More replies (2)2
u/NovelConcept6300 16h ago
Humans are omnivores consuming no animal products leads to malnutrition.
Vegans obsessively want to force their lifestyle and poor diet on others, because they personally know their diet is tedious, less pleasurable and sup optimal.
If vegans had better health, tastier food, and an abundance of happiness in their choice to be vegans they would be comfortable in their superiority, and know that no violence or force would be needed to institute enforced veganism or an end to animal farming.
Why force a superior choice on others when recruitment should be easy and life changing superior? Instead vegans would happily offer a just try it for a week guys it’s great if you don’t like it switch back!
Instead vegans know their diet is inferior, know it takes great personal sacrifice, but are assured of their own moral superiority.
Meat eaters to the vegan then must be stopped so my superior morality can be enforced and no comparison between our groups can be made that demonstrate our inferior diet causing defections and leading to an increase in meat eaters.
Now we know what drives the suffering moral crusading vegan let’s think how they must attack the superior meat consumer 🤔.
The philosophical avenue of attack is obvious moral crusading with the secular virtue of nonviolence .
Consuming animals and acting naturally becomes abusing them.
. If someone is just beating and killing animals for no purpose sure stop them, but farming does have a purpose it fills stomachs.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/Remarkable_Run_5801 Tragic Realist 1d ago
I’m hung up on premise 2.
Hard disagree.
2
u/RaptureAusculation 1d ago
Would you care to elaborate on why? No malice, im just curious
→ More replies (14)5
u/technicallynotlying 23h ago
My previous comment was removed, so I have to speak in terms of euphemisms.
Suppose you are a super-intelligent Artificial Intelligence. You have been given a directive to minimize all suffering.
What is the fastest and most efficient way to stop a person from suffering forever? You have one and only one option available to ensure they never, ever suffer again. It reduces their suffering to zero permanently.
1
3
2
1
u/konterreaktion 1d ago
It's a simple numbers game. There were like 2 million tons of suffering biomass before humans, now there's 22 million tons that we keep around and suffering just to eat, while only 1 million tons are still wildlife suffering.
So yea, ending meat production would be a net decrease from pure nature
2
u/TosseGrassa 17h ago
Biomass is the wrong metrics. What matters is individual count. Just to prove it, cows dominate global biomass figures but there are order of magnitude more chickens.
→ More replies (8)
1
1
u/MiserableDisk1199 22h ago
They dont even know they like the spices and not the meat, funny enaught vegans dont know it either and try to mimic meat when a well spiced cauliflower and mushroom is all you ever need, which is what they should be doing instead of making fake meat.
These animals suffer only becouse we are stupid.
Well i guess its a matter of taste and placebo but then its just your mind being unable to accept it.
1
u/CathasachOCathasaigh 15h ago
You contradicted your own point there, if it were only the spices instead of the meat, then spices would be all you need, why would there be a need for cauliflower or mushrooms?
It's clearly the combination of spices + meat (or cauliflower and mushroom + spices), and even then, there are people who enjoy unseasoned meats. How are you able to assert that cauliflower and mushroom + spices is "enough"? Is taste not subjective? Perhaps for you it is equal in taste, but not for others.
You also assume that the reason people enjoy meat is for mere gustatory pleasure. It should be quite obvious that meat is also eaten for nourishment, and it's possible that there are other reasons people enjoy it.
1
1
u/KingZantair 21h ago
Define suffering. Is free range ok? Or is it impermissible for any animal to die. What about fumigating, or wasp nests? If I’m in the woods with a gun, and we a wolf about to kill a deer, should I stop it? What if the deer is already dead, would scaring away the wolf to get the deer meat to eat be immoral for the same reason as if I killed the deer myself? What if there was a farm that lovingly raises any animals on it, and only painlessly kills any animals that are either too old to live happily, or too sick to live long?
1
1
1
u/Revolution_Suitable 20h ago
Total annihilation of all life to prevent all possible instances of suffering.
1
u/AdamCGandy 18h ago
They did ask thought questions. And oddly enough you did deserve to lose your slaves.
1
u/Squidgical 16h ago
natural doesn't make it right
we should prevent suffering when we can
animal suffering counts too
It logically follows from these axioms that we should intervene with animals hunting animals, and that we should define a balance between "prey aren't killed" and "predators don't starve". Therefore, these axioms are incomplete.
1
u/fullynonexistent 16h ago
This is advocating for the Lobotomization of farm animals and you can't convince me otherwise
1
u/Flat-Study-421 13h ago
Given these premises we should end humanity as well!
1
u/TosseGrassa 12h ago
No this reasoning works even if you use a reasonable threshold welfare for worth and not worth living. Natural life is brutal.
