Philosophical Vegan Forum

Volenta wrote: Why do you think it's an appeal to natural fallacy by the way?

I think he was using an appeal to nature fallacy to justify his speciesism. Either that we're evolutionarily hard-wired to prefer our own species, or that it's more evolutionarily advantageous to do so.

Volenta wrote: Without rebutting this one, everything goes. Maybe he heard of speciesism, but he doesn't understand it, otherwise he surely would agree (he might be confused like Sam Harris also is). It clearly shows that he doesn't understand it because of his point about extending human rights to non-human animals. He thinks it doesn't make sense, and that's probably because he's thinking about rights like the right to vote. From that it follows that he doesn't understand how rights should be ascribed (should also be noted that rights isn't really a thing in consequentialist ethics). So I think there need to be some clarification on what it actually is.

Even if we explain it, there's a good chance he still won't understand it.

I'd rather focus on things that he clearly can understand, and that we can draw a parallel to with regards to his criticism of others to demonstrate hypocrisy. If we don't have a clear parallel to speciesism in his criticism of religion or other woo, I think it will be a weak argument in his mind.

Note before, where I said it doesn't matter how good your arguments are; it's the effect that matters. Unfortunately, sometimes you have to leave your best and most consistent arguments on the bench because people simply won't understand them or won't see why they should care about them.

The point about rights not really being a thing is a good one; I think that's something that most vegans also don't understand. Rights are human constructs that can be useful for a variety reasons, but aside from their consequences are ethically irrelevant. That's one reason I wouldn't bring them up now though; it's possibly too confusing for him.

However, there is a chance that explaining that to him will make things less confusing. It depends on how we do it, I suppose.

Volenta wrote: In the case of suffering, you can make a really good case about why it's so important to try to avoid it. Most people don't know that pain is mainly processed in ancient brain structures and not in the neocortex (which is big in humans), and thus the interest of avoiding pain should be taken (approximately) just as serious as to avoid pain in humans.

This is an important point, but I think it may be one he already understands.

It's worth mentioning, I think, after the two main points, I'm just not sure it's useful as a major point because either he already gets it, or he may not understand it even now.

Volenta wrote: Not only that, but I also got the impression that this is his main defense for continuing to eat animals. I don't think he's a meat eater because he thinks it's healthy to do so. That's more of a side note.

That may be. I just caught that as the main point to dissent with, because it was so blatantly hypocritical.
But this point, particularly if you think it's his main point (I took this as a "by the way"), could be very important too, and also has a strong element of hypocrisy to it.

I think these two points, side by side, should make up equal parts, and maybe 2/3 of the article. They will be the strongest arguments, because those are the ones that are personally relevant, since he has been demonstrably hypocritical on those.
The last part of the article should probably be a rapid fire list of points (really short and simple, with references). Things that either he already knows and needs to be reminded of, or if he doesn't and already ignores won't be very useful since he will dismiss them as he has done in the past.

E.g.

Speciesism
Rights
Global warming (and effects on humans)

Kind of like a "and here's all the other stuff you're wrong about or are ignoring, but haven't necessarily been overtly hypocritical on"

@brimstoneSalad
Regarding the point about rights, Matt stated that he thinks vegans wouldn't agree with him, but that it works for him. Here you could create a somewhat 'shocking effect', since he's lowering his reason capacity in drastic amounts, just like he used to do when he was still a believer on the truth of his religion. He's somewhat stating it like it's just a matter of opinion, and that would be flat out wrong. None of us is a moral subjectivist.

miniboes wrote:There are four main motives for veganism; ethics, the environment, the world food problem and health. In this letter we will touch mainly on the ethics and health, as the first is most compelling to us and the latter is a ground upon which many rebuttals to veganism are based. The other two aspects can be summarized quite briefly. Firstly, 51% of GHG emissions come from the meat and dairy industries[1], suggesting that skipping on meat and dairy might be the single most effective method of reducing your GHG footprint. Secondly, the use of animals for producing food is very ineffective; for the same amount of food much more water is used and many grains and soy beans are fed to animals rather than to people. To illustrate, 47% of soy and 60% of corn are used to feed animals[2] and more than 6 tons of rice could be produced for the water cost of one ton of beef[3].

