Introduction

[truthsearch]

I believe you have understood it, yes. And good job of summarizing the argument in your own words, that's very good practice.

Great! Now that I'm sure I've understood your argument, lemme now say my comments about it:
1. Can you further elaborate on your claim 'there's no consistent and non-arbitrary way to exclude non-human animals and substantially include all human animals under moral consideration.'?
2. I may be jumping the gun here, but your argument and vegan status imply you believe all animals have, at least, serious moral considerations to not eat them. Can you elaborate on this; I ask this because among vegans and vegetarians there are differing views on which criteria - like sentience, consciousness, etc - don't permit people to kill and eat animals with said criteria, and I'm curious about your own take on the matter.
3. By 'objective morality', you mean a moral realist system, right? If so, why is it implied to be the basis for your metaethics?

I'm not attacking you, but I'm just curious and want to learn more about these things; maybe I can also help you flesh out some of your ideas!

[truthsearch]

I believe you have understood it, yes. And good job of summarizing the argument in your own words, that's very good practice.

NOTE: I actually posted this earlier but coming to the chat again, I've realised it's not showing so lemme post it again.

Great! Now that I'm sure I've understood your argument, lemme now say my comments about it:
1. Can you further elaborate on your claim 'there's no consistent and non-arbitrary way to exclude non-human animals and substantially include all human animals under moral consideration.'?
2. I may be jumping the gun here, but your argument and vegan status imply you believe all animals have, at least, serious moral considerations to not eat them. Can you elaborate on this; I ask this because among vegans and vegetarians there are differing views on which criteria - like sentience, consciousness, etc - don't permit people to kill and eat animals with said criteria, and I'm curious about your own take on the matter.
3. By 'objective morality', you mean a moral realist system, right? If so, why is it implied to be the basis for your metaethics?

I'm not attacking you, but I'm just curious and want to learn more about these things; maybe I can also help you flesh out some of your ideas!

[truthsearch]

While these views do need a bit of fleshing out, it certainly is the start of understanding ethics, and why anything is unethical (not just unnecessary animal suffering).

Ok then; well as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a step!

It's good you recognize this potential issue; Most vegans are vegan because of some intuitive reaction to seeing suffering, rather than basing their Veganism on a logical understanding of ethics (basically, right for the wrong reasons). We can teach you about ethics and the empirical arguments for Veganism.

Oh thanks for offering to teach me ethics and vegan arguments! I hope I can also offer great ideas that can push the veganism space forward!

I get the feeling, though it sounds even worse in your case due to the culture you're in. What country are you from if you don't mind me asking?

Well I live in an African country; vegan activism exists here, but it's very small and I imagine its growth will bring a lot of carnist pushback that can seriously damage the movement if you're not prudent. I did try to 'come out' as an aspiring vegan and live as much to my family once, but it didn't end well. So now when I get the chance to eat more vegetarian and vegan options, I don't reveal that to my family.
Also this is by the way, but do you have experience being in political movements or organisations? I ask this because I'd also like to propagate my kind of left-libertarianism in my country but I lack political experience. If possible we can discuss this in another place in this forum as this isn't probably the intended place for this.

Learning these arguments comes down to what you're willing to out up with, given the ignorance and frustrating nature of most anti-vegan arguments.

I don't quite understand this statement; can you please elaborate?

Hope I'm not being annoying here, but Red I'm waiting for your response to this post, or have you exhausted what you wanted to tell me?

[Red]

Sorry for missing your post, it's been a busy couple days.

Well I live in an African country; vegan activism exists here, but it's very small and I imagine its growth will bring a lot of carnist pushback that can seriously damage the movement if you're not prudent. I did try to 'come out' as an aspiring vegan and live as much to my family once, but it didn't end well. So now when I get the chance to eat more vegetarian and vegan options, I don't reveal that to my family.

