Open Letter to Vaush + All Consumption Under Capitalism is Unethical Defence

[NonZeroSum]

-

Arguments in favour of Vaush becoming a vegan soyboy already

Some thoughts on Vaush’s engagement with vegans/veganism thus far.

I acknowledge social conditioning/alienation & extreme cases

I acknowledge out the gate that there are exception for me where buying animal products is 100% not a bad character vice, such as:

1. Where someone is either unaware of or incapable of following a vegan lifestyle. Or…

2. Where eating animal products happened to be necessary in order to achieve more wellbeing fighting other liberation causes in extreme situations. For example flying to Syria to protect the Yazidis from ISIS and having to eat spam from a tin because it’s the only rations the militia could afford to budget.

In both of these cases I think most vegans agree it would be ethically vegan or ethically on par with veganism.


I acknowledge the paradox of calling an act a brainwashed individual did immoral

Now I know Vaush and I agree the act of killing an animal unjustifiably is always wrong, but how can an act be wrong for the individual if he’s alienated from the profits and been socially conditioned into believing it’s ok? So of course some of the blame lies with collective society.

And yet that immorality keeps racking up such that it is an urgent problem we need to address.


Harm in exaggerating exceptions to the rule

Vaush has given the example of someone being able to enjoy the foods they’re nostalgic for growing up and possibly giving them the energy to do activism. And it’s true that a lot of people are living bad lives, clinging to what few luxuries keep them sane. But at the same time when we think of the harm to the animals and our health it is so pressing that we strive to do better and find other sources of comfort, just like quitting smoking.

Existing as a vegan in the world is this really positive step to showing your seriousness and dedication you’re willing to put in, so then being better able to find each other and get organized, e.g. willingness to start a food not bombs stall or guerrilla garden.

So it's by saving money, being healthy and helping others to do the same, that we then have the means and time to do activism long-term. Like new age travellers in the 80s responding to shit work options, helping each other live sustainably on sites and being the back-bone of road protests against unnecessary roads to nowhere that would have increased urban sprawl, putting more cars on the road and CO2 in the air.


Harm in playing down the potential effectiveness of boycotts

1. A really important positive attribute to acknowledge about this lifestyle is it's a broad food category that in its wholefood form is easy to distinguish on the shelf. Therefore experimenting with the diet doesn't need to feel like a burden to take on board in the same way researching and seeking out conflict-free minerals in everything you buy can be for example.

2. It's not the case that we need to win over everyone to veganism in order to make massive change, if a large enough minority can create breathing room for legislation and food co-ops on the way to revolution it’s both an obligation to attempt it and to make the transition to a market socialist society easier saving humans and wildlife. As well as driving less, buying second hand, etc.

3. Boycotts have the effect of bringing communities together under a liberation politics e.g. car-sharing during the Montgomery bus boycott, students leading the call to stop subsidising Israel and before that South Africa, the widespread boycotting of reactionary tabloid newspaper in the UK that ran stories saying mass suffocation at a football stadium due to over-crowding and fences were the fans fault. So boycotting to show your real felt ties to the land you stand on as necessary optics for seriousness on the left.


Finally here are some examples of political news stories involving animal rights it would be cool to see him comment on and give a wider audience to even if just in passing

• Trump Approves $16 Billion Coronavirus Bailout for Meat and Dairy
• Abattoir workers are the forgotten frontline victims at the heart of this crisis – and now they’re spreading coronavirus
• A group of indigenous Tahltan people blockading a road to try to reverse over-hunting on their territory

-

Potential arguments for individual agents reduced culpability for consumption under capitalism

Various attempts at steel-manning the phrase “all consumption under capitalism is unethical.”

So that non-vegans who use this phrase fully understand vegans can relate to their philosophical worldview.

However, even if we grant there's a better system we can move to such that all consumption under capitalism currently is unethical, there exists a scale of immorality such that we hope once you become aware of perticularly bad industries, that you will get on board with living a low-impact lifestyle.

—

1a. Natural language - Consequentialist defence of all consumption under capitalism decreasing net utility.

Commodity production under capitalism causes more harm than it would under a market socialist society.

We should all be doing one or both of two things in order that no one has to buy any commodity produced through capitalism ever again:

A. Immediately in unison democratise the workplace and buy from those syndicates such that we all share a portion of the immorality for not having organised enough to make that happen.

