Philosophical Vegan Forum

brimstoneSalad wrote:Although the mountains of actual science should be plenty to debunk claims of well planned vegan diets being inadequate, the layman grasps concepts better with examples/counterexamples to preconceptions than reason.

This is something I constantly grapple with. I WANT people to make decisions based on reason, but this is just not how we operate most of the time (the book Thinking, Fast and Slow comes to mind). It's why a video of a little pig being adorably puppy-like is infinitely more shareable than even the most well-constructed argument.

And while more feel-good appeals may attract more people initially, how long does it last? It seems like I see the same cycle over and over again: someone goes vegan for weight loss or because "pigs are cute!" >>> they enjoy the pink cloud status of the newly-converted >>> they struggle because of health problems (because they never learned proper vegan nutrition) or they learn about paleo and how "natural" it is (because they went vegan based on stupid claims like "it's natural" and "meat makes you aggressive") >>> they stop being vegan.

There's probably a middle ground approach that utilizes both rational and emotional appeals. Or maybe none of it really matters. Maybe people just believe what they want to believe lol

unnatural vegan wrote: This is something I constantly grapple with. I WANT people to make decisions based on reason, but this is just not how we operate most of the time (the book Thinking, Fast and Slow comes to mind). It's why a video of a little pig being adorably puppy-like is infinitely more shareable than even the most well-constructed argument.

I don't think it's just that.

One thing to consider is the old saying "you can't be reasoned out of something you didn't reason yourself into in the first place" (this isn't always true, but is in practice often enough for this to be a thing).
Carnism isn't a rational philosophy, nobody has legitimately (following any credible line of logic or evidence) reasoned that eating meat is a good thing to be doing.

Meat eating is an action ruled by cognitive dissonance. It is usually only once a person stops eating meat for other reasons (like an emotional argument that breaks down the walls, or possibly a celebrity), that he or she becomes susceptible to reasoned arguments because the need to rationalize the practice is gone (or at least reduced).
Bear in mind, that's most people. Since most people aren't particularly rational or capable of critical thinking when something goes against their preconceptions and preferences (which unfortunately also includes most Skeptics *cough*Dillahunty*cough*).

unnatural vegan wrote: And while more feel-good appeals may attract more people initially, how long does it last? It seems like I see the same cycle over and over again: someone goes vegan for weight loss or because "pigs are cute!" >>> they enjoy the pink cloud status of the newly-converted >>> they struggle because of health problems (because they never learned proper vegan nutrition) or they learn about paleo and how "natural" it is (because they went vegan based on stupid claims like "it's natural" and "meat makes you aggressive") >>> they stop being vegan.

It doesn't last long. Recidivism is somewhere between 70%-90% within two years (if I recall correctly).

Bad arguments and bad practice certainly do set people up for failure.

It's not just those bad arguments you mentioned, though, a large force in seemingly more sophisticated vegan moral 'philosophy' is also deeply flawed.

If you have time, have a look at this thread:
https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... ?f=7&t=785

When relatively highly regarded and popular vegan philosophers are peddling weak arguments like these founded on dogma and superstitious beliefs, every vegan who looks to those so called authorities presents a flaw in the foundation.

In my view, we don't have much hope of appealing to the average layman outside veganism with intellectual argument if we can't even clean house within.

unnatural vegan wrote:There's probably a middle ground approach that utilizes both rational and emotional appeals. Or maybe none of it really matters. Maybe people just believe what they want to believe lol

From a rational perspective, the most effective approach seems to be to undo the deontological preconceptions, negotiate the subject into a consequentialist position, get the subject to understand why science is important and how consensus works, and then lay on the facts.
It's quite an effort, teaching people things they should have learned in middle school but didn't even pick up in university. With skeptics, sometimes you save a step because they ostensibly accept science, but then again you're very likely to be surprised by the ignorance there too (like Dillahunty).

All of that only works if the subject will stick around long enough to get schooled -- which most subjects are usually disinclined to.

From the emotional perspective, you usually have to shock them with disturbing visuals. But that requires a captive audience in some sense, which is usually not viable unless you have some preexisting rapport. One on one isn't very efficient: and that's where celebrities come in. People like to imagine they have some kind of rapport with idolized celebrities, and that may be enough to get them to watch some of these videos. Or even just go vegan for superficial reasons BUT also becoming susceptible to actual reason while vegan for those other reasons due to those walls of cognitive dissonance being incidentally down (if somebody manages to reach them with good arguments within that narrow window).