I wouldn't explain the other reasons. I think it's better to completely leave out this paragraph, because our main focus should be rebutting his statements on the Atheist Experience show.

miniboes wrote:Somewhere ate the end of your conversation with the vegan that called in you said "The people who claim that I have an ethical burden to not eat meat have a case to make." If your neighbor would torture a man, causing great suffering for said man, you would probably deem that action immoral until he presents his case. We view this issue the same way; the practice of consuming animal products causes suffering, therefore it is immoral until a good reason to do so is presented. The result is the default position of veganism.

It's not that you deem an action immoral in advance. When deeming an action to be either moral or immoral, you're taking the burden of proof on you. So when you're putting a behavior into action—like eating meat—it is your task to explain why it is not immoral to do so. The only reason why veganism should be a default position is because of what's at stake when you're wrong about it. In practice this doesn't really work this way, because people aren't so willing to reflect on their action, and thus need to be convinced of the contrary. I'm not really sure we need to include this point, because it doesn't help that much.

miniboes wrote:A quick side-note; we are completely fine with the consumption of lab-produced meat, provided that no sentient beings suffer for more indirect reasons. We would still dis-recommend it, however, as meat has negative effects on health.

I think it's useful to explicitly state that it then becomes a personal choice. We do not have any moral objection to it if one would decide to eat in-vitro meat.

miniboes wrote:The only natural consumption of dairy is mother's milk, after that the body stops producing the hormones that allow for lactose consumption.

Watch out that you yourself aren't making an appeal to nature fallacy.

miniboes wrote:Although you agree (at least, you did a couple of years ago) that the methods of obtaining meat, dairy and eggs are unethical you seem to be of the opinion that this does not make the act of consuming animal products inherently unethical. Although this might be true, the reality is that this is how the products are obtained and by consuming the products you support those methods. Having someone do work for you is not inherently unethical, but if we're talking about forced labor without any reward that includes abuse (slavery) this act can be considered unethical. Whether or not the act is inherently unethical is irrelevant to the actual ethical implications of the act.

You could also point out that he should be a vegan until the time comes that he considers it to be ethical again. He talked about practical realities, but the only practical reality that is relevant here is that 99%> of the practices by which animal products are obtained do cause lots of suffering and death.

Slavery is more complex than just forced labor without rewards. It's essentially more about ownership. So it's better to leave out the word 'slavery'.

miniboes wrote:You also mentioned that if we give animals the right to not be slaughtered and used for what comes out of their private parts it could be logical that more rights follow. We assume you are talking about rights that an animal has absolutely no use for, like the right to vote or the right to own property. In contrast to the right not to be property and not to be used, animals have no interest in having these rights and having these rights would not improve their well-being. It would make absolutely no sense to extend these rights to them, and to suggest this is a necessary consequence would be a slippery slope fallacy.

'The right not to be property' might be controversial, because of dogs and cats as pets.

You can point out that rights should be ascribed when there are interests and having the capabilities to make use of it. Non-human animals are capable of experiencing pain and have an interest in not to be harmed, so it make perfectly sense to give them a right not to be harmed. A right to vote does not make sense, because they aren't capable of making a meaningful decision about it.

I think you all have some excellent points and I don't have anything to add. Although I hope Matt replies it would really surprise me if he does. At the end of the clip, he mentions that the vegan issue is low on his list of priorities. Surely if he is the type of person who reviews his own episodes, he must have already realized the fallacy of many of his comments. However, the admittance of these errors would have to be accompanied by a significant life style change which is why I think he will take the easy exit route and just ignore the whole issue.

Jebus wrote:I think you all have some excellent points and I don't have anything to add. Although I hope Matt replies it would really surprise me if he does. At the end of the clip, he mentions that the vegan issue is low on his list of priorities. Surely if he is the type of person who reviews his own episodes, he must have already realized the fallacy of many of his comments. However, the admittance of these errors would have to be accompanied by a significant life style change which is why I think he will take the easy exit route and just ignore the whole issue.

If we can get him to recognize that he was wrong and that there actually is no moral justification for consuming animal products, then we already achieved a lot. I don't expect him to give up his habits, although it would make sense because of his support in other injustice issues. If we get him in the same position as Richard Dawkins, there is probably not much more we can do.

Volenta wrote: I wouldn't explain the other reasons. I think it's better to completely leave out this paragraph, because our main focus should be rebutting his statements on the Atheist Experience show.

I was thinking maybe more like a footnote at the end, but leaving out entirely could work too.

