Open Letter to Matt

[Jebus]

Excellent Brimstone!!!

[brimstoneSalad]

Thanks Jebus.

Here's a transcript of the first part, starting at 4:57. I focused on Matt's words, skipped some of the caller.

Yeah, it does kind of come down to where you decide to draw the line
because even even if even for ethical vegans I know plenty of ethical vegans who would have no problem at all you know swatting a fly squishing a bug and yet these are still you know alive as well
um uh my I have I I think in general um from a moral position we're we're kind of in the same boat um I have obviously slightly different views because you're right I'm not a vegan I'm an omnivore and I am um biased toward my species and I draw an arbitrary line there and I draw other arbitrary lines uhm you know first of all I'm not in favor um of... animal cruelty and and people will say well if you're not against d- if you're not for animal cruelty then you should be a vegan because it's cruel to kill an animal
well yes but I think that I I think that there's a a humane responsible way to do it
if you want to make if you want to say I should be on board to making changes to the meat farming and manufacture uh industry
I'm on board with that, I'm in favor of making changes, but I also recognize that there's practical realities um
I don't extend the same moral rights to non-humans that I extend to humans uhm
and I think that is... I don't want to call it a fallacy, but it's a difference in in the philosophical position between ethical vegans and those who aren't, yet maintain some of the same ethical principles
and the core of this is that uhm you're right it would be nice if we never did harm to another living thing and therefore should probably not eat meat but it would also be nide nice if we extended a lot of other human rights to other animals as well and that that follows logically along from the same path that I think you've started with uhm but it doesn't really make sense to me in any kind of practical way at all I'm fine with recognizing that there's a difference between humans and non-humans and I'm fine with being biased toward my species
and the what I am willing to do though is afford the same rights to eat me to the animals that I eat um I'm I'm I'm when a shark uh decides to attack me because it's hungry and wants some food I'm not going to say it's immoral or unethical of the shark it's it's it's the natural way that sharks are
I realize that to most ethical vegans that is a lame copout uhm but I'm fine with it actually and and I you know I've had lots of discussions you're not the first person to call in to ask or even write in an e-mail to ask you know why aren't you a vegan if you're an atheist why aren't you a vegan and I'm glad you pointed out that one has nothing to do with the other because that was going to be my first response
uh
based on on that that you know that there's no I mean you you could be an atheist and you know uh ...[unclear]... mass murderer

[caller:[...] a shark by necessity has to be a carnivore it has to eat meat you know and I guess with humans we don't have to eat the meat"]

So so let me ask let me ask you this and this this question actually comes from Russel he raised it last night at a party um
you're familiar with uhhh star trek right?
[caller:vaguely]
So lets say let's say that we develop a future technology where we're able to molecularly synthesize meat
no animal had to die but it's now meat are you OK eating that now?
[caller:no I'm not]
Why not?
[caller:Because the health benefits of not eating meat far outweigh the benefits of eating it]

And see I feel the exact opposite uhm I feel that the health benefits of eating meat far outweigh the benefits of not eating meat I also recognize that we're all speaking from an extremely spoiled priv privileged position uhh whether or not th this idea that you you know you have access to all these wonderful foods from all over the place because you live in the the wealthiest county uh in the world and and and we're in a privileged position as a superpower you have access to all kinds of things um there are people for whom eth ethics don't even enter into it it is essentially a necessity that they continue uh to eat meat because that's what's available and by the way there are plenty of people starving meat or not and my only response is that if we're going to prioritize things um creating a world where we're not killing animals for food isn't really on my priority list

End of part one.

[miniboes]

By the way, I love the idea of doing projects like this as a forum. Very cool initiative brimstone!

[brimstoneSalad]

Here's the other half:

[Caller:[...]Might doesn't make right
I don't think we should eat the animals just because we can]

That's not what I said that's not what I'm advocating I'm not saying because we can do it we should

[caller:[...]what are you saying?]