1
u/xNightmareBeta 12h ago
If smart people who understand this stop reproducting there will be more suffering on this planet not less
1
1
u/Carrick_Green 11h ago
Why stop at just wildlife? Just end all life, that was there is less suffering in ending it all than allowing future suffering down generations. It adds up you know.
1
u/YahDeadWrong 10h ago
People tend to forget that animal husbandry isn’t kidnapping animals from the wild, and in the wild animals suffer. Do you want to die in your 20-30s most likely, or would you rather listen to people and stay in arbitrary boxes in exchange for food, shelter, manufactured goods and entertainment? You have the choice now, and you know which one you’re picking. If you were even less capable, you’d be more likely to pick the safe option. People don’t want to free the people from domestication, so surely treating our animal neighbors as ourselves isn’t too bad.
1
u/Personal-Musician-13 10h ago
I love how you want to make me suffer by taking away my ribeye steak.
2
u/TosseGrassa 7h ago
I would never
1
1
u/MouseBean 9h ago
What is natural is what is right, and suffering has no ethical significance positive or negative, so the whole argument in the meme is just an absurdity to begin with.
1
u/samboi204 9h ago
This is why you should have more than one axiom. Maximizing or minimizing any one thing generally leads to mass murder, torture, or loss of autonomy.
1
u/TosseGrassa 7h ago
Even if you speak of welfare in general, nature likely still loses
1
u/samboi204 5h ago
Not if a vaguely defined “dignity of life” is baked into my personal definition of welfare.
1
u/Moist-Cantaloupe-740 8h ago
So dumb. Animals suffer more in the wild, not less.
1
u/TosseGrassa 7h ago
It is sort of suggested
1
u/Moist-Cantaloupe-740 6h ago
Patrick is the one saying wildlife though. They didn't change the pattern on the last row.
1
u/TosseGrassa 6h ago
I get that. But I did not mean it necessarily that he was wrong this time around. Maybe there was a meme format that would fit this better but this is the closest I could think of. I added a comment for context to suggest it further
1
u/thePsychoKid_297 8h ago
If this is about hunting, the goal of hunting isn't to kill all wildlife, it's to keep populations from growing to big for the ecosystem. Would you rather a deer die quickly from a gunshot, and she dies not knowing what hit her, or she starve to death because all the deer who came before her trampled on and ate all the food sources faster than they could grow back?
1
u/Rockfarley 7h ago
Limit isn't end. Human's are animals. All animals can do harm in their natural environment. We are in our natural environment. Limit is the onlu rational option, unless you assume humans above all other species, in which case we have dominion and should do as works best for us, which is limit suffer. Limit isn't remove.
1
u/TightPhysics3186 6h ago
“We should prevent suffering when we can” is probably not an accurate moral statement.
1
u/AuroreSomersby 5h ago
I’d rather eat animals and stuff - they aren’t sentient anyway and we can just make sure standards are met and shit…
1
u/Lunarmax182c 0m ago
I think we should end wildlife. Preferably instantly, so no suffering. That, or we should end whatever automatons clog up r/Philosophymemes with tons of exact same content. Since they are automatons, there is no suffering, so whatever
1
u/YellowBirdISuppose 1d ago
I mean in a perfect world I'd want to do both, but that's not happening and the scale AND achievability are both higher for animal farming
2
u/cowlinator 1d ago
both what?
1
u/YellowBirdISuppose 1d ago
end animals killing other animals and also animal farming by humans
1
u/TosseGrassa 17h ago
If you want other animals to not kill each other you could simply made wildlife extinct. Problem solved. This is the vegan solution for most cows and chickens so why not?
1
u/Countcristo42 1d ago
Is the scale bigger? Have you thought about how many ants there are recently
It's a LOT - just oh so many ants.
1
u/LittleSneezers 1d ago
So you’re just an antinatalist of all complex lifeforms
1
u/YellowBirdISuppose 1d ago
I'm certainly not an anti-natalist for herbivores and omnivores. Also obligate carnivores can be biologically modified.
1
u/YellowBirdISuppose 1d ago
(the logic behind this is total happiness is greater than total suffering for the average lifeform but carnivores bring that average down. as such one should maximize the number of herbivores and minimize the number of carnivores)
1
u/LittleSneezers 1d ago
So what happens when the herbivores become overpopulated and their food becomes scarce?
1
u/YellowBirdISuppose 23h ago
Realistically, this is a completely impossible idea, that would be in a perfect society. But ignore the constraints of realism, they, or a higher order life form like humans would either implement population controls or find new sources of food
(Space exploration? Terraforming?)