B. Put the effort into researching to buy from or starting our own co-ops, as well as salvaging free products capitalism has wasted.

Therefore, all commodity purchases under capitalism decrease utlity.

—

1b. Formal Language - Consequentialist defence of all consumption under capitalism decreasing net utility.

P1) If all surplus value is the result of the application of labor, such that disutility occurs when through commodity purchases, the person who’s labour resulted in the surplus doesn’t receive that value AND we all ought to spend time advocating for and organising to democratise workplaces such that no one would have to make commodity purchases through capitalism ever again... Then all commodity purchases under capitalism decrease utility.

P2) All surplus value is the result of the application of labor, such that disutility occurs when through commodity purchases, the person who’s labour resulted in the surplus doesn’t receive that value AND we all ought to spend time advocating for and organising to democratise workplaces such that no one would have to make commodity purchases under capitalism ever again.

C) Therefore, all commodity purchases under capitalism decrease utlity.

—

2a. Natural language - Virtue ethics defence of consuming under capitalism whether or not it decreases net utility and it not necessarily being a character vice.

A moral agent ought to spend time advocating for and organising to democratise workplaces so that we can transition to a market socialist society (where no one has the surplus value of their labour systematically stolen from them).

If in the process of doing doing the above (through the best strategy one is aware of for creating lasting maximum well-being) they make the above harder for themselves through buying a commodity produced through capitalism (either because of social conditioning or not having the time to research), then the immorality may be shared more evenly among the collective society as opposed to the individual’s character.

Therefore, it may not be the case that a moral agent oughtn't purchase commodities under capitalism which decrease utlity.

—

2b. Formal Language - Virtue ethics defence of consuming under capitalism whether or not it decreases net utility and it not necessarily being a character vice.

P1) A moral agent ought to spend time advocating for and organising to democratise workplaces so that no one has to make commodity purchases under capitalism ever again.

P2) If in the process of doing P1 through the best strategy one is aware of for creating lasting maximum well-being) when a moral agent makes P1 harder for themselves through buying a commodity produced through capitalism (either because of social conditioning or not having the time to research) the immorality may be shared more evenly among the collective society as opposed to solely the individual’s character... Then it follows it’s not the case that a moral agent oughtn't purchases commodities under capitalism which decrease utlity.

P3) In the process of doing P1 through the best strategy one is aware of for creating lasting maximum well-being) when a moral agent makes P1 harder for themselves through buying a commodity produced through capitalism (either because of social conditioning or not having the time to research) the immorality may be shared more evenly among the collective society as opposed to solely the individual’s character.

P3) The same for P1, P2 & P3 is true where we replace the words “democratise the workplace” with “end animal agriculture” & “commodity” with “animal product”.

C) Therefore, if it may not be the case that a moral agent oughtn't purchase commodities under capitalism which decrease utlity, then it may not be the case that a moral agent oughtn't purchase animal products under capitalism which decrease utlity.

—

[brimstoneSalad]

Have you had any engagement from Vaush on this?

[NonZeroSum]

Have you had any engagement from Vaush on this?

Nah, posted to his reddit and tagged him, but no response. It was a final effort in text of acquiring clarity, as well because Fisch is going to do a video on him so would have been good to have a formal argument he accepts to work with. The AY one was made for a rule util, but he's an act util now.

If i ever get on voice with him I'll try addressing those two harms I wrote above for asking him to improve his outlook, thus hopefully his content.

As well as push the boundaries of his alienation/social conditioning defence. So another interesting Steelman to put to him would be if someone lived their whole life from birth to the age of 50 in a vegan socialist commune, being a wildlife vet and left to do a talk for 1 day and had the choice of buying a bacon sandwich from a wage labour deli or vegan sandwich from a worker co-op, would he be comfortable calling the act of buying the bacon sandwich to be 100% his individual responsibility and unethical for doing so with no alienation or social conditioning clouding his opinion.

Then if we think of it like a spectrum where most vegans exception to the rule are like desert island or going to fight ISIS. And his exceptions are everything bar living your whole life growing up in a vegan socialist commune. You could start by getting him to acknowledge that, then use those reasons to move onto trying to push him off the foundational justifications for other situations.

if we had agreement on the all the policy that weighed people down and the best strategy to advocate change, yet he still wouldn't be comfortable calling a billionaire tycoon choosing a bacon sandwich his individual responsibility, the only option left would be the soft bigotry of low expectations.