I'm not claiming might makes right
I'm not claiming that it's ethically right
or an ethical obligation or duty uhm
or that because I can go you know kill a chicken and cook it that I should
I'm not that's not what I'm saying at all
I'm saying that in my case uh
my position is the default position for me is that I'm going to eat meat until somebody can demonstrate a reason why I shouldn't
it's not a might makes right
It's this this is the default
it it's the people who claim that I have an ethical burden to not eat meat that have the case to make

[caller:[...]the environmental reasons are overwhelming]

really? LIke what? I mean because you know when we send people out um to hunt and kill for sport in order to reduce animal populations in order to protect an ecosystem uhm might as well eat those is it unethical to eat roadkill I mean I realize it's probably unhealthy but

[caller:[...]why is the roadkill there to begin with?
It's because we impinged on the animals environment and we ran them over]

is it unethical to eat an animal that dies because of natural causes

[caller:no it's not unethical but again this goes back to to my argument that-]

no, no it doesn't go back to your argument
that the the key there is that as soon as you say it's not unethical to eat an animal that died of natural causes now you've you've entered into a slightly different area because now you're saying it's not the consumption of animals that is unethical but the method by which you go about acquiring the animals that's unethical
And I'm already on board with with changes in that area

[caller:[...]it is unhealthy I mean if you look on the American heart association's website they have numerous instances where they list that diets that contain meat are more unhealthy than plant based diets]

I I simply don't believe it remotely and it's eh I can answer with one word: evolution
we evolved as an omnivorous species
our diet
just the fact that you can supplement for meat
that you can take vitamins to make up for what you're not getting in meat
or you may be able to find specific vegetables and and nuts and things that can provide you with those
um
that that is as I mentioned part of being living in a spoiled society
if if you were living uh you know hundreds of years ago or or perhaps less or in some other area of the world now you wouldn't have the option to have a properly healthy diet that doesn't include meat but also there's the problem that just because you can eliminate meat or reasonably substitute the nutritional value that you get from meat doesn't mean that you necessarily should or that it's equivalent or better

[skipped 3:53-5:51]

But I do want to say that it's I'm not indifferent to your position or your argument um I don't think that ethical vegans are out on a crazy limb and I don't think that they're bad people I just don't happen to share share that particular view I and I don't necessarily consider myself unethical for not sharing it.

[Jebus]

[caller:[...]why is the roadkill there to begin with?

Good effort by the caller since he probably hadn't planned to get into a long debate. The roadkill question/comment was the highlight of his call, me thinks.

[brimstoneSalad]

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. For you humans come first, and that's very understandable. 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.

[the 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, #583 from [date].

Here's a link for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mClv6S3BK60

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.

[caller:[...]it is unhealthy I mean if you look on the American heart association's website they have numerous instances where they list that diets that contain meat are more unhealthy than plant based diets]

I I simply don't believe it remotely and it's eh I can answer with one word: evolution
we evolved as an omnivorous species

Matt, it doesn't matter what you believe, it matters what the evidence shows; you should know this better that almost anybody.

You are neither an expert on nutrition, nor even evolution, and you do much better when you admit, in humility, your lack of scientific background.

It's not an appeal to authority to trust expert consensus on scientific matters.
Expert opinions are important, because novices do not have the training, experience, or time to understand all of the data.

Look at the case of evolution vs. creationism.

There are droves of theists who think they understand evolution, and physics, well enough to offer the one word checkmate of "2LOT" (Second Law of Thermodynamics). As if nobody had ever thought about it before them.

As it turns out, that mistaken perception of a contradiction between the two is based on a profound ignorance of BOTH subjects.

Your claims here are no less ignorant, and we'll explain why at the end of this section, but the most pressing matter is that you attempted to make them at all considering your criticism of creationists for pulling the same kind of intellectually dishonest nonsense. This is a very unfortunate hypocrisy.

