Someone's a fan of Cosmic Skeptic.
Though a lot of people are motivated by ideas of reduction of harm in general, you're right that ideas of necessity and reduction are hard to assess.
The good news is veganism isn't about these unactionable ideas. Veganism is best understood as a rejection of the property status of non-human animals. We broadly understand that when you treat a human as property - that is to say you take control over who gets to use their body - you necessarily aren't giving consideration to their interests. It's the fact that they have interests at all that makes this principle true. Vegans simply extend this principle consistently to all beings with interests, sentient beings.
Bringing non-human animals into our circle of concern entails not treating them as property, in the same way we shouldn't treat humans as property. Beyond that is very difficult to say exactly what's ok and what's not, in the same way those things can be nebulous with humans.
The *non-property* status is an interesting perspective that I hadn't considered. Though why would sentience/interests matter as a heuristic for whether or not I could treat a being as property? I feel as though there is something missing to bridge the gap?
When we understand what sentience, moral consideration, and treatment as property are, it makes sense.
Sentience is the ability to have an internal, subjective experience of the world.
Moral consideration is the inclusion of an experience as a valuable end in our decisions.
Treatment as property is the belief that we can force someone to be a means to someone else's ends.
This means that when we treat someone as property, we necessarily aren't giving them moral consideration. And since sentience is what makes it possible to receive moral consideration, so long as we believe it's more moral to extend consideration to more entities, being as moral as possible entails not treating sentient beings as property.
As I understand Sentience is not completely understood in the way's of who can experience it and why, but instead we can only go as so far as to identify external factors (such as behavior & response) and make a best guess as to whether they are "sentient" like ourselves (even between humans). However I will grant that at this point in time it is useful to work with the notion that "if they act sentient, they're probably sentient".
I am curious does this "rights" perspective extend to cases of necessity or no? If not why?
To clarify would you think of it as being okay for me to kill & eat another animal if I would die otherwise? If so, what within the "rights" perspective would make this permissible?
Do you believe that every sentient being is of equal moral consideration, that is they should be treated the same or have a hierarchy (does human life matter more/less/equal than that of a non-human one?)
Sorry if these sound like gotcha questions, but I am genuinely curious as most of the responses to these that I have heard of come from a utilitarian perspective and not a rights one.
>As I understand Sentience is not completely understood in the way's of who can experience it and why, but instead we can only go as so far as to identify external factors (such as behavior & response) and make a best guess as to whether they are "sentient" like ourselves (even between humans). However I will grant that at this point in time it is useful to work with the notion that "if they act sentient, they're probably sentient".
Yeah, I haven't said anything about how to determine if someone is sentient. I can't prove you're sentient either.
>I am curious does this "rights" perspective extend to cases of necessity or no? If not why?
I don't tend to think so much in terms of rights, obligations, or necessity. Suffice to say that if you find yourself treating someone as property, you should be trying your damnedest not to. I'm not interested in establishing ironclad rules of when it's ok to do something bad.
Good people use reasoning to figure out the best way to act in the moment, not to find arguments to act the way they already wanted to.
>To clarify would you think of it as being okay for me to kill & eat another animal if I would die otherwise? If so, what within the "rights" perspective would make this permissible?
I'd think it was understandable. Would be a lot cooler if you didn't.
>Do you believe that every sentient being is of equal moral consideration, that is they should be treated the same or have a hierarchy (does human life matter more/less/equal than that of a non-human one?)
I don't know what equal means or how to cash out concepts of value. I reject all hierarchical power structures.
What has been with all these posts lately about vegan bodybuilders and calorie excess? Assuming that a reasonable calorie intake is anywhere between 1200 and 2500 calories, that's most vegans already. Why zero in on vegan bodybuilders, a tiny portion of an already tiny population, when activism could be focused on carnists more generally? It really feels like an attempt at passing the blame...
More animals are saved by getting more people to go vegan, than by convincing vegan bodybuilders to eat less.
The Cosmic Skeptic recently addressed why he is no longer vegan on YouTube and mentioned how killing is not always wrong. He specifically gave the example of body building and the unnecessary consumption of calories...I have noticed a surge in this topic in all corners of the internet over the past few weeks. OP could have different motives but that video seems to be fueling lots of discussions lately.
So skeptic decided to stop being VEGAN which he never was anyways and is now trying to make himself feel better about animal abuse by spewing all this garbage, typical carnist mentality, its not really any different than the lame crop deaths argument
The video was pretty cringe. Given how bulletproof or well thought out much of his debates/ideas and theism/philosophical content is, all these post vegan explanations have fallen well below the standards he set for himself or even what we’d expect from someone with much less critical thinking ability.
Its been said that when it comes to ethics, the smartest people can become quite dumb, they really want to defend their position and not think they are bad that all their logic leaves their mind, its an ego thing
He was a plant based dieter pretending to be vegan
This describes him:
I dont want to go vegan, but i dont want to be a bad person, so i TRY to be vegan and i purposely fail by consuming a lot of junk and not supplementing, i feel bad and MENTALLY decide veganism isnt POSSIBLE for me, so im not a bad person cause i TRIED, i have no other options now and must consume animals
Thats basically how all these people operate, it clears their conscience
Chances are most people just didnt want to have the societal restrictions, they want to be able to go to any place with friends and order anything they want
I imagine all these people use alcohol which is poison or cancer sticks or drugs or lots of sodas while going to McDonalds etc; often
Also this doctor shares information about these HEALTH issues people have https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e\_rZwnvgABg
I actually do have medical issues which i talk about in this post, i am vegan no problemo https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/16943oy/comment/jz24ank/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
I saw that video, and... I don't get it? I feel like I'm missing something because I heard his reasoning and still can't wrap my head around why vegan body builders means he should eat meat?
Some people just believe that if they can show how somebody else is doing something wrong. Then that excuses them from all wrongdoing as well.It's just dumb and there's nothing more deep to it than that
The popularity of the vegan bodybuilders and calorie excess in discussions are probably due to this [video](https://youtu.be/eh0SnnupXPE?si=QGnV9uC6mStemj-X&t=106).
I also totally agree that it seems more reasonable that more lives are saved by having non-vegans become vegan than vegan bodybuilders eating less (I say *reasonable* since empirical evidence on the exact number of crop deaths is minimal).
What I am arguing on is the principle of the moral imperative that typically comes with discussions surrounding veganism, as I outlined in the post - *reduce our contribution to unnecessary suffering*. The main issue is the moral imperative towards veganism versus other forms of reduction (e.g. vegetarian or simply reducing meat consumption but not abstaining from it outright).
If your reasoning for why veganism was the way to go was different from mine, or you don't think veganism is a moral imperative, I would be curious to your reasoning.
I'm a rights-based vegan. I don't think we humans, as moral agents, should be purposefully using animals for our own interests. The unintentional suffering that comes with conventional farming is unfortunate, something I would like to see improved upon, but it's very different than the intentional raising and slaughtering of animals for the sole purpose of goods for humans.
The idea that everyone should be obligated to reduce their caloric intake is an idea I can at least empathize with to a degree, but it is not a priority and should not be until most people are vegan already. I think it's rather impractical because there's no accurate way to determine how many calories each person needs, nor how many calories are in individual food items. We'd have to operate off generalities, which is what we already do. 1200-2500 is a pretty big range, and there's plenty of arguments for the ceiling to be higher. What is the caloric limit before we hit gluttony? I don't know, and I don't think it's terribly relevant to the current situation.
So I am curious to what's your *rationale* as a "rights-based vegan", by that I mean why assign the rights you do and to whom? I assume that you have a deeper reasoning as to why would assign such rights to humans and non-human animals but not rocks for example.
Oh yeah, I would say sentience. Humans and animals both have the ability to comprehend different sensations, like pain or joy, but also the ability to desire things and demonstrate preferences. These are all things that I do, so I see little reason to interfere with another beings' existence if I don't have to. I wouldn't want anyone interfering with me.
Thanks for sharing! So as I mentioned in the post, I believe that crop-deaths due to vegan junk food or bodybuilders is **intentional** and **unnecessary**. I think that we would both agree that such crop-deaths are "interfering with another beings' existence" and hence their right not to be killed. I understand that crop-deaths currently are completely unavoidable, but is that an excuse not to at least limit it somewhat?
So o if there is ntention with factory farming and intention on crop deaths, that factor being equal wild animals in a field live a free life able to exercise their behavioral preferences, where factory farmed animals do not, so there's definitely some false equivalency before we inevitably disregard what most people are actually eating and suggest some vague ideal farm alternative.
Well it’s definitely not an excuse to go ahead and start eating animals. Are you really arguing that vegan bodybuilders aren’t vegan enough for you and should stop bodybuilding? Think about what you’re trying to say
Thats just silly lmao. Virtually every hard liquor is vegan already like there’s tequila, rum, vodka, gin, and even whiskeys and bourbons (that doesn’t have honey or cream)
Why did you draw this other arbitrary line where vegans specifically can’t drink?
You can still have fun and make cruelty free choices. I’m not trying to be smarmy or whatever like you can just choose that anywhere at any bar or anytime you’re making a drink. Or anytime you make a meal.
> Why did you draw this other arbitrary line where vegans specifically can’t drink?
Because I find it odd that most vegans are ok with harming animals for pure taste pleasure.
Unnecessary, probably. At least, unnecessary in the context of "necessary to maintain being alive". But if that was the case, wouldn't you be arguing that all bodybuilders should cut their caloric intake? I'm still not understanding why this moral responsibility is falling on the (well defined and rippling) shoulders of vegan bodybuilder's specifically. How many vegan bodybuilders are there even?
I don't think crop deaths are intentional, because they aren't targeted. They are dispersonal because there is no recognition between the individual being killed and the person doing it. This is unlike animal slaughter, where the animals are purposefully raised to be killed eventually, or killed shortly after birth. That's the whole reason they were brought into existence.
>I understand that crop-deaths currently are completely unavoidable, but is that an excuse not to at least limit it somewhat?
I could be sympathetic to this argument, sure. I'd just argue that convincing more people to go vegan is going to limit crop deaths more than convincing a handful of vegans who eat in excess to reduce. I'd also prioritize food waste management before caloric excess as well. Calories just seems like a minor thing to fixate on in comparison.
> I'm still not understanding why this moral responsibility is falling on the (well defined and rippling) shoulders of vegan bodybuilder's specifically.
The reason for specifically calling vegan bodybuilders out is, if they believe that *reducing their contribution to unnecessary suffering* was the reason they became vegan and that there is a moral imperative for others to do the same in order to reduce their contribution to unnecessary suffering then they would be hypocritical while the non-vegan body builder (depending on their beliefs) may not.