I doubt it's illegal there but I can totally expect some sort of stigma. I think those meals with your family are prime opportunities to introduce them to vegetarian meals; We can tell you abbout food evangalism.

Also this is by the way, but do you have experience being in political movements or organisations? I ask this because I'd also like to propagate my kind of left-libertarianism in my country but I lack political experience. If possible we can discuss this in another place in this forum as this isn't probably the intended place for this.

I don't really get involved in politics aside from voting and talking with political representatives. I'm not sure where you are exactly but it may be a bit risky to engage in that sort of thing. A thread on it would be a good idea.

I have some experience with working with local Vegan organizations though.

Learning these arguments comes down to what you're willing to out up with, given the ignorance and frustrating nature of most anti-vegan arguments.

I don't quite understand this statement; can you please elaborate?

I was mainly referring to if you're willing to A) Put up with dumb arguments from meat eaters, especially from people who really oughta know better, and B) Being willing to take time to gain a passing familiarity with Vegan arguments.

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm not attacking you, but I'm just curious and want to learn more about these things; maybe I can also help you flesh out some of your ideas!

Sometimes we copy our answers here over into starting articles.
We'd welcome contribution to the wiki.

1. Can you further elaborate on your claim 'there's no consistent and non-arbitrary way to exclude non-human animals and substantially include all human animals under moral consideration.'?

Saying "there is no" is frankly shorthand. The burden of proof conventionally lies upon those who wish to deny the moral value of others by providing such a justification for devaluing them.

If you don't agree that the burden of proof lies on those devaluing others, then anybody can come up and say you don't have moral value unless you can prove there's no possible justification for devaluing you and proceed to abuse or kill you (or any marginalized persons) on that basis.

Here's more on Burden of Proof:
wiki/index.php/Burden_Of_Proof

2. I may be jumping the gun here, but your argument and vegan status imply you believe all animals have, at least, serious moral considerations to not eat them. Can you elaborate on this; I ask this because among vegans and vegetarians there are differing views on which criteria - like sentience, consciousness, etc - don't permit people to kill and eat animals with said criteria, and I'm curious about your own take on the matter.

Not all animals. Porifera and Cnidaria are non-sentient. Bivalves as well have lost it. Maybe others.

3. By 'objective morality', you mean a moral realist system, right? If so, why is it implied to be the basis for your metaethics?

At least minimal moral realism. Not sure what you're asking for here. Maybe you can start a thread on it because that's probably a very involved answer.

[truthsearch]

Sorry for missing your post, it's been a busy couple days.

No worries.

I doubt it's illegal there but I can totally expect some sort of stigma. I think those meals with your family are prime opportunities to introduce them to vegetarian meals; We can tell you abbout food evangalism.

Oh it's definitely not illegal here but yes stigma is probably present. Hmmm when I announced to my mum my veganism at dinner where we were eating dinner with egg those years ago she was furious, leading to a bitter quarrel where we argued if I should eat the egg previously mentioned. Eventually she won; that experience was quite nasty thus if I'm wary about doing this food evangelism with my family - especially with my mother. On the other hand, my friends and acquaintences I think are safer.

I don't really get involved in politics aside from voting and talking with political representatives. I'm not sure where you are exactly but it may be a bit risky to engage in that sort of thing. A thread on it would be a good idea.

I have some experience with working with local Vegan organizations though.

Oh ok. I guess I can start a thread on it in the nonvegan philsophy discussion forums here. Can you describe how your experience with local vegan organisations was (and perhaps still is)? In fact, even writing the previous sentence makes me want to ask why you became vegan?

I was mainly referring to if you're willing to A) Put up with dumb arguments from meat eaters, especially from people who really oughta know better, and B) Being willing to take time to gain a passing familiarity with Vegan arguments.

I can do all the things you mentioned; such is the job of philosophers.

[truthsearch]

Saying "there is no" is frankly shorthand. The burden of proof conventionally lies upon those who wish to deny the moral value of others by providing such a justification for devaluing them.