Both cases of attempting to debunk one science you personally dislike by appealing ignorantly to some other science with only passing familiarity, pointing out a perceived contradiction (which doesn't actually exist -- and if it did, you would have to admit the other option is that evolution is false; are you really ready to make that assertion?), to discount the expert opinion of every major body of scientists on the subject in the world along with irrefutable evidence which you conveniently ignore in favor of your own preconceptions.

There is no difference here.

Except, the creationists have a good excuse; they're idiots. YOU actually KNOW that science is complex and very often counter-intuitive to the layman. The statistical models that are used to demonstrate correlations and causation in study data and control for variables would melt your brain.
You should know better than to dismiss scientific consensus on a matter so trivially.

It's not just the American Heart Association. [please provide a link]

Here's a short list:

World Health Organization
the American Dietetic Association
the Dietitians of Canada
the British Dietetic Association
the British Heart Foundation
the World Heart Federation
the British National Health Service
the United States Food and Drug Administration
and the European Food Safety Authority

[please provide links for each of these]

It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that lowering definitely elevated blood cholesterol levels (specifically, blood levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol) will reduce the risk of heart attacks caused by coronary heart disease.

This has been the consensus for 30 years, and continues to be today. It's non-controversial among experts.

The only people challenging this are conspiracy theorists, like "The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics", which is a group primarily composed of various lobbyists for the meat industry.
They're essentially the dietary version of "climate change skeptics".

They offer no alternative to the lipid hypothesis, and their "contributions" are regularly debunked by actual experts.

They are, however, very popular among the meat eating public who want to be reassured that there's nothing wrong with their saturated fat rich diets (just as creationists welcome any reassurance that evolution goes against science, no matter how dishonest).

This is an instance where you have to recognize your biases, and realize that when you're hearing something you really want to hear, however true it may ring for you, that doesn't make it so.

Follow the actual evidence, and you'll arrive at the correct conclusion (which is, scientific consensus- because that's what the scientists do).


We shouldn't even have to address your argument about "evolution", because the science should speak for itself. When there is an apparent conflict between two proven facts, that usually only indicates some degree of ignorance in the person observing that conflict, and not an actual contradiction -- this should have been your assumption, and rather than make these claims you should have tried to figure out why these two sciences seem to contradict each other.

To anthropomorphize evolution in effort to explain, "Evolution" doesn't give a shit if you have a heart attack at 40, because by that time it's done with you.

A diet of animal products will see you through reproduction, and that's all it had to promise to our ancestors; and that's clearly all it does for us. If you plan on living longer than that, you might want to actually look at the evidence in a modern context.

Meat is also healthier than starving to death, and it's healthier than malnutrition and for people hundreds of years ago or in the third world the situation is different.

But YOU aren't in the third world, and you should know that health and ethical matters are highly situational.

If the environment requires it, humans even eat each other, and it's both healthy and ethically permissible compared to starving where self-preservation is at issue.

If you throw the realities of your actual environment out the window, and substitute in any unlikely environment, then anything is healthy or morally permissible.

Smoking is also healthy, relatively speaking, if you happen to be in an environment where the air is saturated with tiny lung-eating insects that are killed by nicotine.

You can make up some far-fetched situation you aren't in and will never be in where an ethical excuse would exist, or where any given action would be healthy or somehow useful for survival.

That's irrelevant to your situation here and now. It only means that nothing is bad or wrong in itself regardless of circumstance, but it's the circumstance that means everything in ethics.

In this universe, on this planet, in a First world country, for your situation, meat is unhealthy compared to the superior alternative healthier food sources that YOU have access to.

And you know what? Some of those superior foods are partially or wholly synthetic. And there's nothing wrong with that. Thank you science.

You would do well to go on a mostly vegan diet, for your own health, just as anybody could be advised to stop smoking or drinking in excess.

We don't really want to see you follow Christopher Hitchens (peace and blessings of Darwin be upon him) in digging yourself and early grave.