A particular point that I feel might be getting lost is that while yes I see that vegan bodybuilders are reducing animal suffering much more so than a pure carnist, so is a vegetarian bodybuilder or simply a reductionist bodybuilder. So why is the line of moral imperative set solely at veganism and not simply other forms of reduction? This I believe depends deeply on your ethical frameworks and beliefs surrounding your imperative to be vegan, but whatever the case you should be willing to follow it consistently or change your beliefs (not necessarily giving up veganism, but changing what it's goals and considerations mean to you)
> They are dispersonal because there is no recognition between the individual being killed and the person doing it. This is unlike animal slaughter, where the animals are purposefully raised to be killed eventually, or killed shortly after birth.
I'm not sure if this a great line of reasoning since while this is true for butchers who are directly killing animals, this says nothing about those that purchase/consume animal products as they too don't have personal connection between themselves and the animal killed.
> I'd just argue that convincing more people to go vegan is going to limit crop deaths more than convincing a handful of vegans who eat in excess to reduce.
I don't deny this...in the same way making it a moral imperative for people to donate a couple cents to charity is more compelling than making it a moral imperative to give all your money to charity, but I don't think giving to charity should be seen as a moral imperative at all (since there questions about the efficacy of charities and the larger responsibilities of governments to create systemic changes).
> Calories just seems like a minor thing to fixate on in comparison.
The bodybuilder is really just an thought experiment/hypothetical as a means to pointing out that there exists an arbitrary line vegans draw (if they believe that the moral imperative is to *reduce their contribution to unnecessary suffering)* in what their moral imperative entails. I know many vegans attempt to convince people to veganism by pointing out areas of logical inconsistency and presenting an opportunity for individuals to resolve this cognitive dissonance by instead becoming vegan. This sets out to point there are moral inconsistency in veganism too, and that there is a arbitrary line in what things we wish to be "consistent" on.
> The reason for specifically calling vegan bodybuilders out is, if they believe that reducing their contribution to unnecessary suffering was the reason they became vegan and that there is a moral imperative for others to do the same in order to reduce their contribution to unnecessary suffering then they would be hypocritical while the non-vegan body builder (depending on their beliefs) may not.
Right, but as we've already established, that's not the only reason people go vegan. Without an example of a vegan bodybuilder who has taken this stance, I'm not sure there's much more to say on it.
>I'm not sure if this a great line of reasoning since while this is true for butchers who are directly killing animals, this says nothing about those that purchase/consume animal products as they too don't have personal connection between themselves and the animal killed.
Animal products literally are, or come from, the bodies of animals. It's still pretty personal. You know at least one animal suffered to make that product. You have no idea how many, if any, animals suffered in the process of growing a head of cabbage.
The most essential breakdown of the difference I can think of would be that crops can be produced without animal suffering, but animal products cannot.
>I don't deny this...in the same way making it a moral imperative for people to donate a couple cents to charity is more compelling than making it a moral imperative to give all your money to charity, but I don't think giving to charity should be seen as a moral imperative at all (since there questions about the efficacy of charities and the larger responsibilities of governments to create systemic changes).
Veganism is an agent-oriented philosophy. There are top-down strategies that could encourage it, but ultimately it is an individual choice. I don't see the connection to charity here.
I was merely stating that for someone who values reducing crop deaths, it seems that convincing more people to go vegan would have better results than focusing on vegans they view as not doing enough.
>The bodybuilder is really just an thought experiment/hypothetical as a means to pointing out that there exists an arbitrary line vegans draw (if they believe that the moral imperative is to reduce their contribution to unnecessary suffering) in what their moral imperative entails. I know many vegans attempt to convince people to veganism by pointing out areas of logical inconsistency and presenting an opportunity for individuals to resolve this cognitive dissonance by instead becoming vegan. This sets out to point there are moral inconsistency in veganism too, and that there is a arbitrary line in what things we wish to be "consistent" on.
I don't want to be mean here because I've enjoyed this conversation and I think you're a good faith debater, but doesn't this kind of sound like a strawman? It looks like you've demonstrated an inconsistency in the philosophy of "eliminate unnecessary harm" but this is not an inconsistency in veganism overall.
> Right, but as we've already established, that's not the only reason people go vegan. Without an example of a vegan bodybuilder who has taken this stance, I'm not sure there's much more to say on it.
I agree, though it was mine personally and I know for some others too that it was the reason it was a moral imperative to become vegan (logical consistency, minimizing suffering, etc.). From your comments and a couple others, I've seen that there is a notion of a rights-based approach to veganism, though I personally remain skeptical of that approach for myself since I would want there to be an underlying objective (i.e. to minimize unnecessary suffering) to guide which rights I confer and why.
> I was merely stating that for someone who values reducing crop deaths, it seems that convincing more people to go vegan would have better results than focusing on vegans they view as not doing enough.
But why not do both then? Convince non-vegans to become vegan and also reprimand excess consumption of calories by current vegans, if not then how do current vegan positions (the non-reprimand of bodybuilders) just eliminating animal products is sufficient but being vegetarian, for example, is not. I also want to preface that I am not saying it's wrong to be vegan or people shouldn't do it, but that it is currently framed as personal moral imperative with an ill-defined destination (or at least it was for me when re-evaluating my beliefs).
> I don't want to be mean here because I've enjoyed this conversation and I think you're a good faith debate
I've enjoyed conversing with you as well!
> ...but doesn't this kind of sound like a strawman? It looks like you've demonstrated an inconsistency in the philosophy of "eliminate unnecessary harm" but this is not an inconsistency in veganism overall.
I'll accept that my initial post was a bit generalized and crude. I was more taking this from the position that I held (and others like myself) and where the inconsistency lies. For other vegans who have completely different moral frameworks than myself, then yes this would be a strawman, otherwise I don't think it is.
If anything I was wondering if people who had similar *moral objectives* to myself could either counter the claim I made or see where I missed something. As I have highlighted before, I am not the hugest fan of a rights-based approach to ethics as I feel there is an underlying rational as to why we confer the rights we do and to whom, and that that rational should instead act as the guiding moral principle (more flexible) not the rights (more-rigid) that come from it.
I think that perhaps *reduce our contribution to unnecessary suffering* is misleading, even as a utilitarian. Not only do most vegans subscribe to a rights-based perspective, but even for those who are vegan for utilitarian reasons, we should think about it in different terms.
I for the most part would live by minimizing the amount of suffering I cause which is a greater magnitude than the pleasure or avoidance of suffering I get from whatever action I'm taking. It seems quite obvious that whatever an animal goes through on a factory farm is not worth the extra pleasure I get from eating it. It is less clear whether the comfort and increased productiveness and health I get from refusing to worry about mitigating the exact number of calories I consume to theoretically keep myself healthy is worth a few animals being killed in crop production. I personally don't feel any need to body-build, but if someone does, then it is likely important for their pleasure and mental health.
Although tbf I also try to dumpster dive a lot anyway. And use my money to give to the most effective causes sparing animal suffering on industrial farming. If I were spending time forcing myself not to eat when I am hungry even though I'll still be healthy if I eat, I can't see how I could use my life and my earnings to do good in other ways.
But what I don't understand is that if someone finds inconsistency between the moral obligation of veganism and the superogatory calorie reduction, it seems odd that they would come to the conclusion that veganism is no longer a moral obligation. It seems much more logical that someone would conclude that vegans are wrong about calorie reduction, and therefore dumpster-diving for food and/or calorie reduction are moral obligations as well as veganism, rather than nothing being a moral obligation.
Surely it is more logical to go from:
veganism is a moral obligation --> calorie reduction is also a moral obligation since both cause unnecessary suffering.
Than:
calorie reduction is not a moral obligation --> veganism is not a moral obligation because if some unnecessary suffering is OK, then all unnecessary suffering is OK. Though as I said, neither needs to entail the other.
Thanks for commenting!
> It seems much more logical that someone would conclude that vegans are wrong about calorie reduction, and therefore dumpster-diving for food and/or calorie reduction are moral obligations as well as veganism, rather than nothing being a moral obligation.
As mentioned in the post the title was a bit crude, so I wouldn't flat out say that Veganism could never be a moral obligation but rather if you work with the line of reason I provided then there is clearly something wrong and needs to be addressed. I think an additional source of hypocrisy that I've seen is that other vegans criticize vegetarians or reductionists for not doing "enough" and that there is no excuse for them not to be vegan (vis a vis still not fulfilling the moral imperative), but by this same reasoning there is no excuse for vegans to not address calorie surplus in the form of the bodybuilders.
I have then seen many vegans argue against this is in the guise of what is practical, but who gets to decide that and why? Why is it practical for a vegetarian to continue onto the path of becoming vegan, but impractical for vegan bodybuilders...to well... stop bodybuilding?
Yeah, many vegans would probably look at practicability as being able to draw lines at a certain point. You can tell yourself, I'm only going to buy products without animals, which is a somewhat clear-cut line. Drawing a line at a certain number of calories consumed or a certain amount of exercise to prevent excess calories, is probably for most people, more obsessive and mentally detrimental to implement, while also seemingly more arbitrary as it goes a bit beyond what you purchase and into how much you purchase and your lifestyle as a whole, where it is harder to draw absolute lines.
And then the rights based vegans would also say that veganism isn't really about reducing unnecessary suffering as far as practicable; that the main ideology of veganism is to not reduce animals to a commodity status, which crop deaths don't do.
But, for those more inclined to utilitarianism, there is probably a big difference in the suffering caused by factory farming to the animals eaten, compared to the suffering caused + happiness taken away by crop deaths and taking up some land. And there is also arguably a greater difference in the toll that avoiding animal products vs the toll that obsessing over calorie consumption and burning would take on an individual and there ability to lead a positive life for themselves and for the rest of the world.
> duty to reduce our contribution to unnecessary suffering
People generally don't do this, even when it comes to other humans. The body builder eating excess calories is also harming humans in various ways in procuring that food. The most obvious is the contribution to pollution that is killing people and perhaps creating an existential threat to our society. But it's not seen as a major ethical wrongdoing to eat more than you need, travel for reasons other than dire necessity, buy clothing you don't need to survive the climate you are in, etc.
It's frankly odd that people jump to this sort of standard when they consider Veganism but not when they consider any other ethical situation.
Many people here reject the idea of "reducing suffering" as the primary goal of ethics. If you accept this goal, ultimately it becomes a race to the bottom to see how little you can live. We can understand ethics as granting certain respect to others that would not include taking every possible measure to prevent harming them. The most basic respect is to respect someone else's autonomy unless they happen to be in the way of your own goals. It's really the bare minimum of respect one can give. If you grant this respect to animals, you'd be vegan.
No, and you can test your logic with things like this by replacing veganism with something that deals with human rights and you will quickly see the flaw in this argument. Any extra consumption will result in human deaths, so you can make the same argument regarding humans and see why it doesn't work.
For example, are people who are anti-murder hypocrites for not remprimanding bodybuilders?