-

An interesting counter argument to work on could be the productive utility in being able to call the person:

- Living an exorbitant luxury lifestyle unethical because of the money that could have been donated to effective charities/campaigns...

Being virtually identical to...

- Participating in systematic racism unethically because you're excluding your generationally low-income black friend with no car from playing on your sports team by never being willing to offer to drive to pick them up so they can join in...

That might go a long way to upgrading his outlook.

At the moment I think he's just stuck on this idea of those vegans who do a kind of single issue virtue advocacy while living an otherwise unethical polluting life, so not really practicing what they preach and/or focusing too much on individuals who may not have access to healthy foods, rather than being willing to work on systematic policy that will uplift the most disadvantaged to be able to avoid animal products.

-

Something like...

#1. Non-vegan argument

We ought not spend time advocating individuals reduce their harmful consumption under capitalism if doing so puts an unhealthy focus on those most disadvantaged, drawing attention away from what systemic policies would uplift the most disadvantaged to be able to make healthy consumer choices.

Advocating individuals reduce their harmful consumption under capitalism puts an unhealthy focus on those most disadvantaged, drawing attention away from what systemic policies would uplift the most disadvantaged to be able to make healthy consumer choices.

Therefore we ought not spend time advocating individuals reduce their harmful consumption under capitalism because doing so puts an unhealthy focus on those most disadvantaged, drawing attention away from what systemic policies would uplift the most disadvantaged to be able to make healthy consumer choices.

#2. Vegan Counter-Argument

If we ought spend time advocating individuals donate some amount of spare cash to campaigns & unions under capitalism because donating spare cash to campaigns & unions helps bring about a market socialist society THEN we inherently are advocating individuals reduce their harmful consumption under capitalism.

We ought spend time advocating individuals donate some amount of spare cash to campaigns & unions under capitalism because donating spare cash to campaigns & unions helps bring about a market socialist society.

Therefore we ought spend time advocating individuals donate some amount of spare cash to campaigns & unions under capitalism because donating spare cash to campaigns & unions helps bring about a market socialist society AND we inherently are advocating individuals reduce their harmful consumption under capitalism.

[brimstoneSalad]

Good approach with trying to get him to agree on that extreme hypothetical. I have a feeling he's just being inconsistent and making ad hoc amendments to his belief system at any point to justify what he wants.

[NonZeroSum]

-

Alright what do you guys think about this script for the philovegan youtube channel? It's a short video essay aimed at lazy leftists who agree with veganism in principle, done in a lighthearted comedy way, where we imagine how the ideal conversation could have gone, using clips from the first AY vs. Vaush debate.

Any thoughts @Philosophical Vegan, @Lay Vegan, other peeps?

Vaush Mock Debate 1st Draft - President Red Audio Reading

Vaush Mock Debate 2nd Draft - Theo Video Footage Reading


-

Mock Vaush Conversation Script

Intro: Alright, so two YouTubers Ask Yourself and Vaush have been going at it over the subject of veganism for a while now, there’s obviously been a ton of miscommunications, so I just thought it’d be interesting to put together a video of how the 1st conversation they had could have gone ideally. So here you go...

Vaush: Howdy

AY: So, you currently are not a vegan?

Vaush: That is correct

AY: Now if we replaced all the animals in the factory farms with humans you wouldn't say it’s morally wrong…

Vaush: We can skip a few steps, I include animals in my ethical system, I agree that meat eating is morally unjustifiable. I’m not... “believes meat eating is fine,” I’m... “knows veganism is correct and is too much of a moral hypocrite to go forward with it.”

AY: Oh ok, well honestly I don’t know how much I have to say to you then, I’m not like a psychologist who can work your brain.

Vaush: Yeah, no, what we do is unironically monstrous with the factory farming.

Vaush: My argument here, and this is one of defending hypocrisy, so I recognise my bias in this respect, but the argument I would have here is comparable to the argument I would make for not for example telling people to not buy t-shirts that were made in China. It’s that we live in a system of such unfathomably inhuman production and it’s so convenient to adhere to the ethical modes of production in which we live, that I don’t know if I can condemn a person ethically on an individual level for participating in systems that are so much larger than them. You know?