That said, is it immoral to cause yourself harm? Maybe not. But there is an important ethical bottom line, and that is where the evaporation of your 'health' excuse is very relevant:

From a utilitarian perspective, it may be permissible to cause some harm to others if that harm results in a greater good. Such as, possibly, harming animals to benefit humans (medical testing is a great example).
And this seems ultimately to be the argument you're appealing to, with a health-benefit approach.

Even vegans generally accept legitimate health reasons for using animal products (medications, etc.) that are accepted by science as necessary and useful to promoting or preserving health (although views on medical testing vary, that's another issue).

This is a reasonable argument, IF there is a real benefit. There are issues of which is greater- the harm or the benefit- but these are admittedly hard to weigh. That makes it more of a moral grey area when there is both harm and benefit involved.

But when, as happens to be the case with meat (in our privileged first world context where we DO have other superior options) we're dealing with a lose-lose scenario, both harmful to animals and our own health, this is no longer a grey area, and it is no longer rational to advocate the practice.

If you manage to find some victimless way to harm yourself, there's some argument to be made that you're not doing anything wrong by it. But meat production today, in your REALITY, is not victimless.

You aren't eating roadkill, you're not freegan (widely considered morally equivalent to veganism), you aren't eating lab grown meat, and we have not developed farming and slaughtering practices that are ethical.

The fact of possible or hypothetical exceptions doesn't excuse the reality.
Until one or more of those things changes, your action of eating meat is personally indefensible. Not people in the third world or hundreds of years ago, but you, today. Not people in the 31st century eating meat grown in a glass jar, but you, today. Not the fictional characters in the Hitchhiker's guide eating that pig that was genetically engineered to want to be eaten, but you, today.

We're not saying don't eat meat. We're just saying it's wrong. Wrong for everybody, throughout the universe and all space and time? No. Wrong for you, today, in your privileged first world country, in an age of scientific enlightenment where we have the know-how to produce better, healthier food and the methodology to prove it.

You're engaging in irrational lose-lose behavior that isn't even morally gray. But worse yet, you're being intellectually dishonest when you defend it.

[EquALLity]

You use both "grey" and "gray" in the letter, but that's irrelevant I guess. It just looks a little funny, but meh, who cares? Matt might not even notice, and's not like it would matter if he did.

You can make up some far-fetched situation you aren't in and will never be in where an ethical excuse would exist, or where any given action would be healthy or somehow useful for survival.

Do you mean "can't" here?
-
Maybe you should provide some links with evidence for cruel practices in the animal-product-producing industries?
And maybe some about animal sentience too?

[brimstoneSalad]

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

and the what I am willing to do though is afford the same rights to eat me to the animals that I eat um I'm I'm I'm when a shark uh decides to attack me because it's hungry and wants some food I'm not going to say it's immoral or unethical of the shark it's it's it's the natural way that sharks are
I realize that to most ethical vegans that is a lame copout uhm but I'm fine with it actually

First off, you talk about rights, and this has to be gotten out of the way. Rights are a social convention, not a moral one. The notion of "moral rights" comes from deontology, not consequentialism, and it's the dogmatic opposition to rational ethics that deals only in absolutes and which ignores the highly context sensitive nature of ethics. As an atheist and naturalist, you need to take more seriously the arguments of consequentialists like Peter Singer, and less Deontologists like Francione (who is a woo- all deontologists are woos, because deontological authority is inherently an appeal to woo; look back to Kant on that one).

[a quote from Francione demonstrating his Woo]

If you want to discuss this at more length, we can, but suffice it to say that a lot of vegans are also confused on that point (partially due to the popularity of non-rational advocates like Francione), and that only goes to show that veganism doesn't always mean atheism or critical thinking in itself. When you hear somebody talking seriously about rights, and it's not either a political discussion or mere turn of phrase, they are probably not representing the rational consequentialist view.


That said, are you seriously representing the idea that it's moral for you to eat other species because you wouldn't judge other species for eating you?

Because that's a pretty strong declaration of moral subjectivism, and you might not realize it.

Here's the more general form of what you said:

It's moral for X to do Y to Z if X wouldn't judge Z for doing Y to X.