As Jebus said, too, Matt doesn't give a shit about animals. However, I think he does care about not being a hypocrite, and being personally intellectually honest. So, if we point out the areas in which he is wrong and being a hypocrite (without appealing to anything else he doesn't care about) we probably have the best chance of getting a response.

Volenta wrote: So when you're putting a behavior into action—like eating meat—it is your task to explain why it is not immoral to do so.

Unless you have not claimed either to be a moral person, or to care about morality at all. A nihilist does not have this burden of proof, because they have not made the implicit claim that the action is moral.

Matt may be taking the position that the burden of proof lies on those advocating a change of behavior, and that tradition and social normalcy is basically exempt from the burden of proof, but in that case, he'd have to grant the same to religion and god belief.

This could be another important point to highlight, due to that second possibility.

So, how about three sections?

1. His denial of the scientific consensus (as I went into quite a bit)
2. The Shark thing (Volenta brought up, and I expanded on)
3. Burden of proof (As Volenta explained, with the exceptions I mentioned)

That would be a pretty solid criticism. And we can demonstrate his hypocrisy on each point (and should probably find quotes of his, and theistic opposition).

Volenta wrote: I think it's useful to explicitly state that it then becomes a personal choice. We do not have any moral objection to it if one would decide to eat in-vitro meat.
You could also point out that he should be a vegan until the time comes that he considers it to be ethical again. He talked about practical realities, but the only practical reality that is relevant here is that 99%> of the practices by which animal products are obtained do cause lots of suffering and death.

Those could be useful side points.

Volenta wrote: 'The right not to be property' might be controversial, because of dogs and cats as pets.

I don't think rights based arguments are going to be very effective in general. But neither are their counter-arguments useful:

Volenta wrote: You can point out that rights should be ascribed when there are interests and having the capabilities to make use of it. Non-human animals are capable of experiencing pain and have an interest in not to be harmed, so it make perfectly sense to give them a right not to be harmed. A right to vote does not make sense, because they aren't capable of making a meaningful decision about it.

All species of animals could have the right to vote, and drive, just as any human does (particularly, a mentally retarded human).
If they can register to vote, punch the hole, and put it in the box, let them at it.
Same thing with driving instruction and classes; if they want to pay for and pass the driving test, give them a license- why not?

We already have measures in place for the percentage of the HUMAN population that are incapable of responsibly using those rights.
The argument that we can't give other animals the right to vote is useless, because we can and it wouldn't make any difference, except maybe for a few of our fellow higher primates.

Anyway, rights are a matter of political application, and have little or nothing to do with morality.

brimstoneSalad wrote:3. Burden of proof (As Volenta explained, with the exceptions I mentioned)

Do you think this one is important enough to address?

brimstoneSalad wrote:I don't think rights based arguments are going to be very effective in general.

I agree.

brimstoneSalad wrote:All species of animals could have the right to vote, and drive, just as any human does (particularly, a mentally retarded human).
If they can register to vote, punch the hole, and put it in the box, let them at it.
Same thing with driving instruction and classes; if they want to pay for and pass the driving test, give them a license- why not?

It doesn't exactly work this way. There are always certain restrictions or requirements proposed that have to be met. And those can only be met when the subject has the capabilities to do so. In the case of driving for example: in the USA a human being should be at least 16 years old. Is a 15 year old not competent enough to get through the exam? No, it all has to do with safety and responsibility. When the responsibility isn't high enough to meet the safety requirements (and for pragmatic reasons this is coupled to age in humans), you don't have a right to drive.

brimstoneSalad wrote:We already have measures in place for the percentage of the HUMAN population that are incapable of responsibly using those rights.

And thus their rights are taken away from them. (maybe the disagreement is semantic?)

Volenta wrote: Do you think this one is important enough to address?

I think so, yes, particularly since we can point out a distinct hypocrisy by comparing to his treatment of theists doing the same thing.

Volenta wrote: (maybe the disagreement is semantic?)

Most disagreements are. You have the right to opportunity, in a sense; an equal opportunity before the law, but you have to fulfill certain requirements on your own to realize those opportunities.

The important thing is, that even if you technically gave all species equal rights in every regard, that wouldn't mean you'd have mice driving cars or penguins voting. Even if they're technically allowed to (is a dog allowed to play basketball as the movies suggest?), it wouldn't be realized because of lack of competence in those areas.