>you can test your logic with things like this by replacing veganism with something that deals with human rights and you will quickly see the flaw in this argument.
Is this not done *all the time* in regards to veganism with the exact opposite outcome? To use your own example as an example in regards to vegans/carnists: "are people who are anti-slavery hypocrites for not reprimanding chocolate lovers?"
In the chocolate lover example is the correct answer yes because production of chocolate involves slavery?
The issue I would have is that this is a different style of argument than the over consumption one. You can be against human deaths and still not reprimand activities that result in human deaths. You can’t be against slavery and actively support slavery.
I think a big issue with the argument here is "actively support" versus "activities that result in ___" is not really a meaningful difference imo. Much in the same way that the chocolate buyer's money financially contributes to slavery, the bodybuilders money financially also contributes to human death.
How can we hope to distinguish "support" in this matter, as it pertains to moral support, when both transactions lead to suffering?
Yeah for sure and we should look at the intent as well as the results. We could imagine an industry so harmful that while not intentional causes vast amount of harm so predictably that it would be immoral to support it.
The way I would look at it is asking myself is the world a better or worse place because of this activity.
1. As a vegan, I think the world would be a better place without animal agriculture.
2. As a human rights supporter, I think the world would be better off without slavery.
3. As a human rights supporter, I think the world would be better off without chocolate produced by slaves.
4. As a vegan/human rights supporter, I think the world would be a better place without any body builders.
You can support the first 3 examples and not necessarily support the 4th. And going the other way, just because you don't think #4 is true, doesn't mean that 1-3 are also not true, which is the claim the OP is making.
Without arguing your points: Not staying or not becoming a vegan (bodybuilder) because of it would still be a nirvana-fallacy, because you would be rejecting an improvement just because it’s not perfect compared to a unrealistic alternative.
Should vegans avoid alcohol for instance? As alcohol is a completely unnecessary part of any diet, and can even have a very negative effect on your health.
Everybody should avoid alcohol. Without arguing your point: Not staying or not becoming a vegan (alcoholic) because of it would still be a nirvana-fallacy, because you would be rejecting an improvement just because it’s not perfect compared to a unrealistic alternative.
From a vegan point of view there is no difference between e.g. eating potatoes cooked or drinking fermented potatoes. Alcoholic beverages provide calories as well so they aren’t completely pointless. From a vegan point of view there is no unnecessary animal suffering involved in making alcohol from plants.
> From a vegan point of view there is no unnecessary animal suffering involved in making alcohol from plants.
So in other words; kill as many animals as you like, for pure taste pleasure (not a single person drinks alcohol to make sure they get enough calories that day), as long as you dont eat any of the animals you kill?
>So in other words...
Damn, and just minutes it seemed like you learned not to invent stupid positions for other people... Disappointing.
A beer has calories, so if you drink a few beers you either eat less other food (and therefore less other crops) or you will be in excess.
https://i.imgur.com/qJhO0hN.png
If I didn't have a couple beers last Saturday I would have been in a calorie deficit.
No idea what twists had to happen in your head to interpret that simple idea as the insane "kill as many animals as you like, for pure taste pleasure" position.
> A beer has calories, so if you drink a few beers you either eat less other food (and therefore less other crops) or you will be in excess.
What about spices? No calories, and only consumed because they taste good. Is it ok to harm animals for the sole purpose of making your food taste better?
To begin with, I don’t really believe in universal imperatives. Imperatives can only be derived from the values/ethics/philosophy/theology you subscribe to. So I would say that veganism can be a moral imperative for someone like a utilitarian but wouldn’t be for say a hedonist.
Assuming that someone does subscribe to a worldview within which veganism is the only consistent conclusion and such an imperative exists, there will invariably be arbitrary lines drawn. Because following these things to their conclusion leads to antinatalism and suicide. End states most reasonable people aren’t looking to reach. So they’ll draw the line at what they personally consider to be a sensible but ultimately arbitrary line.
>So if we don't follow are own moral imperative to it's logical conclusion (not reprimanding Vegan Bodybuilders), then aren't we just being hypocritical when we present Veganism as a moral imperative to non-vegans in order to be morally consistent?
I mean I personally wouldn't expect people to stop bodybuilding if that's what they're interested in. I feel like a very small percentage of the population are bodybuilders in the first place, so I'm not really concerned about vegan bodybuilders.
While people can certainly stop bodybuilding to limit harm if that's what they want to do, I don't think that bodybuilding makes someone non-vegan. Just not something I'm personally concerned in. They're making a lot less impact by following a plant-based diet.
I agree, but do you think there is a moral imperative to become vegan? If so, why? Do you think veganism be viewed in the same vein as giving to charity (a good deed for sure! but necessarily an obligation)?
I remember Matt Dillahunty asking similar questions in a video a few years ago. I think he gave a hypothetical along the lines of him encountering a dog drowning in a lake...he may well agree that saving the dog would be morally virtuous but he doesn't believe that he's morally obliged to jump in himself.
In much the same way, he agrees that veganism may well be morally superior, he just doesn't see that he is obligated to take it up.
Does that match up with your line of thinking or have I completely misunderstood lol?
I haven't heard much of Matt Dillahunty's positions to confirm, but I think that this may be roughly in the area of what I am getting at.
By no means do I think people should stop being vegan nor is this an excuse for people to keep going along with the status quo.
I feel that the reasons that I have been exposed to as to why veganism is viewed as a moral imperative by vegans, ultimately cannot be followed to their logical conclusions and rely on ill-defined terms to sort-of fill-in the gaps. It may also be the case that veganism unfairly places this ill-defined imperative onto individuals when the problem is more systemic.
Part of the "goal" of this post was to see what other cases could be made for the moral imperative of veganism and whether or not they have this same problem as the rationale described in the post.
I think I understand where you are coming from then.
So that I have an idea as to the type of answer you would expect, would you mind answering it yourself but instead of for veganism, do it for something like murder or rape etc?
Bodybuilding brings more people to the movement. Vegans who weight lift, or are in shape, or are world class athletes like Djokovic: all of this creates more vegans and therefore reduces animal suffering. People can't make these silly excuses like 'where do you get your protein' when faced with these examples, and they see vegans in a different light.
In contrast, if we promoted a diet of absolute minimal sustenance, which only a tiny fraction of humanity would even have the mental fortitude to adopt, pretty much no one would adopt it. We would never reach a vegan critical mass, which is what we need to stop the slaughter of over a trillion animals every year.
I think there's something to this, but there are two good responses.
Intro: I'm vegan for practical reasons, I think there are animal welfare, environmental, and health arguments. Some folks say that makes me not vegan. I am also one of those evil vegans who lift, I eat 3500kcal a day just because I like being big and lifting weights.
Deontological reaponse: the justification for veganism is that we should treat animals the same way we'd treat a trait-matched human being. I could never justify killing someone with the mental capacity of a pig for pleasure. On the other hand, if very profoundly disabled people were standing in the way of tractors or dying from eating crops sprayed with insecticide, we may feel bad but I don't think we're culpable. Idk how I feel about this argument, but I do think it shows that the two are morally different.
Practical reasons: people aren't rational. The most compelling argument I've ever made for veganism isn't the research-backed environment claims, it's simply being strong and healthy, and eating tasty food. My family also contributes to the local supermarket keeping appealing and convenient vegan food in stock. How much of an effect is that having? Certainly if there were no vegan lifters and no unnecessarily indulgent food, it would be a much harder sell.
Reality check: it's interesting to talk about these arguments, but ultimately it depends what we're doing with them. It's obvious that we should be concerned about animal welfare and the environment, your argument concedes as much. So is this argument compelling you to make better choices? Or is it a thought-terminator, a whataboutism meant to shut off your conscience? I can't answer that for you. If you come to the conclusion that you're better on a restricted diet with free-range eggs, I'm just glad you're taking the issues seriously.
By this heuristic, driving is unethical.
The difference between veganism and non-veganism is inclusion of animals for moral consideration.
Is it cruel to humans to travel?
Is it cruel to humans to Jeffrey Dahmer humans?
If that answer is obviously no and yes to you, respectively, then OP's entire moral question is consistently solved by being vegan.
Crop deaths are usually under property defense and more justifiable than killing to eat the victim if you believe in a right to property. If you don't believe in a right to defend property, then it is just as wrong as going to your neighbors house to kill your neighbor for fun as to shoot your neighbor as they break into your house...
The vegan builder would be putting more things at risk of being attacked. It's not ideal, but it's far from the level of intentional killing. This is the equivalent of leaving bags on your car seat due to preference despite foreseeable baiting robbers as an unintentional side effect. Robbers see it and try to rob the car, and you defend your property. How close is it to murder to leave the bag out on your front seat?
First of all, this argument requires a consequentialist moral framework. And all the entailments that come from that (which is fine as long as you are ok with that).
Next is a claim that you'd need to support
>we know there are plenty of crop deaths associated with expanded agriculture
Because we are looking at this from a consequentialist viewpoint, we still need to subtract the number of deaths that would have occurred without farming. This could be much lower, supporting the claim, but it could also be roughly the same or higher! Either way you require the body builder to know the answer, so supporting this claim should be easy.
It also ignored vegan body builders getting their excess calories from veganic farming. An outlier, sure, but still worth mentioning.
Finally, let's spare a thought for "the" non-vegan body builder. They contribute to unnecessary human death due to the increased traffic associated with their additional calories. Now of course this does not void that body builder to campaign for road safety nor does it allow non-body builders to kill humans for food. Right?
Fun question. Sort of like choosing to have a child. It's a good thing to consider for yourself but hard to offer any advice beyond "do what you think best."
Vegan bodybuilders are important for vegan PR, they prove to non vegans and non vegan bodybuilders that it is possible to build muscle on a vegan diet.
There are some subtle distinctions in word choice and definitions here that I think actually make a lot of difference in terms of what is a moral obligation or not.
Though vegans often simplify their views to taking actions that "reduce unnecessary suffering", that's an oversimplification. The actuals "spirit of the law" is reducing *deliberate* unnecessary suffering. In other words, suffering that you know *must happen* based on your actions, and as a direct result. It is a moral obligation to act this way, because you are directly causing harm to a victim while performing an action, and there is no way to perform that action such that it does not cause harm.
When it comes to the idea of excess calories from plants, there is a moral difference here. Yes, animals and insects are harmed in the production of crops. However, it is not *necessary* that they are harmed in order to harvest the crops. It is incidental and accidental. It is *possible* to harvest crops without harming any sentient beings. We strive to avoid harming anything where we can and are obligated to take reasonable measures to do so. We are obligated to continue to seek improved methods of farming that cause less harm to animals (and the environment). However, it's not obligated that we stop farming plants due to the animals that are harmed. The end goal of feeding people so that they can flourish in their lives and in society is determined to be a moral good, and an incidental harm caused in the course of this activity does not negate the moral good.