That's like a rapist saying it's OK to rape other people because he wouldn't judge somebody for raping him.

A thing does not become moral for you to do based on your claimed lack of judgement against others for doing it to you, whether that's another individual, another group, another species, etc. (the line drawn here is truly arbitrary).

It is at best a weak defense against a certain kind of hypocrisy, but it is not a moral justification. And it's a weak defense against hypocrisy, because:

1. It's not the same situation. A shark has neither has a sense of rational moral judgement, nor a choice in the matter. Context is everything in ethics. It would be the same kind of situation if you said you wouldn't judge another person for killing and eating you -- a person with a sense of conscience, and the choice and ability to not kill and eat you without suffering any great loss of well being. If you want to assume some irrational speciesism (arbitrarily requiring the eaten and eater to be across a species barrier for no good reason), then you'd have to make it an extraterrestrial being of some kind.
And yet, I seem to remember you thinking YHWH's demands for human sacrifices were morally questionable; that's pretty alien. Shouldn't it be OK for a god to demand human sacrifices, as long as that god wouldn't overtly judge humans demanding god sacrifices?


2. Even if you framed it correctly and consistently, it's not true. You do not consider other people reasonable or ethical when they behave by those standards. Shouldn't you be on board with Muslims' rights to kill apostates, because they themselves wouldn't mind being killed for leaving Islam? Or if they wouldn't judge people of other religions killing their own apostates?

It's not "do unto others whatever you want as long as you won't judge them for doing the same thing to you or yours"; it's "Do unto others what you would want done unto you" (e.g if you were in their shoes -- that is, how they want to be done by).

In order to avoid hypocrisy on that point, you can't just not judge the shark, you can't judge ANYBODY who does to others any specific action they claim they wouldn't mind done to them; something that makes judging the evil actions of fundamentalists as the evil they are impossible, because they all consider those actions just and want to be held to the same standards themselves.

Moral subjectivism will get you nowhere fast, and being able to judge people as immoral only when they behave hypocritically is a great way to make your moral system pretty much useless against fundamentalism.

[brimstoneSalad]

Thanks guys, grey and gray are alternate spellings. We should decide on one of them, yes. I think gray is American English.

Miniboes, I leave the last section for you. I'm done for now. Can you flesh out that argument, and add or edit anything you see fit in the prior two sections? If possible, any changes in another font color, like red?
That will help to read it quickly.

Also, Humane Hominid, waiting for your input on the evolution section.
And we need that Dawkins quote there.


Here are my notes:


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

[quote from Matt]


[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.


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.]


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.

[Volenta]

Awesome progress you're making brimstoneSalad.

I want to reply to / edit your post in detail soon, but I'm really having trouble reserving some time, since it's pretty time consuming and I'm pretty busy with other stuff at the moment.

What I already can point out though is that it might be better to bundle some paragraphs together to get more cohesion and a better overview of the points being made. I'm not a big fan of two sentence paragraphs. It might work with simply dialogs like we have on this forum, but not really in articles, reports, books or even letters.

I suppose another point is that in some instances the somewhat informal parts where you are addressing his position pretty lively and direct are working out pretty well. But in other cases, I think it would benefit to be a bit more formal (the 'obvious reasons' you talked about in your opening post). Both to make the case stronger, so that it looks like we really know what we're talking about (and rightly so ), and also to not let him be distracted from the actual arguments we're making.

To anthropomorphize evolution in effort to explain, "Evolution" doesn't give a shit if you have a heart attack at 40, because by that time it's done with you.

I suppose you mean miniboes?

Also, do we really want to point out the stupidity of Francione's position? There are some forum members here (I guess this is still the case?) and also across 'the' vegan community that are supportive of Francione. Do we really need to attack him? He's first of all not really that famous, and secondly there are also many points you and I would actually agree on. His foundation might be flawed, sure, but do we really wanna engage in those issues in this letter? And what about Tom Regan by the way?