Script: Okay I can answer that, so it’s important to acknowledge where someone is either unaware of or incapable of following a vegan lifestyle, that they are not individually responsible for the act of eating meat, even though the act itself is still unethical.

But we should be wary of extending that lack of individual responsibility away from extreme situations like being stranded on a desert island, to today where a lot of industry happens to be unethical.

Because even if we grant there's a better system we can move to such that all consumption under capitalism currently is unethical, there exists a scale of immorality such that we hope once people become aware of particularly bad industries, they will get on board with living a low-impact vegan lifestyle.

So there’s two things:
1. There’s the potential harm in playing down the effectiveness of the vegan boycott, because a really important positive attribute to acknowledge about this lifestyle is it's a broad food category that in its wholefood form is easy to distinguish on the shelf. Therefore experimenting with the diet doesn't need to feel like a burden to take on board in the same way researching and seeking out conflict-free minerals in everything you buy can be for example.
2. The potential harm in exaggerating exceptions to the rule of individual responsibility.

But yeah you accept buying animal products is unethical, it’s just a case of some of the individual responsibility gets shared more evenly with the collective society for say voting parties which maintain the status quo, which in turn alienates/socially conditions you into not having full agency.

Vaush: Yes, I agree that meat eating is morally unjustifiable. I’m not... “believes meat eating is fine,” I’m... “knows veganism is correct and is too much of a moral hypocrite to go forward with it.”

Script: Cool, so yeah, you just have a critique of where activists put their energy?

Vaush: Yes, I just think advocacy is more effective when it's being done outside of the demand by consumers, I don’t think there’s any likelihood or any possibility of getting the vast majority of people off of their meat diets.

Script: Well I would say existing as a vegan in the world is this really positive step to showing your seriousness and dedication you’re willing to put in, so then being better able to find each other and get organized, for example people’s willingness to start a food not bombs stall or guerrilla garden.

Secondly It's not the case that we need to win over everyone to veganism in order to make massive change, if a large enough minority can create breathing room for legislation and food co-ops on the way to a vegan world, I do think it’s both an obligation to attempt it and to make the transition easier saving humans and wildlife. As well as driving less, buying second hand, etc.

Thirdly, boycotts have the effect of bringing communities together under a liberation politics. For example car-sharing during the Montgomery bus boycott, students leading the call to stop subsidising Israel and before that South Africa, the widespread boycotting of a reactionary tabloid newspaper in the UK that ran stories saying mass suffocation at a football stadium due to overcrowding and fences were the fans fault. So boycotting to show your real felt ties to the land you stand on as necessary optics for seriousness on the left.

And finally I’d just say there’s a way you could take this concern for shifting the blame onto individuals too far the other way, in that I think we’d agree if someone was obscenely rich and spent all their money on luxury items, never donating to campaigns or charities that we would need to bring about a better society you would think badly of this person because they would be displaying the same indifferent behaviour you’d expect of someone who say participated in systemic racism, for example excluding your generationally low-income black friend with no car from playing on your sports team by never seeing it as your responsibility to offer to drive to pick them up so they can join in.

Vaush: Yes. Look forward to discussing this more.

Script: Great, also if you could look into some animal rights news stories to cover on your stream, I do think there’s a lot of damning political stories which would do the job of bringing people further left as well as hopefully towards veganism. I’ll leave links to some in the description you can take a look at. 
Alright, take care.

Vaush: Yes. Have a good one.


---

Description

• Trump Approves $16 Billion Coronavirus Bailout for Meat and Dairy
• Abattoir workers are the forgotten frontline victims at the heart of this crisis – and now they’re spreading coronavirus
• A group of indigenous Tahltan people blockading a road to try to reverse over-hunting on their territory

-

[brimstoneSalad]

Script: Okay I can answer that, so it’s important to acknowledge where someone is either unaware of or incapable of following a vegan lifestyle, that they are not individually responsible for the act of eating meat, even though the act itself is still unethical.

Script: Okay I can answer that, so it’s important to acknowledge where someone is either unaware of or incapable of following a vegan lifestyle, that they are not individually responsible for the act of eating meat, even though the act itself is still harmful. When it comes to awareness there's a lot of nuance there with elective ignorance, but let's just say it was impossible for them to know.