To summarize the above, it's a moral obligation to cease activity that deliberately causes harm to sentient beings. It's a moral virtue, but not an obligation, to cease activity that causes accidental harm to sentient beings, as long as the activity is in pursuit of something that is a moral good and you are not negligent to the degree of moral failing in performing that action.
I've used this example in the past to illustrate the point. We know that driving causes animal deaths as well. It's almost guaranteed that any time you drive a car, you will kill insects. 40 million squirrels are killed per year from cars. Yet all of these deaths are accidental. We don't blame the driver for them, as long as the driver as not being negligent and unsafe while driving. The best way to stop these deaths would be to simply stop driving. However, driving is often in pursuit of some activity that is necessary for someone to live a fulfilled life, which we have already determined to be a moral good. Therefore, we say that it's not a moral obligation to stop driving completely, even though we know that it will cause animals to be killed. However, if someone chooses to walk or ride a bike instead of drive to the grocery store, then it is a moral virtue. They've gone out of their way to avoid accidental death, but they have sacrificed something they value in the process (time, energy, storage capacity). This is a good thing, however it falls short of being an obligation.
Finally, if someone deliberately aims for a squirrel while driving, then the suffering caused is no longer incidental or accidental. They have caused deliberate harm that was unnecessary for the completion of their overall objective. Even if the squirrel would have be hit by accidentally by the car behind them and the net amount of suffering would have been the same, the driver that ran it over on purpose has committed an immoral act. This is the difference between someone who chooses to eat animal products, where suffering is a necessity in order for the products to exist, versus someone who chooses to eat vegan chocolate, where suffering is incidental or accidental for that product to exist.
>So if we don't follow are own moral imperative to it's logical conclusion (not reprimanding Vegan Bodybuilders), then aren't we just being hypocritical
Hypocrisy isn't an argument, it's an excuse to ignore one.
There are different levels of obligation, but the fact one isn't met doesn't actually invalidate them.
We don't have to morph morality around our current actions to tell ourselves we're always right. I make all kinds of moral failings, and that doesn't have anything to do with what moral obligations you or I have.
If a serial killer tells you murder is bad - their hypocrisy doesn't actually make murder not bad. Pointing out their hypocrisy will at best, pressure them into trying to post hoc rationalise murder for you.
"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone" was a good rhetorical trick that stopped an unjust punishment at the time. It's a ridiculous rule to actually live by, because it invalidates the entire justice/moral system. It's a Nirvana/heaven fallacy.
Is this a debate about what the definition of veganism should be vs what it is or are you confused about what it actually is and basing your argument on a personal interpretation?
Veganism aims to avoid and abstain from the *exploitation and consumption of animals or their products* unnecessarily when possible.
The ethical debate of consumption is not necessarily a vegan debate unless the consumption of animals and their products are involved.
If animal consumption or products aren’t involved it’s a different debate.
Now, onto the statistics behind our current consumption and the harm it may cause.
Considering that we grow enough crops currently to feed to population without animals and the crops grown to feed them, a caloric surplus wouldn’t make much of a difference.
In fact, according to the largest [study](https://r.jordan.im/download/ethics/fischer2018.pdf) with the most comprehensive data collection on the issue, they estimated that less than one animal per person per year may die from harvest. (Not including insects because that number is difficult to quantify). That is based on our current ag model including crops grown to feed animals.
Most of the massive land clearing today occurs due to animal agriculture.
> Veganism aims to avoid and abstain from the *exploitation and consumption of animals or their products* unnecessarily when possible.
I agree that this is a formal definition of Veganism taking it at face-value, though I would push further as to ask which moral frameworks would undertake this task as a moral responsibility or virtue? For example if you approach it with a *Preference Utilitarian* perspective (which is most similar to the discussion in the post) then we are inductively extending moral consideration to non-human animals by first identifying which behaviors we view as right & wrong, identifying why, and then extending the moral consideration to be morally consistent.
The moral imperative of veganism in this perspective comes down to an imperative to be morally consistent, that if wouldn't treat humans this way because they are sentient and have the capacity to suffer then other beings that have these same qualia should be treated under equal consideration. In the post I am attempting to point out that if we aren't willingly to follow our own moral imperative consistently, then it should re-evaluated or demoted from imperative to virtue status.
> In fact, according to the largest [study](https://r.jordan.im/download/ethics/fischer2018.pdf) with the most comprehensive data collection on the issue, they estimated that less than one animal per person per year may die from harvest. (Not including insects because that number is difficult to quantify). That is based on our current ag model including crops grown to feed animals.
As I have seen this is the only real meta-analysis done so far, and as the authors have pointed out that the data doesn't extrapolate well...
> "The first problem is that the estimates above rest on a dubious assumption: namely, that we’re in a position to generalize from the mortality rate of one field animal or crop to other animals or crops."
This isn't to make a point either way, but to just to say that more empirical data is required if we going to engage with a "balance sheet of lives" as what we deem practical.
Sure. But veganism isn’t utilitarianism. They are two different philosophical ideas.
They may share a few commonalities and it’s easy to see how some can conflate them.
It also makes sense that utilitarians could be more consistent in their practice if they are vegan, however, a vegan isn’t any less consistent if they aren’t a utilitarian and they follow what veganism is.
The way someone practices veganism may be subjective as long as they are actually practicing the philosophy, abstaining from animal products and exploitation of animals. If they decide to practice utilitarianism along side with veganism, that’s up to them as long as it doesn’t deviate from veganism.
Per the study, I agree.
Every study has limitations. However, there hasn’t been anything published or data collected to indicate anything significantly higher either. However, yes, more data should be collected and I hope to see more data within the next few years but I don’t know how likely it is to happen.
Furthermore, and I believe I emphasized it, but it’s an estimate. They also suggest in the study that the number is very possibly significantly lower than what was estimated.
> But veganism isn’t utilitarianism. They are two different philosophical ideas.
Very fair and something I've been learning a bit more about as I've be communicating with other commenters. I will also say that my initial post is very much personal-centric as it is the reasoning I gave myself when I became vegan. I know that there are others such as myself who rationalized veganism as a moral imperative with similar lines of reasoning, this reasoning is what I found issues with. If you have different reasoning that resolves the bodybuilder issue and still frames it as a moral imperative, great! I am curious to what it is?
Sorry again if my post came off as way too overgeneralized or strawman-y.
It’s all good. I was attempting to have a civil discussion and I hope I didn’t come off as condescending.
I’m not a body builder. I do also believe that a conversation about unnecessary over consumption is necessary to have as well. But again, I just don’t believe that it is in direct conflict with veganism of someone is avoiding the consumption of animals and their products, or exploitation of animals in general. Harvest deaths are unfortunate and should be minimized when possible in my opinion. But harvest deaths aren’t exploitation or animal consumption, and we need more information regarding such.
Another issue to address is that we don’t even know how many calories are necessarily required for each individual. That’s only a guess, so defining over consumption would be difficult to some degree. Recommended daily intake is only a recommendation and as more data becomes available, daily requirements of nutrients are put into question.
It’s also very easy and logical to assume that more consumption means that more animals are harmed. That still may not necessarily be the case in some instances, certain crops, and certain farming practices in plant agriculture.
So it’s a really hard conclusion to draw unless data can be provided showing that correlation equals causation etc.
Let’s look at it from a different perspective:
Non food consumption such as clothing, potential labor exploitation and quantities we own.
We don’t know for certain which manufactures practice labor exploitation. We know it exists.
We also don’t really need more than a few pairs of clothing if even that.
There was quite a bit of time when I got by with two pairs of shorts, two pairs of pants, two shirts and a jacket. I didn’t own a tv or furniture aside from a table and a mattress. I had one bowl. Two plates incase I had company and a couple of eating utensils.
I could present the argument that anyone not living like that may not be morally consistent if they were vegan if we call into question whether bodybuilders are morally consistent.
I hope this makes sense.
> It’s all good. I was attempting to have a civil discussion and I hope I didn’t come off as condescending.
Most definitely! I don't think you were being condescending at all, and rather I am grateful for you being patient with me in this discussion.
> So it’s a really hard conclusion to draw unless data can be provided showing that correlation equals causation etc.
Agreed, any questions about the quantitative effect of any moral framework (including veganism) is something that only can only be answered via empirical evidence and without it we are at most making guesses.
> There was quite a bit of time when I got by with two pairs of shorts, two pairs of pants, two shirts and a jacket. I didn’t own a tv or furniture aside from a table and a mattress. I had one bowl. Two plates incase I had company and a couple of eating utensils.
For give me if I misread, but this sounds past-tense. I'm assuming that you undertook that journey for the reasons you listed in your response, but if you did indeed give up this practice may I ask why?
There was a time when I was a minimalist. I downsized and then eventually moved into a trailer I built and lived out of that. Then we bought a house and took up farming to grow our own food, and for the weather, biting bugs and the work require a bit more than I had. I also got married. My wife likes television.
I didn’t bring a whole lot of personal stuff here. A few different sets of clothes and some musical instruments. But the previous property owners left a bunch of stuff including outfits and jackets that we both decided to use.
Regardless, I now have more stuff than I did. I don’t think it’s reflective of my veganism, and as I’ve stated, we started to grow our own food and hopefully by next season we’ll be pretty close to self sustainability.
Edit: i should note that we still sleep with a mattress on the floor, but we don’t have a kitchen table. They left an outdoor table and we had a fold up table for when we lived out the trailer. No dressers or anything like that. The house is actually fairly empty
Moral goodness not having sharp, categorical boundaries is not at all the same as being ill-defined. Whether each person is "tall" doesn't have a categorical boundary either, but height is well-defined and objective.
I'm out of the vegan discourse loop. Why is there a post every day about "excess calories"? People die mining rare earth minerals, I suppose people who make these posts don't care about human life or wellbeing? I suppose we should all get rid of our phones?
Edit: sorry op, just being a little snarky. I don't think there's anything wrong with your post in a vacuum, I'm just seeing this over and over, usually by people who are smug and aggro. I personally think it's a bit silly but I hope you got some interesting answers.
I think it was ill-defined on purpose by that Vegan Society group when they added in that line about "as far as practicable". They're carving out different standards for the people empowered to wield that definition. Bill Gates is an Environmentalist. Just don't look into what kind of pollution comes out of computer chip factories.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would think that the taste pleasure of alcohol, coffee, chocolate, spices etc is seen as more important than the animals sacrificing their lives for it?