I'm not going to jump up and down from happiness, but how could it not be a good thing if millions of fans think their idol turns vegan? It raises attention to veganism, and even if the celebrity and the majority of her fans don't stay vegan, at least meat consumption was reduced during a brief period in time.

Most people I am surrounded by don't have the attention span or intelligence to listen through my best arguments for veganism. Hearing about someone like Beyonce reducing her meat consumption may be the only way to get them to take the same initiative.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Meat eating is an action ruled by cognitive dissonance. It is usually only once a person stops eating meat for other reasons (like an emotional argument that breaks down the walls, or possibly a celebrity), that he or she becomes susceptible to reasoned arguments because the need to rationalize the practice is gone (or at least reduced).

Bear in mind, that's most people. Since most people aren't particularly rational or capable of critical thinking when something goes against their preconceptions and preferences (which unfortunately also includes most Skeptics *cough*Dillahunty*cough*).

Great point, although I didn't get the reference. I have no idea who "Dillahunty" is.

brimstoneSalad wrote: It's not just those bad arguments you mentioned, though, a large force in seemingly more sophisticated vegan moral 'philosophy' is also deeply flawed.

If you have time, have a look at this thread:
https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... ?f=7&t=785

When relatively highly regarded and popular vegan philosophers are peddling weak arguments like these founded on dogma and superstitious beliefs, every vegan who looks to those so called authorities presents a flaw in the foundation.

In my view, we don't have much hope of appealing to the average layman outside veganism with intellectual argument if we can't even clean house within.

Francione's reasoning is so childlike. It appears he is starting from "veganism is right" and "animal welfare is wrong" and creating a philosophy from those preceding beliefs. Then vegans promote it because it's easier, i.e. using an animal is wrong. Period. End of discussion.

And I really liked what you said here in that thread regarding animal use (or "exploitation" as either Gary would put it):

"Only the most paranoid, petty, and psychologically unbalanced people care that somebody else "used" them, when that use was merely incidental and not malicious. It's very unlikely that any non-human animals have the elaborate and convoluted mental landscape to be that irrational. They don't care that we're using them, they care that we're hurting them."

brimstoneSalad wrote: From a rational perspective, the most effective approach seems to be to undo the deontological preconceptions, negotiate the subject into a consequentialist position, get the subject to understand why science is important and how consensus works, and then lay on the facts.
It's quite an effort, teaching people things they should have learned in middle school but didn't even pick up in university. With skeptics, sometimes you save a step because they ostensibly accept science, but then again you're very likely to be surprised by the ignorance there too (like Dillahunty).

Plus, many self-proclaimed skeptics are merely conspiracy theorists, e.g. the anti-vaccine and anti-gmo movements.

brimstoneSalad wrote:From the emotional perspective, you usually have to shock them with disturbing visuals.

May I ask for your view on using disturbing imagery to shock people? Also, what about approaches like Direct Action Everywhere's #disruptspeciesism video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfRMeU6pQ8

I have a hard time seeing these approaches as anything other than manipulative and obnoxious, but perhaps they have their place.

unnatural vegan wrote: Great point, although I didn't get the reference. I have no idea who "Dillahunty" is.

Matt Dillahunty is a prominent figure in the Atheist/Skeptic community. Slightly less popular/well known than PZ Myers, who is slightly less popular than Richard Dawkins. He was the predominant host of "The Atheist Experience" a call-in show based out of Austin.

Here's an open letter we wrote to him on the forum. The formatting is a little broken. TheVeganAtheist has a youtube channel, and he did a reading of the letter there (which is in three parts embedded on that page, after the intro, and before the full text).
https://theveganatheist.com/an-open-let ... illahunty/

I recommend you check out some of "The Atheist Experience" on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAtheistExperience

The most important thing to know about Matt is that he claims to be an advocate of rational secular morality. He has done a number of talks on it (some of which seem to be linked there on that youtube channel), and he's probably second only to Sam Harris in regard to his public advocacy on the topic.

unnatural vegan wrote:Francione's reasoning is so childlike. It appears he is starting from "veganism is right" and "animal welfare is wrong" and creating a philosophy from those preceding beliefs. Then vegans promote it because it's easier, i.e. using an animal is wrong. Period. End of discussion.

Close, it's a little more nuanced than that; Francione actually rejects consequentialism, and follows Deontology (roughly in the Kantian tradition -- are you familiar?).
So, more likely he started from the premise of crazy (based on his bizarre metaphysical beliefs), and then 'reasoned' that animal welfare was wrong from there, if what he does can be called reasoning.

unnatural vegan wrote:And I really liked what you said here in that thread regarding animal use (or "exploitation" as either Gary would put it):

Thanks!

unnatural vegan wrote: Plus, many self-proclaimed skeptics are merely conspiracy theorists, e.g. the anti-vaccine and anti-gmo movements.