Because even if we grant there's a better system we can move to such that all consumption under capitalism currently is unethical, there exists a scale of immorality such that we hope once people become aware of particularly bad industries, they will get on board with living a low-impact vegan lifestyle.

This one is not very clear, try something like:

Because even if we granted the argument that there's a better economic system we could move to, which would make "all consumption under capitalism is unethical" true by comparison to that ideal, there still exists a scale of immorality. It's not just "this is worse than the ideal so it's just as bad as anything else that's also worse than the ideal". Provided a sense of relative harm we hope once people become aware of particularly bad industries, they will get on board with living a low-impact vegan lifestyle -- not because it's perfect in every way, but because it's better than the current status quo.

(you might have to change the wording a bit to make it more clear/easier to read)

But yeah you accept buying animal products is unethical, it’s just a case of some of the individual responsibility gets shared more evenly with the collective society for say voting parties which maintain the status quo, which in turn alienates/socially conditions you into not having full agency.

This is not clear. Do you mean something like this?

But yeah you accept buying animal products is unethical, your argument is just that some of the individual responsibility gets shared more evenly with the collective society for say voting parties which maintain the status quo, which in turn alienates/socially conditions you into believing you don't have full agency. It becomes an appeal to futility fallacy, because that doesn't equate to actually having zero agency and there still remains some moral difference between the two choices regardless of how much better an ideal would be. The excuse evaporates once you rationally realize that the feeling of being without any agency doesn't reflect reality.

Script: Well I would say existing as a vegan in the world is this really positive step to showing your seriousness and dedication you’re willing to put in, so then being better able to find each other and get organized, for example people’s willingness to start a food not bombs stall or guerrilla garden.

Script: Well beyond the obvious answer that we can drive incremental change in capitalism itself by choosing less harmful products and better companies where we can identify them, I would say existing as a vegan in the world is this really positive step to showing your seriousness and dedication you’re willing to put in. Not only can it inspire others but it can also help people who are serious about change each other and get organized, for example people’s willingness to start a food not bombs stall or guerrilla garden.

Secondly It's not the case that we need to win over everyone to veganism in order to make massive change, if a large enough minority can create breathing room for legislation and food co-ops on the way to a vegan world, I do think it’s both an obligation to attempt it and to make the transition easier saving humans and wildlife. As well as driving less, buying second hand, etc.

Secondly It's not the case that we need to win over everyone to veganism in order to make massive change, if a large enough minority can create breathing room for legislation and food co-ops that can provide alternatives to everybody on the way to a vegan world, I do think it’s both an obligation to attempt it and to make the transition easier saving humans and wildlife in the process. As well as driving less, buying second hand, etc. Buying nothing ever or meticulously tracking the source of every mineral may be insurmountable, but these are all pretty low bars to reach for and within the grasp of ordinary people.

Thirdly, boycotts have the effect of bringing communities together under a liberation politics. For example car-sharing during the Montgomery bus boycott, students leading the call to stop subsidising Israel and before that South Africa, the widespread boycotting of a reactionary tabloid newspaper in the UK that ran stories saying mass suffocation at a football stadium due to overcrowding and fences were the fans fault. So boycotting to show your real felt ties to the land you stand on as necessary optics for seriousness on the left.

Thirdly, even if you reject its effect on capitalistic industry, boycotts have the effect of bringing communities together under a liberation politics. For example car-sharing during the Montgomery bus boycott, students leading the call to stop subsidising Israel and before that South Africa, the widespread boycotting of a reactionary tabloid newspaper in the UK that ran stories saying mass suffocation at a football stadium due to overcrowding and fences were the fans fault. So boycotting to show your real felt ties to the land you stand on as necessary optics for seriousness on the left, and regardless of the mechanism by which they function the efficacy is hard to dispute.

In the video I would clarify whatever parts are Vaush's that it's an imaginary Vaush so nobody confuses these with actual quotes. Like even just calling the role "Imaginary Vaush"

[NonZeroSum]

Had the drive to do a reading this morning, so edited it all together and put one up of on my channel of me:
https://youtu.be/qU_JYmenXEs

But don't mind at all doing another one with new edits for the philovegan channel or Red or someone else doing it.

I've put it up on the wiki, so you can see how Brim's edits have changed the script and we can use that to keep changing it if we want or here in this thread:
wiki/index.php?title=Philosophical_Vega ... oldid=3224

[Red]

You fellas finalize the script and such, and I can get working on a video.

