-
Vaush Pre-Debate Notes
Intro
So I'd like to talk with you about the pragmatics of animal rights advocates judging people and then talk to you about some environmental campaigns it would be cool to see you follow, which would do the job of bringing people further left as well as hopefully towards living a low-impact lifestyle.
Clarification
You’ve written to me saying: “I believe morality of an action is determined by its outcomes. It is undeniable that participating in the consumption of animal products contributes harm to the world, which is why I consider the act of purchasing meat immoral.” [1]
So let me know if I’ve understood your argument, you’re saying whether or not some rare capitalist products happen to increase total utility, the interesting question is whether we should condemn someone for their alienation/social conditioning which is what makes the ethical difference for you between shooting a cow yourself and buying a product in which the profits maybe go back to the farmer to breed more.
Essentially saying we have to accept the possibility of 1 person causing infinite harm through buying meat because they were brainwashed by social conditioning in order to have the highest probability of all people arriving in the future world with greater utility. Any world where we have to condemn people for being brainwashed in order to achieve greater utility is fundamentally irrational and so (1) there’s no way to know whether that greater utility achieved in one instance could easily be cancelled out later or (2) would just be some hellscape which would not fit his definition of utility.
So ultimately we ought not spend time advocating that individuals should 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.
1st Vegan Exception Counter-Argument
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.
2nd Vegan Exception Counter-Argument
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.
If we ought to 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.
Therefore it’s worth advocating individuals reduce their harmful consumption and it’s worth drawing people’s attention to which boycotts most effectively help bring about a world with higher total well-being in it e.g. veganism.
Vegan General Counter-Argument
If we ought to 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.
I acknowledge social conditioning/alienation & extreme cases
I acknowledge there are exception for me where buying animal products is 100% not condemnable, 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, for example people’s 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
Firstly 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.
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.
Environmental campaign news stories
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:
- 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
Other tangents
Perhaps ideally we all oughtn't buy any products under capitalism because we should call a general strike to move to a market socialist society right away, which would make all capitalist products decrease utility, but failing that the obligation still may be there to peruse the least harmful, most effective boycott campaigns:
---
Formal Language Versions
Non-vegan argument
P1) We ought not spend time advocating that individuals should 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.
P2) Advocating that individuals should 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.
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 to spend time advocating that 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 to spend time advocating that 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 to 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 to 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.
---
Reference
1. Full Context:
Vaush: I don't much care for AY's opinion anymore, but this is what I have to say - as a utilitarian, I believe morality of an action is determined by its outcomes. It is undeniable that participating in the consumption of animal products contributes harm to the world, which is why I consider the act of purchasing meat immoral and the decision to go vegan moral. I'm not a virtue ethicist and do not concern myself with the moral character of individuals, only the outcomes of the actions they engage in. When I speak of morals, I am speaking of outcome. If I say a person is "good" or "bad", or that an action makes a person "good" or "bad", I'm non-rigorously assigning a level of heinousness to their behavior which doesn't necessarily correspond to the morality of their actions. A thousand years ago, I might well call a man "good" if he dedicated his life to making the world safe and just, even if the ways in which he pursued women, while acceptable at that time, would today be called predatory or rapey. The predation is still bad, but as I am not a virtue ethicist my estimation of a person's characters is more of a general feeling than a rigorous philosophical position. Maybe I should never use that language from now on - either way, it's not relevant here.
What is relevant is the fact that utilitarianism doesn't really comment on the extent to which an individual must engage in moral behaviour. No human lives their life maximizing utility for everyone. It's not possible. What's more, most people frequently engage in immoral acts they could easily change if they chose to - like purchasing other types of immorally produces commodities, which every single one of us does. My contention is this - why do we condemn people who engage in the consumption of animal products but not those who engage in other forms of immoral consumption? Why is one immoral action so much more heinous? Are both heinous? Are neither? Is there a superseding level of moral consideration saying we derive more utility by not morally condemning people for certain types of immorality? That would be my argument.
-