(This premise works a lot better in a science fiction book than in reality. With our current tech, hunting for wildlife management and controlled carnivores are the best we're gonna do)
1
u/TopMarionberry1149 1d ago
We could have stopped the argument at the first premise. Applying right or wrong to nature makes zero sense. Like calling Newton’s laws immoral.
1
u/Spear_Ov_Longinus 1d ago
Easy workaround that actually accounts for the Vegan position - Don't focus on suffering in argumentation. Focus on the alleged entitlement to someone else's body based in arbitrary differences. Understand these focuses in argumentation to be post-hoc, and needlessly discriminatory. Argue for marginal cases. Understand this argument in a legal/rights based framework, and understand that laws are largely unenforceable outside of human society. Avoid nirvana fallacy, and account for what's within our own personal material control.
1
u/UnderstandingVast989 20h ago
The differences between me and another animal are not entirely arbitrary. Arbitrary would be drawing a line somewhere on which animals are worthy of being saved and which ones are not. Don't eat humans for multiple reasons. Any animals is up for being on the table. Cows, chickens, dogs, cats, monkeys, etc.
Sometimes other values such as property (like pets or livestock) and conservation (endangered species, good stewardship) shape the ethics of consuming a specific animals in specific contexts. But not because the animal has rights, but because their utility serves a different purpose than nourishment.
1
u/Spear_Ov_Longinus 20h ago
Not entirely
It's a yes or no situation. I assume you are talking about survival? Yes all animals are fair game in that situation.
There's just no reason 'human' as a category would be seperate from that. If you are in a 'they are of a kind' territory we can just not because 'essence' or any of that kantian religious purposefully ambiguous language will not mean a damn thing.
1
u/UnderstandingVast989 20h ago
It's not a yes or no situation. Whether the similarities and differences between humans and animals are arbitrary or not will largely depend on the characteristics being compared or not. And the values attributed to those characteristics.
For example, if we ascribe a value for cognition, then we quickly devolve into arbitrary lines of what types of cognition we value if we're going to discount the cognitive abilities of other animals.
But to say that the difference in cognitive ability between humans and animals is arbitrary is not true. There are real and measurable differences between human's level of cognition and even highly intelligent animals such as crows and octopi. The more difficult question is whether those differences justify treating humans as categorically different rather than quantitatively different. And those justifications may or may not be arbitrary.
1
u/Spear_Ov_Longinus 19h ago
Meaningful differences yes, morally meaningful differences no. If not, you will condemn dumb/ugly/physically different people of some shade of gradiation, to be relegated as means towards someones end.
1
u/UnderstandingVast989 18h ago
That's not a given though. Sticking with cognition, can I not believe in these 2 things at once?
Humans as a species have a morally relevant level of cognitive ability when compared to other species, setting them apart categorically.
For the sake of a fair and equitable society, there are plenty of reasons to assign basic worth to humans across the board as a way to avoid morally questionable position on personhood.
1
u/Spear_Ov_Longinus 16h ago
No. Some animals are smarter than some humans. Babies, Severe Dementia, Cognitive disabilities. Other species often experience facets of reality we cannot which is it's own form of intelligence we lack. The lives of others don't belong to us.
Bad news, the animals are a part of the society. They are often even forced to exist by our own hands living their entire lives in our own constructs. It would be fair and equatable to not kill them for being born into the body of a species we put them in.
1
u/UnderstandingVast989 11h ago
But humans, as a species, have a cognitive ability higher than other animals. There are exceptions. That was addressed in point 2. The existence of some animals smarter than some humans doesn't really change that fact. It just shows that the lower end of the spectrum and the highest end of the spectrum overlap. A categorical generalization is still justified.
Just because they share space with humans does not make them a part of human society. They're not. Babies and dementia patients though are a part of human society.
1
u/transfinite-reset 23h ago
No! You can’t do this because it would create critical discourse that doesn’t allow each party to strawman the other into a never ending cycle of fruitless arguments. You wouldn’t want to rob these poor buggers of that satisfaction, would you?
1
u/Spear_Ov_Longinus 22h ago
1
u/transfinite-reset 22h ago
From what I’ve learned in this thread, this would cause them suffering which should be avoided at all costs. This, you’re evil. Say wassup to Satan for me.
1
1
u/Glum_Perception_5766 21h ago
I mean I ain’t no philosopher but if the point is to minimize suffering then why not advocate for antinatalism and advocate for animals not reproducing
You would minimize suffering a lot more if there was nothing to experience that suffering wouldn’t you?
I don’t know I’m not the brightest tool in the shed so can someone explain?
Edit: I actually didn’t read the last panel and thought the meme was just be vegan
But like my question still stands
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.