[NonZeroSum]

You fellas finalize the script and such, and I can get working on a video.

Ok what do you think about a mock debate 'ideal' version and 'resistant' version. Bascially there was a moment in the first debate where AY calls Vaush pathetic, which makes Vaush go from unsure what position he should be taking on condemning meat eating to digging his heels in and defending not condemning any consumption under capitalism.

So we play the first 2 mins of the video, then make a cheesy rewind sound, say here's how it could have gone ideally, like the video script already made. Then we introduce that if that sounded unlikely to happen we'll do a version where Vaush is more resistant aswell, another rewind sound, then we play Vaush talking about what if someone is depressed and nostalgic foods are the only thing that's keeping him sane and able to do activism.

I'd still need to work on the script, but here's some formal arguements below to give you a flavor. Or we scrap the whole mock debate format and just do a long open letter. What do you think?:

Remember if you want to edit large sections, use the wiki so I can see how it's changed: click here.

How To Advocate To Pro Vegan Leftists 2.0 - Draft of Part 1

Text on the screen: This is the intro to a debate that happened between 2 YouTubers on the topic of veganims and animal rights.

At the 1:30 mins mark we'll jump in to mock debate how I think the conversation could have more ideally gone.

Then finally at the 6 mins mark we'll cover all basis by giving a formal counter-arguement in the case where someone still expressed disagreement.

Vaush: Howdy

AY: So, you currently are not a vegan?

Vaush: That is correct

AY: Now if we replaced all the animals in the factory farms with humans you wouldn't say it’s morally wrong…

Vaush: We can skip a few steps, I include animals in my ethical system, I agree that meat eating is morally unjustifiable. I’m not... “believes meat eating is fine,” I’m... “knows veganism is correct and is too much of a moral hypocrite to go forward with it.”

AY: Oh ok, well I actually had no idea how you would react on this topic, so I think your reaction in a way is admirable because of how honest you are, but in a way it's sad because of how pathetic you seem to be.

*Rewind sound effect*

Script: So bit of advice, never call a person pathetic when they're genuinely trying to explore an issue with you, as it's just a rude thing to say and makes people dig their heels in. So I'll let Vaush give his arguement then I'll mock debate how the conversation could have gone more ideally.

Vaush: My argument here, and this is one of defending hypocrisy, so I recognise my bias in this respect, but the argument I would have here is comparable to the argument I would make for not for example telling people to not buy t-shirts that were made in China. It’s that we live in a system of such unfathomably inhuman production and it’s so convenient to adhere to the ethical modes of production in which we live, that I don’t know if I can condemn a person ethically on an individual level for participating in systems that are so much larger than them. You know?

Script: Okay I can answer that, so it’s important to acknowledge where someone is either unaware of or incapable of following a vegan lifestyle, that they are not individually responsible for the act of eating meat, even though the act itself is still harmful. When it comes to awareness there's a lot of nuance there with elective ignorance, but let's just say it was impossible for them to know.

But we should be wary of extending that lack of individual responsibility away from extreme situations like being stranded on a desert island, to today where a lot of industry happens to be unethical.

Because even if we granted the argument that there's a better economic system we could move to, which would make "all consumption under capitalism is unethical" true by comparison to that ideal, there still exists a scale of immorality. It's not just "this is worse than the ideal so it's just as bad as anything else that's also worse than the ideal". Provided a sense of relative harm we hope once people become aware of particularly bad industries, they will get on board with living a low-impact vegan lifestyle -- not because it's perfect in every way, but because it's better than the current status quo.

So there’s two things:
1. There’s the potential harm in playing down the effectiveness of the vegan boycott, because a really important positive attribute to acknowledge about this lifestyle is it's a broad food category that in its wholefood form is easy to distinguish on the shelf. Therefore experimenting with the diet doesn't need to feel like a burden to take on board in the same way researching and seeking out conflict-free minerals in everything you buy can be for example.
2. The potential harm in exaggerating exceptions to the rule of individual responsibility.