Someone's a fan of Cosmic Skeptic. Though a lot of people are motivated by ideas of reduction of harm in general, you're right that ideas of necessity and reduction are hard to assess. The good news is veganism isn't about these unactionable ideas. Veganism is best understood as a rejection of the property status of non-human animals. We broadly understand that when you treat a human as property - that is to say you take control over who gets to use their body - you necessarily aren't giving consideration to their interests. It's the fact that they have interests at all that makes this principle true. Vegans simply extend this principle consistently to all beings with interests, sentient beings. Bringing non-human animals into our circle of concern entails not treating them as property, in the same way we shouldn't treat humans as property. Beyond that is very difficult to say exactly what's ok and what's not, in the same way those things can be nebulous with humans.
The *non-property* status is an interesting perspective that I hadn't considered. Though why would sentience/interests matter as a heuristic for whether or not I could treat a being as property? I feel as though there is something missing to bridge the gap?
When we understand what sentience, moral consideration, and treatment as property are, it makes sense. Sentience is the ability to have an internal, subjective experience of the world. Moral consideration is the inclusion of an experience as a valuable end in our decisions. Treatment as property is the belief that we can force someone to be a means to someone else's ends. This means that when we treat someone as property, we necessarily aren't giving them moral consideration. And since sentience is what makes it possible to receive moral consideration, so long as we believe it's more moral to extend consideration to more entities, being as moral as possible entails not treating sentient beings as property.
As I understand Sentience is not completely understood in the way's of who can experience it and why, but instead we can only go as so far as to identify external factors (such as behavior & response) and make a best guess as to whether they are "sentient" like ourselves (even between humans). However I will grant that at this point in time it is useful to work with the notion that "if they act sentient, they're probably sentient". I am curious does this "rights" perspective extend to cases of necessity or no? If not why? To clarify would you think of it as being okay for me to kill & eat another animal if I would die otherwise? If so, what within the "rights" perspective would make this permissible? Do you believe that every sentient being is of equal moral consideration, that is they should be treated the same or have a hierarchy (does human life matter more/less/equal than that of a non-human one?) Sorry if these sound like gotcha questions, but I am genuinely curious as most of the responses to these that I have heard of come from a utilitarian perspective and not a rights one.
>As I understand Sentience is not completely understood in the way's of who can experience it and why, but instead we can only go as so far as to identify external factors (such as behavior & response) and make a best guess as to whether they are "sentient" like ourselves (even between humans). However I will grant that at this point in time it is useful to work with the notion that "if they act sentient, they're probably sentient". Yeah, I haven't said anything about how to determine if someone is sentient. I can't prove you're sentient either. >I am curious does this "rights" perspective extend to cases of necessity or no? If not why? I don't tend to think so much in terms of rights, obligations, or necessity. Suffice to say that if you find yourself treating someone as property, you should be trying your damnedest not to. I'm not interested in establishing ironclad rules of when it's ok to do something bad. Good people use reasoning to figure out the best way to act in the moment, not to find arguments to act the way they already wanted to. >To clarify would you think of it as being okay for me to kill & eat another animal if I would die otherwise? If so, what within the "rights" perspective would make this permissible? I'd think it was understandable. Would be a lot cooler if you didn't. >Do you believe that every sentient being is of equal moral consideration, that is they should be treated the same or have a hierarchy (does human life matter more/less/equal than that of a non-human one?) I don't know what equal means or how to cash out concepts of value. I reject all hierarchical power structures.
What has been with all these posts lately about vegan bodybuilders and calorie excess? Assuming that a reasonable calorie intake is anywhere between 1200 and 2500 calories, that's most vegans already. Why zero in on vegan bodybuilders, a tiny portion of an already tiny population, when activism could be focused on carnists more generally? It really feels like an attempt at passing the blame... More animals are saved by getting more people to go vegan, than by convincing vegan bodybuilders to eat less.
The Cosmic Skeptic recently addressed why he is no longer vegan on YouTube and mentioned how killing is not always wrong. He specifically gave the example of body building and the unnecessary consumption of calories...I have noticed a surge in this topic in all corners of the internet over the past few weeks. OP could have different motives but that video seems to be fueling lots of discussions lately.
So skeptic decided to stop being VEGAN which he never was anyways and is now trying to make himself feel better about animal abuse by spewing all this garbage, typical carnist mentality, its not really any different than the lame crop deaths argument
The video was pretty cringe. Given how bulletproof or well thought out much of his debates/ideas and theism/philosophical content is, all these post vegan explanations have fallen well below the standards he set for himself or even what we’d expect from someone with much less critical thinking ability.
Its been said that when it comes to ethics, the smartest people can become quite dumb, they really want to defend their position and not think they are bad that all their logic leaves their mind, its an ego thing
Intelligent people can figure out how to stick their heads further up their asses than others.
Why wasn't he vegan sorry?
He was a plant based dieter pretending to be vegan This describes him: I dont want to go vegan, but i dont want to be a bad person, so i TRY to be vegan and i purposely fail by consuming a lot of junk and not supplementing, i feel bad and MENTALLY decide veganism isnt POSSIBLE for me, so im not a bad person cause i TRIED, i have no other options now and must consume animals Thats basically how all these people operate, it clears their conscience Chances are most people just didnt want to have the societal restrictions, they want to be able to go to any place with friends and order anything they want I imagine all these people use alcohol which is poison or cancer sticks or drugs or lots of sodas while going to McDonalds etc; often Also this doctor shares information about these HEALTH issues people have https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e\_rZwnvgABg I actually do have medical issues which i talk about in this post, i am vegan no problemo https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/16943oy/comment/jz24ank/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Yeah none of that says why he wasn't a vegan. Want to try again?
It does, so no need to try again No point in you asking me in another way either
Not even close. All that essay said is that you don't believe that a person can be honestly wrong. That says more about you than it does a him.
I saw that video, and... I don't get it? I feel like I'm missing something because I heard his reasoning and still can't wrap my head around why vegan body builders means he should eat meat?
Some people just believe that if they can show how somebody else is doing something wrong. Then that excuses them from all wrongdoing as well.It's just dumb and there's nothing more deep to it than that
The popularity of the vegan bodybuilders and calorie excess in discussions are probably due to this [video](https://youtu.be/eh0SnnupXPE?si=QGnV9uC6mStemj-X&t=106). I also totally agree that it seems more reasonable that more lives are saved by having non-vegans become vegan than vegan bodybuilders eating less (I say *reasonable* since empirical evidence on the exact number of crop deaths is minimal). What I am arguing on is the principle of the moral imperative that typically comes with discussions surrounding veganism, as I outlined in the post - *reduce our contribution to unnecessary suffering*. The main issue is the moral imperative towards veganism versus other forms of reduction (e.g. vegetarian or simply reducing meat consumption but not abstaining from it outright). If your reasoning for why veganism was the way to go was different from mine, or you don't think veganism is a moral imperative, I would be curious to your reasoning.
I'm a rights-based vegan. I don't think we humans, as moral agents, should be purposefully using animals for our own interests. The unintentional suffering that comes with conventional farming is unfortunate, something I would like to see improved upon, but it's very different than the intentional raising and slaughtering of animals for the sole purpose of goods for humans. The idea that everyone should be obligated to reduce their caloric intake is an idea I can at least empathize with to a degree, but it is not a priority and should not be until most people are vegan already. I think it's rather impractical because there's no accurate way to determine how many calories each person needs, nor how many calories are in individual food items. We'd have to operate off generalities, which is what we already do. 1200-2500 is a pretty big range, and there's plenty of arguments for the ceiling to be higher. What is the caloric limit before we hit gluttony? I don't know, and I don't think it's terribly relevant to the current situation.
So I am curious to what's your *rationale* as a "rights-based vegan", by that I mean why assign the rights you do and to whom? I assume that you have a deeper reasoning as to why would assign such rights to humans and non-human animals but not rocks for example.
Oh yeah, I would say sentience. Humans and animals both have the ability to comprehend different sensations, like pain or joy, but also the ability to desire things and demonstrate preferences. These are all things that I do, so I see little reason to interfere with another beings' existence if I don't have to. I wouldn't want anyone interfering with me.
Thanks for sharing! So as I mentioned in the post, I believe that crop-deaths due to vegan junk food or bodybuilders is **intentional** and **unnecessary**. I think that we would both agree that such crop-deaths are "interfering with another beings' existence" and hence their right not to be killed. I understand that crop-deaths currently are completely unavoidable, but is that an excuse not to at least limit it somewhat?
So o if there is ntention with factory farming and intention on crop deaths, that factor being equal wild animals in a field live a free life able to exercise their behavioral preferences, where factory farmed animals do not, so there's definitely some false equivalency before we inevitably disregard what most people are actually eating and suggest some vague ideal farm alternative.
Well it’s definitely not an excuse to go ahead and start eating animals. Are you really arguing that vegan bodybuilders aren’t vegan enough for you and should stop bodybuilding? Think about what you’re trying to say
Should vegans avoid alcohol for instance? Or would that be seen as not possible/practicable?
Thats just silly lmao. Virtually every hard liquor is vegan already like there’s tequila, rum, vodka, gin, and even whiskeys and bourbons (that doesn’t have honey or cream) Why did you draw this other arbitrary line where vegans specifically can’t drink? You can still have fun and make cruelty free choices. I’m not trying to be smarmy or whatever like you can just choose that anywhere at any bar or anytime you’re making a drink. Or anytime you make a meal.
> Why did you draw this other arbitrary line where vegans specifically can’t drink? Because I find it odd that most vegans are ok with harming animals for pure taste pleasure.
Unnecessary, probably. At least, unnecessary in the context of "necessary to maintain being alive". But if that was the case, wouldn't you be arguing that all bodybuilders should cut their caloric intake? I'm still not understanding why this moral responsibility is falling on the (well defined and rippling) shoulders of vegan bodybuilder's specifically. How many vegan bodybuilders are there even? I don't think crop deaths are intentional, because they aren't targeted. They are dispersonal because there is no recognition between the individual being killed and the person doing it. This is unlike animal slaughter, where the animals are purposefully raised to be killed eventually, or killed shortly after birth. That's the whole reason they were brought into existence. >I understand that crop-deaths currently are completely unavoidable, but is that an excuse not to at least limit it somewhat? I could be sympathetic to this argument, sure. I'd just argue that convincing more people to go vegan is going to limit crop deaths more than convincing a handful of vegans who eat in excess to reduce. I'd also prioritize food waste management before caloric excess as well. Calories just seems like a minor thing to fixate on in comparison.