Thanks for the feedback, I'll write an improved version soon (tm), as I have little time at the moment. I've made a little overview:

- Explain why we ought not to be speciecist in our situation (mentally disabled analogy)
- Address shark argument
- Address humane industry point
- Mention environmental and world food problem aspects as footnote
- Focus on argument against his position and exposing fallacies
- Rebuttal meat>starving and health arguments in advance
- Many vegans accept legitimate health concerns, exceptions do not make meat consumption a non-issue
- address win-lose scenario by pointing out scientific consensus
- imrpove upon burden of proof point
- format: 1. His denial of the scientific consensus (as I went into quite a bit)
2. The Shark thing (Volenta brought up, and I expanded on)
3. Burden of proof (As Volenta explained, with the exceptions I mentioned)
4. sidenotes (Speciesism, Rights, Global warming (and effects on humans))


Anything else?

Volenta wrote:

miniboes wrote:The only natural consumption of dairy is mother's milk, after that the body stops producing the hormones that allow for lactose consumption.

Watch out that you yourself aren't making an appeal to nature fallacy.

I was just trying to point out that even by the standard of looking at what is natural the consumption of dairy is wrong, so even if he rejects that the appeal to nature is fallacious he would have to agree with not consuming dairy.

miniboes wrote:4. sidenotes (Speciesism, Rights, Global warming (and effects on humans))

I'm a bit worried that the side- or footnotes are becoming to large (in ratio to the letter itself). Also, if you aren't carefully working out these points because you want to keep it short, it might not cover everything and makes it more likely to be rebutted by Dillahunty.

miniboes wrote:I was just trying to point out that even by the standard of looking at what is natural the consumption of dairy is wrong, so even if he rejects that the appeal to nature is fallacious he would have to agree with not consuming dairy.

Sure, but I wouldn't go along with that kind of reasoning at all, since it's fallacious and doesn't serve any purpose. If it turns out that he's really stuck in being a paleo diet supporter it might help—but even then, the lactose intolerance in humans has decreased over the ages, so I'm not sure where that will end. So it's better to only rip apart the foundation if you'd ask me.

I agree with Volenta, anything extra should be carefully limited (best to provide credible links and let others argue it).



Here's an outline idea:

Dear Matt Dillahunty,

You have expressed in the past your relative indifference to the issue of the treatment of non-human animals, and we understand this apathy. If you don't care about something, we can't make you care.
We neither expect you to 'go vegan', nor intend this letter to have that effect.

This is not about animals, and it's not about veganism; this is about your bad arguments made in defense of your eating meat. Bad arguments that are hypocritical in light of your claims to respecting science and intellectual honesty -- which is something you should certainly care about.

We would encourage you to, at least, take a leaf out of Dawkins' book on this subject in the future: If you don't have anything rational to say, don't say anything at all.


[quote from Dawkins about eating meat being indefensible and him having no excuse except that he's a product of the society he lives in, as Thomas Jefferson hated slavery and kept slaves]

This letter is primarily in response to your arguments on a not-terribly-recent The Atheist Experience, from [date].

Here's a link for reference: [link]

We fully recognize that this may, by now, be a straw Matt, and your positions may have evolved, but due to your reluctance to comment on or discuss the issue it's hard to find an updated record of your view on this, so we're going by what we have.

Point 1: Overtly rejecting scientific consensus based on personal ignorance of science.

[quote from Matt]

[cholesterol skeptics, conspiracy theorists]

[Moral relevance of health claims]

[the explanation of evolution he doesn't deserve]

Point 2: The most creatively absurd non sequitur; a shark can eat you?

[quote from Matt]


Point 3: Shifting the burden of proof based on tradition/popularity

[quote from Matt]


The best of us are not immune from our moments of occasional irrationality, particularly when cognitive dissonance rears its ugly head and compels us to defend our actions even when they are indefensible.

If we are intellectually honest, however, we will be able to overcome that urge, and simply admit that the behavior is wrong. Whether we actually change our behavior in realization of that fact, in our pursuits to be better human beings, is a matter of personal choice.

That's your choice, Matt, and that's entirely up to you.

But we don't get to chose our facts and make them up as we go to suit our preferences; that's the M.O. of the quacks and theists you nobly battle against, and it would be nothing short of hypocritical for you to draw from the same bag when some matter of reality comes up against your own beliefs and preconceptions.