But yeah you accept buying animal products is unethical, your argument is just that some of the individual responsibility gets shared more evenly with the collective society for say voting parties which maintain the status quo, which in turn alienates/socially conditions you into believing you don't have full agency. It becomes an appeal to futility fallacy, because that doesn't equate to actually having zero agency and there still remains some moral difference between the two choices regardless of how much better an ideal would be. The excuse evaporates once you rationally realize that the feeling of being without any agency doesn't reflect reality.

Vaush: Yes, I agree that meat eating is morally unjustifiable. I’m not... “believes meat eating is fine,” I’m... “knows veganism is correct and is too much of a moral hypocrite to go forward with it.”

Script: Cool, so yeah, you just have a critique of where activists put their energy?

Vaush: Yes, I just think advocacy is more effective when it's being done outside of the demand by consumers, I don’t think there’s any likelihood or any possibility of getting the vast majority of people off of their meat diets.

Script: Well beyond the obvious answer that we can drive incremental change in capitalism itself by choosing less harmful products and better companies where we can identify them, I would say existing as a vegan in the world is this really positive step to showing your seriousness and dedication you’re willing to put in. Not only can it inspire others but it can also help people who are serious about change each other and get organized, for example people’s willingness to start a food not bombs stall or guerrilla garden.

Secondly It's not the case that we need to win over everyone to veganism in order to make massive change, if a large enough minority can create breathing room for legislation and food co-ops that can provide alternatives to everybody on the way to a vegan world, I do think it’s both an obligation to attempt it and to make the transition easier saving humans and wildlife in the process. As well as driving less, buying second hand, etc. Buying nothing ever or meticulously tracking the source of every mineral may be insurmountable, but these are all pretty low bars to reach for and within the grasp of ordinary people.

Thirdly, even if you reject its effect on capitalistic industry, boycotts have the effect of bringing communities together under a liberation politics. For example car-sharing during the Montgomery bus boycott, students leading the call to stop subsidising Israel and before that South Africa, the widespread boycotting of a reactionary tabloid newspaper in the UK that ran stories saying mass suffocation at a football stadium due to overcrowding and fences were the fans fault. So boycotting to show your real felt ties to the land you stand on as necessary optics for seriousness on the left, and regardless of the mechanism by which they function the efficacy is hard to dispute.

And finally I’d just say there’s a way you could take this concern for shifting the blame onto individuals too far the other way, in that I think we’d agree if someone was obscenely rich and spent all their money on luxury items, never donating to campaigns or charities that we would need to bring about a better society you would think badly of this person because they would be displaying the same indifferent behaviour you’d expect of someone who say participated in systemic racism, for example excluding your generationally low-income black friend with no car from playing on your sports team by never seeing it as your responsibility to offer to drive to pick them up so they can join in.

Vaush: Yes. Look forward to discussing this more.

Script: Great, also if you could look into some animal rights news stories to cover on your stream, I do think there’s a lot of damning political stories which would do the job of bringing people further left as well as hopefully towards veganism. I’ll leave links to some in the description you can take a look at.

Alright, take care.

*Rewind sound effect.*

Script: Ok if that sounded at all implausable or you just want to know what to do if you face stiffer resistance. We'll run through that again, drawing from formal logic.

Vaush: Ok, here's a statement that I would make, this is a bit of a stupid hypothetical, but it's still one that I believe in. If there was a person who ate meat, who recognized that it was wrong, they know they're participating in a horrid industry, but they eat meat.

They think like, they could stop eating meat, but my life is miserable as it is, I can barely afford to keep the lights on in my house, my job is shit, like being able to eat this sick ass ethnic food that was passed down to me from my grandparents, this is one of the few things that I can live for and to take that away from me, I can't do it.

Do you think that the harm done to an individual to deprive them of that meat or dairy or what have you, would be substantial enough to say like ok, alright maybe you can keep eating meat, I won't say it's unethical if your life is hinged upon the joy that brings you or would you say that no level of joy justifies participation in that industry?

Script: Sure, so I certainly wouldn't spend my time advocating veganism with that person, if I was their friend I'd just listen to their problems and ask where I could help out. But more broadly, could we formalize your main concern in this way:

P1) We ought not spend time advocating individuals reduce their harmful consumption under capitalism if doing so puts an unhealthy focus on those most disadvantaged, drawing attention away from what systemic policies would uplift the most disadvantaged to be able to make healthy consumer choices.