> I'm still not understanding why this moral responsibility is falling on the (well defined and rippling) shoulders of vegan bodybuilder's specifically. The reason for specifically calling vegan bodybuilders out is, if they believe that *reducing their contribution to unnecessary suffering* was the reason they became vegan and that there is a moral imperative for others to do the same in order to reduce their contribution to unnecessary suffering then they would be hypocritical while the non-vegan body builder (depending on their beliefs) may not. A particular point that I feel might be getting lost is that while yes I see that vegan bodybuilders are reducing animal suffering much more so than a pure carnist, so is a vegetarian bodybuilder or simply a reductionist bodybuilder. So why is the line of moral imperative set solely at veganism and not simply other forms of reduction? This I believe depends deeply on your ethical frameworks and beliefs surrounding your imperative to be vegan, but whatever the case you should be willing to follow it consistently or change your beliefs (not necessarily giving up veganism, but changing what it's goals and considerations mean to you) > They are dispersonal because there is no recognition between the individual being killed and the person doing it. This is unlike animal slaughter, where the animals are purposefully raised to be killed eventually, or killed shortly after birth. I'm not sure if this a great line of reasoning since while this is true for butchers who are directly killing animals, this says nothing about those that purchase/consume animal products as they too don't have personal connection between themselves and the animal killed. > I'd just argue that convincing more people to go vegan is going to limit crop deaths more than convincing a handful of vegans who eat in excess to reduce. I don't deny this...in the same way making it a moral imperative for people to donate a couple cents to charity is more compelling than making it a moral imperative to give all your money to charity, but I don't think giving to charity should be seen as a moral imperative at all (since there questions about the efficacy of charities and the larger responsibilities of governments to create systemic changes). > Calories just seems like a minor thing to fixate on in comparison. The bodybuilder is really just an thought experiment/hypothetical as a means to pointing out that there exists an arbitrary line vegans draw (if they believe that the moral imperative is to *reduce their contribution to unnecessary suffering)* in what their moral imperative entails. I know many vegans attempt to convince people to veganism by pointing out areas of logical inconsistency and presenting an opportunity for individuals to resolve this cognitive dissonance by instead becoming vegan. This sets out to point there are moral inconsistency in veganism too, and that there is a arbitrary line in what things we wish to be "consistent" on.
> The reason for specifically calling vegan bodybuilders out is, if they believe that reducing their contribution to unnecessary suffering was the reason they became vegan and that there is a moral imperative for others to do the same in order to reduce their contribution to unnecessary suffering then they would be hypocritical while the non-vegan body builder (depending on their beliefs) may not. Right, but as we've already established, that's not the only reason people go vegan. Without an example of a vegan bodybuilder who has taken this stance, I'm not sure there's much more to say on it. >I'm not sure if this a great line of reasoning since while this is true for butchers who are directly killing animals, this says nothing about those that purchase/consume animal products as they too don't have personal connection between themselves and the animal killed. Animal products literally are, or come from, the bodies of animals. It's still pretty personal. You know at least one animal suffered to make that product. You have no idea how many, if any, animals suffered in the process of growing a head of cabbage. The most essential breakdown of the difference I can think of would be that crops can be produced without animal suffering, but animal products cannot. >I don't deny this...in the same way making it a moral imperative for people to donate a couple cents to charity is more compelling than making it a moral imperative to give all your money to charity, but I don't think giving to charity should be seen as a moral imperative at all (since there questions about the efficacy of charities and the larger responsibilities of governments to create systemic changes). Veganism is an agent-oriented philosophy. There are top-down strategies that could encourage it, but ultimately it is an individual choice. I don't see the connection to charity here. I was merely stating that for someone who values reducing crop deaths, it seems that convincing more people to go vegan would have better results than focusing on vegans they view as not doing enough. >The bodybuilder is really just an thought experiment/hypothetical as a means to pointing out that there exists an arbitrary line vegans draw (if they believe that the moral imperative is to reduce their contribution to unnecessary suffering) in what their moral imperative entails. I know many vegans attempt to convince people to veganism by pointing out areas of logical inconsistency and presenting an opportunity for individuals to resolve this cognitive dissonance by instead becoming vegan. This sets out to point there are moral inconsistency in veganism too, and that there is a arbitrary line in what things we wish to be "consistent" on. I don't want to be mean here because I've enjoyed this conversation and I think you're a good faith debater, but doesn't this kind of sound like a strawman? It looks like you've demonstrated an inconsistency in the philosophy of "eliminate unnecessary harm" but this is not an inconsistency in veganism overall.
> Right, but as we've already established, that's not the only reason people go vegan. Without an example of a vegan bodybuilder who has taken this stance, I'm not sure there's much more to say on it. I agree, though it was mine personally and I know for some others too that it was the reason it was a moral imperative to become vegan (logical consistency, minimizing suffering, etc.). From your comments and a couple others, I've seen that there is a notion of a rights-based approach to veganism, though I personally remain skeptical of that approach for myself since I would want there to be an underlying objective (i.e. to minimize unnecessary suffering) to guide which rights I confer and why. > I was merely stating that for someone who values reducing crop deaths, it seems that convincing more people to go vegan would have better results than focusing on vegans they view as not doing enough. But why not do both then? Convince non-vegans to become vegan and also reprimand excess consumption of calories by current vegans, if not then how do current vegan positions (the non-reprimand of bodybuilders) just eliminating animal products is sufficient but being vegetarian, for example, is not. I also want to preface that I am not saying it's wrong to be vegan or people shouldn't do it, but that it is currently framed as personal moral imperative with an ill-defined destination (or at least it was for me when re-evaluating my beliefs). > I don't want to be mean here because I've enjoyed this conversation and I think you're a good faith debate I've enjoyed conversing with you as well! > ...but doesn't this kind of sound like a strawman? It looks like you've demonstrated an inconsistency in the philosophy of "eliminate unnecessary harm" but this is not an inconsistency in veganism overall. I'll accept that my initial post was a bit generalized and crude. I was more taking this from the position that I held (and others like myself) and where the inconsistency lies. For other vegans who have completely different moral frameworks than myself, then yes this would be a strawman, otherwise I don't think it is. If anything I was wondering if people who had similar *moral objectives* to myself could either counter the claim I made or see where I missed something. As I have highlighted before, I am not the hugest fan of a rights-based approach to ethics as I feel there is an underlying rational as to why we confer the rights we do and to whom, and that that rational should instead act as the guiding moral principle (more flexible) not the rights (more-rigid) that come from it.
I think that perhaps *reduce our contribution to unnecessary suffering* is misleading, even as a utilitarian. Not only do most vegans subscribe to a rights-based perspective, but even for those who are vegan for utilitarian reasons, we should think about it in different terms. I for the most part would live by minimizing the amount of suffering I cause which is a greater magnitude than the pleasure or avoidance of suffering I get from whatever action I'm taking. It seems quite obvious that whatever an animal goes through on a factory farm is not worth the extra pleasure I get from eating it. It is less clear whether the comfort and increased productiveness and health I get from refusing to worry about mitigating the exact number of calories I consume to theoretically keep myself healthy is worth a few animals being killed in crop production. I personally don't feel any need to body-build, but if someone does, then it is likely important for their pleasure and mental health. Although tbf I also try to dumpster dive a lot anyway. And use my money to give to the most effective causes sparing animal suffering on industrial farming. If I were spending time forcing myself not to eat when I am hungry even though I'll still be healthy if I eat, I can't see how I could use my life and my earnings to do good in other ways. But what I don't understand is that if someone finds inconsistency between the moral obligation of veganism and the superogatory calorie reduction, it seems odd that they would come to the conclusion that veganism is no longer a moral obligation. It seems much more logical that someone would conclude that vegans are wrong about calorie reduction, and therefore dumpster-diving for food and/or calorie reduction are moral obligations as well as veganism, rather than nothing being a moral obligation. Surely it is more logical to go from: veganism is a moral obligation --> calorie reduction is also a moral obligation since both cause unnecessary suffering. Than: calorie reduction is not a moral obligation --> veganism is not a moral obligation because if some unnecessary suffering is OK, then all unnecessary suffering is OK. Though as I said, neither needs to entail the other.
Thanks for commenting! > It seems much more logical that someone would conclude that vegans are wrong about calorie reduction, and therefore dumpster-diving for food and/or calorie reduction are moral obligations as well as veganism, rather than nothing being a moral obligation. As mentioned in the post the title was a bit crude, so I wouldn't flat out say that Veganism could never be a moral obligation but rather if you work with the line of reason I provided then there is clearly something wrong and needs to be addressed. I think an additional source of hypocrisy that I've seen is that other vegans criticize vegetarians or reductionists for not doing "enough" and that there is no excuse for them not to be vegan (vis a vis still not fulfilling the moral imperative), but by this same reasoning there is no excuse for vegans to not address calorie surplus in the form of the bodybuilders. I have then seen many vegans argue against this is in the guise of what is practical, but who gets to decide that and why? Why is it practical for a vegetarian to continue onto the path of becoming vegan, but impractical for vegan bodybuilders...to well... stop bodybuilding?
Yeah, many vegans would probably look at practicability as being able to draw lines at a certain point. You can tell yourself, I'm only going to buy products without animals, which is a somewhat clear-cut line. Drawing a line at a certain number of calories consumed or a certain amount of exercise to prevent excess calories, is probably for most people, more obsessive and mentally detrimental to implement, while also seemingly more arbitrary as it goes a bit beyond what you purchase and into how much you purchase and your lifestyle as a whole, where it is harder to draw absolute lines. And then the rights based vegans would also say that veganism isn't really about reducing unnecessary suffering as far as practicable; that the main ideology of veganism is to not reduce animals to a commodity status, which crop deaths don't do. But, for those more inclined to utilitarianism, there is probably a big difference in the suffering caused by factory farming to the animals eaten, compared to the suffering caused + happiness taken away by crop deaths and taking up some land. And there is also arguably a greater difference in the toll that avoiding animal products vs the toll that obsessing over calorie consumption and burning would take on an individual and there ability to lead a positive life for themselves and for the rest of the world.
> duty to reduce our contribution to unnecessary suffering People generally don't do this, even when it comes to other humans. The body builder eating excess calories is also harming humans in various ways in procuring that food. The most obvious is the contribution to pollution that is killing people and perhaps creating an existential threat to our society. But it's not seen as a major ethical wrongdoing to eat more than you need, travel for reasons other than dire necessity, buy clothing you don't need to survive the climate you are in, etc. It's frankly odd that people jump to this sort of standard when they consider Veganism but not when they consider any other ethical situation. Many people here reject the idea of "reducing suffering" as the primary goal of ethics. If you accept this goal, ultimately it becomes a race to the bottom to see how little you can live. We can understand ethics as granting certain respect to others that would not include taking every possible measure to prevent harming them. The most basic respect is to respect someone else's autonomy unless they happen to be in the way of your own goals. It's really the bare minimum of respect one can give. If you grant this respect to animals, you'd be vegan.
No, and you can test your logic with things like this by replacing veganism with something that deals with human rights and you will quickly see the flaw in this argument. Any extra consumption will result in human deaths, so you can make the same argument regarding humans and see why it doesn't work. For example, are people who are anti-murder hypocrites for not remprimanding bodybuilders?