True, maybe I should have clarified. Skeptics, with a capital "S", as in the skeptic movement (which doesn't embrace 'skepticism' on vaccinations or climate change). That is, scientific skepticism (although by far not all of them are consistently scientific, like the Quack Harriet Hall, who believes all sorts of conspiracy theories and nonsense about nutrition and just accidentally happens to support vaccinations).

http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/getinvolved.html
Mainly those three organizations make up the movement.
http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto/
Far too much text in a long and I assume detailed explanation of what Skepticism is and isn't (as a rule I try to read everything I link to, but I just skipped around there).

unnatural vegan wrote: May I ask for your view on using disturbing imagery to shock people? Also, what about approaches like Direct Action Everywhere's #disruptspeciesism video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmfRMeU6pQ8

I have a hard time seeing these approaches as anything other than manipulative and obnoxious, but perhaps they have their place.

I take a pretty strict agnostic stance on the subject of utility, until I see evidence of efficacy, or the inverse. It's not clear to me how these things affect public perception, or if they do more good or more harm.

Most people who do things like this are following a faith based activism plan, where they just assume what they're doing is useful or good for the movement, and they're not usually very amenable to reason on the subject (particularly lacking hard data), so I usually leave it alone.

However, if somebody will actually listen, I will encourage him or her to use forms of outreach which are actually known to be effective.
These guys have the right idea: http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/

This, of course, for the same reason that if you have cancer, you get actual medicine which is proven effective, rather than jumping for the bizarre rain forest herb some shaman said would cure you.
Maybe the weird herb will cure your cancer, but probably not. Known effective methods are not very effective (which is why people get desperate), but they're the best we currently have evidence of. It's extremely important to do analysis on whatever outreach methods are attempted.
I would encourage people to experiment with whatever legal methods they can IF they're going to analyze the efficacy of those methods using legitimate means with a mind to research and discovery.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Here's an open letter we wrote to him on the forum. The formatting is a little broken. TheVeganAtheist has a youtube channel, and he did a reading of the letter there (which is in three parts embedded on that page, after the intro, and before the full text).
https://theveganatheist.com/an-open-let ... illahunty/

That's awesome, thanks.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Close, it's a little more nuanced than that; Francione actually rejects consequentialism, and follows Deontology (roughly in the Kantian tradition -- are you familiar?).

Yes, I'm familiar. A professor once explained Kantian ethics with this example: A son is wrongly accused of a crime. He asks his mother, who knows for a fact that he is innocent, to lie about his whereabouts when the police inevitably arrive. Since lying is immoral no matter the context, it would be wrong for the mother to lie to the police. That's when I knew Kant (and deontology) was crazy-sauce.

brimstoneSalad wrote:So, more likely he started from the premise of crazy (based on his bizarre metaphysical beliefs), and then 'reasoned' that animal welfare was wrong from there, if what he does can be called reasoning.

Oh, that's even better!

brimstoneSalad wrote:I take a pretty strict agnostic stance on the subject of utility, until I see evidence of efficacy, or the inverse. It's not clear to me how these things affect public perception, or if they do more good or more harm.

Most people who do things like this are following a faith based activism plan, where they just assume what they're doing is useful or good for the movement, and they're not usually very amenable to reason on the subject (particularly lacking hard data), so I usually leave it alone.

Makes sense.

brimstoneSalad wrote:However, if somebody will actually listen, I will encourage him or her to use forms of outreach which are actually known to be effective.
These guys have the right idea: http://www.animalcharityevaluators.org/

That's great, thank you!

brimstoneSalad wrote:This, of course, for the same reason that if you have cancer, you get actual medicine which is proven effective, rather than jumping for the bizarre rain forest herb some shaman said would cure you.

Maybe the weird herb will cure your cancer, but probably not. Known effective methods are not very effective (which is why people get desperate), but they're the best we currently have evidence of. It's extremely important to do analysis on whatever outreach methods are attempted.

I would encourage people to experiment with whatever legal methods they can IF they're going to analyze the efficacy of those methods using legitimate means with a mind to research and discovery.

Thanks so much for taking the time to respond.

unnatural vegan wrote: Thanks so much for taking the time to respond.

Any time! And thanks again for joining.

Please don't hesitate to post other videos with issues you'd like to discuss or have feedback on.

Also, I PMed you.