P2) Advocating individuals reduce their harmful consumption under capitalism puts an unhealthy focus on those most disadvantaged, drawing attention away from what systemic policies would uplift the most disadvantaged to be able to make healthy consumer choices.

C) Therefore we ought not spend time advocating individuals reduce their harmful consumption under capitalism because doing so puts an unhealthy focus on those most disadvantaged, drawing attention away from what systemic policies would uplift the most disadvantaged to be able to make healthy consumer choices.

Alright now we can run through two exceptions to the rule, then a more general rebuttal:

Vegan Exception Counter-Argument #1

P1) If we ought spend time advocating individuals donate some amount of spare cash to campaigns & unions under capitalism because donating spare cash to campaigns & charities helps bring about a market socialist society THEN we inherently are advocating individuals reduce their harmful consumption under capitalism to have the spare cash to donate to campaigns & charities.

P2) We ought spend time advocating individuals donate some amount of spare cash to campaigns & unions under capitalism because donating spare cash to campaigns & unions helps bring about a market socialist society.

C) Therefore we ought spend time advocating individuals donate some amount of spare cash to campaigns & unions under capitalism because donating spare cash to campaigns & charities helps bring about a market socialist society AND we inherently are advocating individuals reduce their harmful consumption under capitalism to have the spare cash to donate to campaigns & charities.

Vegan Exception Counter-Argument #2

P1) If a man lived his whole life from birth to the age of 50 in a vegan socialist commune, being a wildlife vet and left to do a talk for 1 day and had the choice of buying a bacon sandwich from a wage labour deli or vegan sandwich from a worker co-op, before returning to the commune to live out the rest of his life, then it would be okay for their friends to ask why he chose to do the unethical act, drawing attention to his individual responsibility because there was zero to negligible alienation or social conditioning clouding his opinion.

P2) A man lived his whole life from birth to the age of 50 in a vegan socialist commune, being a wildlife vet and left to do a talk for 1 day and had the choice of buying a bacon sandwich from a wage labour deli or vegan sandwich from a worker co-op, before returning to the commune to live out the rest of his life.

C) Therefore a man lived his whole life from birth to the age of 50 in a vegan socialist commune, being a wildlife vet and left to do a talk for 1 day and had the choice of buying a bacon sandwich from a wage labour deli or vegan sandwich from a worker co-op, before returning to the commune to live out the rest of his life, AND it would be okay for their friends to ask why he chose to do the unethical act, drawing attention to his individual responsibility because there was zero to negligible alienation or social conditioning clouding his opinion.

Vegan General Counter-Argument

P1) If we ought spend time participating in whichever campaigns are most likely to bring about a market-socialist society fastest THEN bar fringe situations like eating disorders and severe depression it’s appropriate to discuss the unethical act of buying meat with people so as to work out where they can best put their energy. Even if doing so puts a focus on their individual responsibility, because doing so brings about systemic policy changes faster which would uplift the most disadvantaged to be able to make healthy consumer choices.

P2) We ought spend time participating in whichever campaigns are most likely to bring about a market-socialist society.

C) Therefore we ought spend time participating in whichever campaigns are most likely to bring about a market-socialist society fastest AND bar fringe situations like eating disorders and severe depression it’s appropriate to discuss the unethical act of buying meat with people so as to work out where they can best put their energy. Even if doing so puts a focus on their individual responsibility, because doing so brings about systemic policy changes faster which would uplift the most disadvantaged to be able to make healthy consumer choices.

[brimstoneSalad]

You fellas finalize the script and such, and I can get working on a video.

Ok what do you think about a mock debate 'ideal' version and 'resistant' version. Bascially there was a moment in the first debate where AY calls Vaush pathetic, which makes Vaush go from unsure what position he should be taking on condemning meat eating to digging his heels in and defending not condemning any consumption under capitalism.

So we play the first 2 mins of the video, then make a cheesy rewind sound, say here's how it could have gone ideally, like the video script already made.

Might add unnecessary length to a probably already pretty long video, and implies something kind of prophetic. Maybe just say in an alternate reality where Vaush is reasonable or something, and indicate hope that this could become this reality if he challenges himself more with these arguments.

Or we scrap the whole mock debate format and just do a long open letter. What do you think?:

I think the mock debate thing could be confusing, but it's also a convenient format and could be entertaining. It's up to you, I don't have a strong preference either way because the pros and cons probably even out.