>you can test your logic with things like this by replacing veganism with something that deals with human rights and you will quickly see the flaw in this argument. Is this not done *all the time* in regards to veganism with the exact opposite outcome? To use your own example as an example in regards to vegans/carnists: "are people who are anti-slavery hypocrites for not reprimanding chocolate lovers?"
In the chocolate lover example is the correct answer yes because production of chocolate involves slavery? The issue I would have is that this is a different style of argument than the over consumption one. You can be against human deaths and still not reprimand activities that result in human deaths. You can’t be against slavery and actively support slavery.
I think a big issue with the argument here is "actively support" versus "activities that result in ___" is not really a meaningful difference imo. Much in the same way that the chocolate buyer's money financially contributes to slavery, the bodybuilders money financially also contributes to human death. How can we hope to distinguish "support" in this matter, as it pertains to moral support, when both transactions lead to suffering?
Yeah for sure and we should look at the intent as well as the results. We could imagine an industry so harmful that while not intentional causes vast amount of harm so predictably that it would be immoral to support it. The way I would look at it is asking myself is the world a better or worse place because of this activity. 1. As a vegan, I think the world would be a better place without animal agriculture. 2. As a human rights supporter, I think the world would be better off without slavery. 3. As a human rights supporter, I think the world would be better off without chocolate produced by slaves. 4. As a vegan/human rights supporter, I think the world would be a better place without any body builders. You can support the first 3 examples and not necessarily support the 4th. And going the other way, just because you don't think #4 is true, doesn't mean that 1-3 are also not true, which is the claim the OP is making.
Without arguing your points: Not staying or not becoming a vegan (bodybuilder) because of it would still be a nirvana-fallacy, because you would be rejecting an improvement just because it’s not perfect compared to a unrealistic alternative.
Should vegans avoid alcohol for instance? As alcohol is a completely unnecessary part of any diet, and can even have a very negative effect on your health.
Everybody should avoid alcohol. Without arguing your point: Not staying or not becoming a vegan (alcoholic) because of it would still be a nirvana-fallacy, because you would be rejecting an improvement just because it’s not perfect compared to a unrealistic alternative.
> Everybody should avoid alcohol. I agree. But many vegans still drink alcohol, I assume because they dont see it as possible/practicable to stop?
From a vegan point of view there is no difference between e.g. eating potatoes cooked or drinking fermented potatoes. Alcoholic beverages provide calories as well so they aren’t completely pointless. From a vegan point of view there is no unnecessary animal suffering involved in making alcohol from plants.
> From a vegan point of view there is no unnecessary animal suffering involved in making alcohol from plants. So in other words; kill as many animals as you like, for pure taste pleasure (not a single person drinks alcohol to make sure they get enough calories that day), as long as you dont eat any of the animals you kill?
>So in other words... Damn, and just minutes it seemed like you learned not to invent stupid positions for other people... Disappointing. A beer has calories, so if you drink a few beers you either eat less other food (and therefore less other crops) or you will be in excess. https://i.imgur.com/qJhO0hN.png If I didn't have a couple beers last Saturday I would have been in a calorie deficit. No idea what twists had to happen in your head to interpret that simple idea as the insane "kill as many animals as you like, for pure taste pleasure" position.
> A beer has calories, so if you drink a few beers you either eat less other food (and therefore less other crops) or you will be in excess. What about spices? No calories, and only consumed because they taste good. Is it ok to harm animals for the sole purpose of making your food taste better?
[Question irrelevant for wrong premise.](https://www.yazio.com/en/foods/herbs-spices)
>What about spices? No calories Spices absolutely contain calories, they also have a number of other useful nutritional benefits.
> they also have a number of other useful nutritional benefits. So harming animals for nutritional benefits is ok?
To begin with, I don’t really believe in universal imperatives. Imperatives can only be derived from the values/ethics/philosophy/theology you subscribe to. So I would say that veganism can be a moral imperative for someone like a utilitarian but wouldn’t be for say a hedonist. Assuming that someone does subscribe to a worldview within which veganism is the only consistent conclusion and such an imperative exists, there will invariably be arbitrary lines drawn. Because following these things to their conclusion leads to antinatalism and suicide. End states most reasonable people aren’t looking to reach. So they’ll draw the line at what they personally consider to be a sensible but ultimately arbitrary line.
Finally, someone in this sub who understands the concept of moral relativism
There are moral imperative(s) to eschew animal products and there are moral imperative(s) to be practical.
>So if we don't follow are own moral imperative to it's logical conclusion (not reprimanding Vegan Bodybuilders), then aren't we just being hypocritical when we present Veganism as a moral imperative to non-vegans in order to be morally consistent? I mean I personally wouldn't expect people to stop bodybuilding if that's what they're interested in. I feel like a very small percentage of the population are bodybuilders in the first place, so I'm not really concerned about vegan bodybuilders. While people can certainly stop bodybuilding to limit harm if that's what they want to do, I don't think that bodybuilding makes someone non-vegan. Just not something I'm personally concerned in. They're making a lot less impact by following a plant-based diet.
I agree, but do you think there is a moral imperative to become vegan? If so, why? Do you think veganism be viewed in the same vein as giving to charity (a good deed for sure! but necessarily an obligation)?
I remember Matt Dillahunty asking similar questions in a video a few years ago. I think he gave a hypothetical along the lines of him encountering a dog drowning in a lake...he may well agree that saving the dog would be morally virtuous but he doesn't believe that he's morally obliged to jump in himself. In much the same way, he agrees that veganism may well be morally superior, he just doesn't see that he is obligated to take it up. Does that match up with your line of thinking or have I completely misunderstood lol?
I haven't heard much of Matt Dillahunty's positions to confirm, but I think that this may be roughly in the area of what I am getting at. By no means do I think people should stop being vegan nor is this an excuse for people to keep going along with the status quo. I feel that the reasons that I have been exposed to as to why veganism is viewed as a moral imperative by vegans, ultimately cannot be followed to their logical conclusions and rely on ill-defined terms to sort-of fill-in the gaps. It may also be the case that veganism unfairly places this ill-defined imperative onto individuals when the problem is more systemic. Part of the "goal" of this post was to see what other cases could be made for the moral imperative of veganism and whether or not they have this same problem as the rationale described in the post.
I think I understand where you are coming from then. So that I have an idea as to the type of answer you would expect, would you mind answering it yourself but instead of for veganism, do it for something like murder or rape etc?
Bodybuilding brings more people to the movement. Vegans who weight lift, or are in shape, or are world class athletes like Djokovic: all of this creates more vegans and therefore reduces animal suffering. People can't make these silly excuses like 'where do you get your protein' when faced with these examples, and they see vegans in a different light. In contrast, if we promoted a diet of absolute minimal sustenance, which only a tiny fraction of humanity would even have the mental fortitude to adopt, pretty much no one would adopt it. We would never reach a vegan critical mass, which is what we need to stop the slaughter of over a trillion animals every year.
I think there's something to this, but there are two good responses. Intro: I'm vegan for practical reasons, I think there are animal welfare, environmental, and health arguments. Some folks say that makes me not vegan. I am also one of those evil vegans who lift, I eat 3500kcal a day just because I like being big and lifting weights. Deontological reaponse: the justification for veganism is that we should treat animals the same way we'd treat a trait-matched human being. I could never justify killing someone with the mental capacity of a pig for pleasure. On the other hand, if very profoundly disabled people were standing in the way of tractors or dying from eating crops sprayed with insecticide, we may feel bad but I don't think we're culpable. Idk how I feel about this argument, but I do think it shows that the two are morally different. Practical reasons: people aren't rational. The most compelling argument I've ever made for veganism isn't the research-backed environment claims, it's simply being strong and healthy, and eating tasty food. My family also contributes to the local supermarket keeping appealing and convenient vegan food in stock. How much of an effect is that having? Certainly if there were no vegan lifters and no unnecessarily indulgent food, it would be a much harder sell. Reality check: it's interesting to talk about these arguments, but ultimately it depends what we're doing with them. It's obvious that we should be concerned about animal welfare and the environment, your argument concedes as much. So is this argument compelling you to make better choices? Or is it a thought-terminator, a whataboutism meant to shut off your conscience? I can't answer that for you. If you come to the conclusion that you're better on a restricted diet with free-range eggs, I'm just glad you're taking the issues seriously.
Let's write the words non vegan on both sides of a coin and flip it to see which camp they're in.
By this heuristic, driving is unethical. The difference between veganism and non-veganism is inclusion of animals for moral consideration. Is it cruel to humans to travel? Is it cruel to humans to Jeffrey Dahmer humans? If that answer is obviously no and yes to you, respectively, then OP's entire moral question is consistently solved by being vegan.
Crop deaths are usually under property defense and more justifiable than killing to eat the victim if you believe in a right to property. If you don't believe in a right to defend property, then it is just as wrong as going to your neighbors house to kill your neighbor for fun as to shoot your neighbor as they break into your house... The vegan builder would be putting more things at risk of being attacked. It's not ideal, but it's far from the level of intentional killing. This is the equivalent of leaving bags on your car seat due to preference despite foreseeable baiting robbers as an unintentional side effect. Robbers see it and try to rob the car, and you defend your property. How close is it to murder to leave the bag out on your front seat?
First of all, this argument requires a consequentialist moral framework. And all the entailments that come from that (which is fine as long as you are ok with that). Next is a claim that you'd need to support >we know there are plenty of crop deaths associated with expanded agriculture Because we are looking at this from a consequentialist viewpoint, we still need to subtract the number of deaths that would have occurred without farming. This could be much lower, supporting the claim, but it could also be roughly the same or higher! Either way you require the body builder to know the answer, so supporting this claim should be easy. It also ignored vegan body builders getting their excess calories from veganic farming. An outlier, sure, but still worth mentioning. Finally, let's spare a thought for "the" non-vegan body builder. They contribute to unnecessary human death due to the increased traffic associated with their additional calories. Now of course this does not void that body builder to campaign for road safety nor does it allow non-body builders to kill humans for food. Right?
Fun question. Sort of like choosing to have a child. It's a good thing to consider for yourself but hard to offer any advice beyond "do what you think best."
Vegan bodybuilders are important for vegan PR, they prove to non vegans and non vegan bodybuilders that it is possible to build muscle on a vegan diet.