If you don't agree that the burden of proof lies on those devaluing others, then anybody can come up and say you don't have moral value unless you can prove there's no possible justification for devaluing you and proceed to abuse or kill you (or any marginalized persons) on that basis.

Ok, so you're saying in the context of whether to morally devalue a specific group of entities or not, the burden of proof falls on the interlocutor that argues for harming them. This is because anyone can devalue those entities unless one asserts strong justifications to not devalue them. Have I understood you?
Also some other comments to make before we continue:
1. I just read through the burden of proof article in the wiki and I understood very little of it. This is going to take some time to fully digest.
2. What is the ultimate relevance of these burden of proof ideas in the carnism-veganism debate?
There are more comments I'd like to make, but let's not rush things. I feel your ideas so far are beyond mere stone and salad! They're quite complex.

[Red]

Oh it's definitely not illegal here but yes stigma is probably present. Hmmm when I announced to my mum my veganism at dinner where we were eating dinner with egg those years ago she was furious, leading to a bitter quarrel where we argued if I should eat the egg previously mentioned. Eventually she won; that experience was quite nasty thus if I'm wary about doing this food evangelism with my family - especially with my mother. On the other hand, my friends and acquaintences I think are safer.

Yeah it's best not to do that *right* in the middle of them consuming animal products; That's just about the worst time to inform someone of the ethical implications of animal product consumption.

Most people involved in animal rights don't have much success with their families, and it seems like a lot of damage has been done already, so my advice is just to move on, though I know how difficult it is, living in a household with people who don't respect your lifestyle because you've chosen a path of ethics. Best to tough it out until you're able to move out, and hope one day they'll change their tune.

Friends and acquaintances, as you mentioned, are much easier to get on your side, and if possible don't be afraid to engage in activities such as leafleting, and donating to effective animal rights charities such as the Good Food Institute.

Oh ok. I guess I can start a thread on it in the nonvegan philsophy discussion forums here.

Please do. I am interested in learning more about the politics of your country.

Can you describe how your experience with local vegan organisations was (and perhaps still is)?

For now mostly I've been doing it online by emailing companies and contacting representatives about the issue. Most of my activism I'm planning as a solo-act, with more Youtube videos and an upcoming lecture, Yourofsky-style.

In fact, even writing the previous sentence makes me want to ask why you became vegan?

Isn't a very interesting story really. I watched slaughterhouse videos which made me question meat consumption, went mostly vegetarian for a few years, then just decided enough was enough and went Vegan. However, it wasn't until after I went Vegan that I decided to learn more about ethics and the science behind it.

I can do all the things you mentioned; such is the job of philosophers.

If you want to avail yourself of all of the philosophical stuff, that's great, but I think for most interactions you just need a solid foundation from which to levy your activism.

[brimstoneSalad]

Ok, so you're saying in the context of whether to morally devalue a specific group of entities or not, the burden of proof falls on the interlocutor that argues for harming them. This is because anyone can devalue those entities unless one asserts strong justifications to not devalue them. Have I understood you?

The burden of proof is upon those arguing for doing harm if we follow something like the precautionary principle. We need to assume an entity has moral value worth consideration if there's any way to consider it, unless there's evidence to the contrary.

So we should abstain from harming animals unless there's a reason to believe harming animals is necessary for human wellbeing (in which case there's a conflict of interest), but as it stands animal agriculture and the practice of carnism generally contributes to several existential risks from disease to climate change... so there's not much argument that animal agriculture/carnism is in the interest of protecting human beings in the vast majority of cases.

2. What is the ultimate relevance of these burden of proof ideas in the carnism-veganism debate?

Dismantling justifications for carnism is easy and relatively simple compared to making the more substantial constructive arguments around moral realism and the necessary nature of morality to get to veganism.

It makes the debate pretty quick and painless. The alternative is a rather lengthy journey.