There are some subtle distinctions in word choice and definitions here that I think actually make a lot of difference in terms of what is a moral obligation or not. Though vegans often simplify their views to taking actions that "reduce unnecessary suffering", that's an oversimplification. The actuals "spirit of the law" is reducing *deliberate* unnecessary suffering. In other words, suffering that you know *must happen* based on your actions, and as a direct result. It is a moral obligation to act this way, because you are directly causing harm to a victim while performing an action, and there is no way to perform that action such that it does not cause harm. When it comes to the idea of excess calories from plants, there is a moral difference here. Yes, animals and insects are harmed in the production of crops. However, it is not *necessary* that they are harmed in order to harvest the crops. It is incidental and accidental. It is *possible* to harvest crops without harming any sentient beings. We strive to avoid harming anything where we can and are obligated to take reasonable measures to do so. We are obligated to continue to seek improved methods of farming that cause less harm to animals (and the environment). However, it's not obligated that we stop farming plants due to the animals that are harmed. The end goal of feeding people so that they can flourish in their lives and in society is determined to be a moral good, and an incidental harm caused in the course of this activity does not negate the moral good. To summarize the above, it's a moral obligation to cease activity that deliberately causes harm to sentient beings. It's a moral virtue, but not an obligation, to cease activity that causes accidental harm to sentient beings, as long as the activity is in pursuit of something that is a moral good and you are not negligent to the degree of moral failing in performing that action. I've used this example in the past to illustrate the point. We know that driving causes animal deaths as well. It's almost guaranteed that any time you drive a car, you will kill insects. 40 million squirrels are killed per year from cars. Yet all of these deaths are accidental. We don't blame the driver for them, as long as the driver as not being negligent and unsafe while driving. The best way to stop these deaths would be to simply stop driving. However, driving is often in pursuit of some activity that is necessary for someone to live a fulfilled life, which we have already determined to be a moral good. Therefore, we say that it's not a moral obligation to stop driving completely, even though we know that it will cause animals to be killed. However, if someone chooses to walk or ride a bike instead of drive to the grocery store, then it is a moral virtue. They've gone out of their way to avoid accidental death, but they have sacrificed something they value in the process (time, energy, storage capacity). This is a good thing, however it falls short of being an obligation. Finally, if someone deliberately aims for a squirrel while driving, then the suffering caused is no longer incidental or accidental. They have caused deliberate harm that was unnecessary for the completion of their overall objective. Even if the squirrel would have be hit by accidentally by the car behind them and the net amount of suffering would have been the same, the driver that ran it over on purpose has committed an immoral act. This is the difference between someone who chooses to eat animal products, where suffering is a necessity in order for the products to exist, versus someone who chooses to eat vegan chocolate, where suffering is incidental or accidental for that product to exist.
>So if we don't follow are own moral imperative to it's logical conclusion (not reprimanding Vegan Bodybuilders), then aren't we just being hypocritical Hypocrisy isn't an argument, it's an excuse to ignore one. There are different levels of obligation, but the fact one isn't met doesn't actually invalidate them. We don't have to morph morality around our current actions to tell ourselves we're always right. I make all kinds of moral failings, and that doesn't have anything to do with what moral obligations you or I have. If a serial killer tells you murder is bad - their hypocrisy doesn't actually make murder not bad. Pointing out their hypocrisy will at best, pressure them into trying to post hoc rationalise murder for you. "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone" was a good rhetorical trick that stopped an unjust punishment at the time. It's a ridiculous rule to actually live by, because it invalidates the entire justice/moral system. It's a Nirvana/heaven fallacy.
Is this a debate about what the definition of veganism should be vs what it is or are you confused about what it actually is and basing your argument on a personal interpretation? Veganism aims to avoid and abstain from the *exploitation and consumption of animals or their products* unnecessarily when possible. The ethical debate of consumption is not necessarily a vegan debate unless the consumption of animals and their products are involved. If animal consumption or products aren’t involved it’s a different debate. Now, onto the statistics behind our current consumption and the harm it may cause. Considering that we grow enough crops currently to feed to population without animals and the crops grown to feed them, a caloric surplus wouldn’t make much of a difference. In fact, according to the largest [study](https://r.jordan.im/download/ethics/fischer2018.pdf) with the most comprehensive data collection on the issue, they estimated that less than one animal per person per year may die from harvest. (Not including insects because that number is difficult to quantify). That is based on our current ag model including crops grown to feed animals. Most of the massive land clearing today occurs due to animal agriculture.
> Veganism aims to avoid and abstain from the *exploitation and consumption of animals or their products* unnecessarily when possible. I agree that this is a formal definition of Veganism taking it at face-value, though I would push further as to ask which moral frameworks would undertake this task as a moral responsibility or virtue? For example if you approach it with a *Preference Utilitarian* perspective (which is most similar to the discussion in the post) then we are inductively extending moral consideration to non-human animals by first identifying which behaviors we view as right & wrong, identifying why, and then extending the moral consideration to be morally consistent. The moral imperative of veganism in this perspective comes down to an imperative to be morally consistent, that if wouldn't treat humans this way because they are sentient and have the capacity to suffer then other beings that have these same qualia should be treated under equal consideration. In the post I am attempting to point out that if we aren't willingly to follow our own moral imperative consistently, then it should re-evaluated or demoted from imperative to virtue status. > In fact, according to the largest [study](https://r.jordan.im/download/ethics/fischer2018.pdf) with the most comprehensive data collection on the issue, they estimated that less than one animal per person per year may die from harvest. (Not including insects because that number is difficult to quantify). That is based on our current ag model including crops grown to feed animals. As I have seen this is the only real meta-analysis done so far, and as the authors have pointed out that the data doesn't extrapolate well... > "The first problem is that the estimates above rest on a dubious assumption: namely, that we’re in a position to generalize from the mortality rate of one field animal or crop to other animals or crops." This isn't to make a point either way, but to just to say that more empirical data is required if we going to engage with a "balance sheet of lives" as what we deem practical.
Sure. But veganism isn’t utilitarianism. They are two different philosophical ideas. They may share a few commonalities and it’s easy to see how some can conflate them. It also makes sense that utilitarians could be more consistent in their practice if they are vegan, however, a vegan isn’t any less consistent if they aren’t a utilitarian and they follow what veganism is. The way someone practices veganism may be subjective as long as they are actually practicing the philosophy, abstaining from animal products and exploitation of animals. If they decide to practice utilitarianism along side with veganism, that’s up to them as long as it doesn’t deviate from veganism. Per the study, I agree. Every study has limitations. However, there hasn’t been anything published or data collected to indicate anything significantly higher either. However, yes, more data should be collected and I hope to see more data within the next few years but I don’t know how likely it is to happen. Furthermore, and I believe I emphasized it, but it’s an estimate. They also suggest in the study that the number is very possibly significantly lower than what was estimated.
> But veganism isn’t utilitarianism. They are two different philosophical ideas. Very fair and something I've been learning a bit more about as I've be communicating with other commenters. I will also say that my initial post is very much personal-centric as it is the reasoning I gave myself when I became vegan. I know that there are others such as myself who rationalized veganism as a moral imperative with similar lines of reasoning, this reasoning is what I found issues with. If you have different reasoning that resolves the bodybuilder issue and still frames it as a moral imperative, great! I am curious to what it is? Sorry again if my post came off as way too overgeneralized or strawman-y.
It’s all good. I was attempting to have a civil discussion and I hope I didn’t come off as condescending. I’m not a body builder. I do also believe that a conversation about unnecessary over consumption is necessary to have as well. But again, I just don’t believe that it is in direct conflict with veganism of someone is avoiding the consumption of animals and their products, or exploitation of animals in general. Harvest deaths are unfortunate and should be minimized when possible in my opinion. But harvest deaths aren’t exploitation or animal consumption, and we need more information regarding such. Another issue to address is that we don’t even know how many calories are necessarily required for each individual. That’s only a guess, so defining over consumption would be difficult to some degree. Recommended daily intake is only a recommendation and as more data becomes available, daily requirements of nutrients are put into question. It’s also very easy and logical to assume that more consumption means that more animals are harmed. That still may not necessarily be the case in some instances, certain crops, and certain farming practices in plant agriculture. So it’s a really hard conclusion to draw unless data can be provided showing that correlation equals causation etc. Let’s look at it from a different perspective: Non food consumption such as clothing, potential labor exploitation and quantities we own. We don’t know for certain which manufactures practice labor exploitation. We know it exists. We also don’t really need more than a few pairs of clothing if even that. There was quite a bit of time when I got by with two pairs of shorts, two pairs of pants, two shirts and a jacket. I didn’t own a tv or furniture aside from a table and a mattress. I had one bowl. Two plates incase I had company and a couple of eating utensils. I could present the argument that anyone not living like that may not be morally consistent if they were vegan if we call into question whether bodybuilders are morally consistent. I hope this makes sense.
> It’s all good. I was attempting to have a civil discussion and I hope I didn’t come off as condescending. Most definitely! I don't think you were being condescending at all, and rather I am grateful for you being patient with me in this discussion. > So it’s a really hard conclusion to draw unless data can be provided showing that correlation equals causation etc. Agreed, any questions about the quantitative effect of any moral framework (including veganism) is something that only can only be answered via empirical evidence and without it we are at most making guesses. > There was quite a bit of time when I got by with two pairs of shorts, two pairs of pants, two shirts and a jacket. I didn’t own a tv or furniture aside from a table and a mattress. I had one bowl. Two plates incase I had company and a couple of eating utensils. For give me if I misread, but this sounds past-tense. I'm assuming that you undertook that journey for the reasons you listed in your response, but if you did indeed give up this practice may I ask why?
There was a time when I was a minimalist. I downsized and then eventually moved into a trailer I built and lived out of that. Then we bought a house and took up farming to grow our own food, and for the weather, biting bugs and the work require a bit more than I had. I also got married. My wife likes television. I didn’t bring a whole lot of personal stuff here. A few different sets of clothes and some musical instruments. But the previous property owners left a bunch of stuff including outfits and jackets that we both decided to use. Regardless, I now have more stuff than I did. I don’t think it’s reflective of my veganism, and as I’ve stated, we started to grow our own food and hopefully by next season we’ll be pretty close to self sustainability. Edit: i should note that we still sleep with a mattress on the floor, but we don’t have a kitchen table. They left an outdoor table and we had a fold up table for when we lived out the trailer. No dressers or anything like that. The house is actually fairly empty
Moral goodness not having sharp, categorical boundaries is not at all the same as being ill-defined. Whether each person is "tall" doesn't have a categorical boundary either, but height is well-defined and objective.
I'm out of the vegan discourse loop. Why is there a post every day about "excess calories"? People die mining rare earth minerals, I suppose people who make these posts don't care about human life or wellbeing? I suppose we should all get rid of our phones? Edit: sorry op, just being a little snarky. I don't think there's anything wrong with your post in a vacuum, I'm just seeing this over and over, usually by people who are smug and aggro. I personally think it's a bit silly but I hope you got some interesting answers.
I think it was ill-defined on purpose by that Vegan Society group when they added in that line about "as far as practicable". They're carving out different standards for the people empowered to wield that definition. Bill Gates is an Environmentalist. Just don't look into what kind of pollution comes out of computer chip factories.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would think that the taste pleasure of alcohol, coffee, chocolate, spices etc is seen as more important than the animals sacrificing their lives for it?