Arguments for carnism from moral philosophers

[Volenta]

I was kind of wondering if any of you know any moral philosopher that tries to debunk veganism. What are their arguments? I recently discovered a philosopher here in the Netherlands, Floris van den Berg, that states: "I'm a philosopher, and thus a vegan." He also said that about being an atheist. Since if you rationally think about it, these are the conclusions you'll have to draw. Unless of course there are good arguments against it, but all the arguments I've heard so far are pretty bad ones.

It's really sad some smart people know that veganism is the way to go, like Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, but then don't commit to it. Why would you philosophize and even write about it, when you're not ready to change your own behavior. It makes it look like a hard thing.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't know a single intelligent and educated person who disagrees with veganism- though as you said, there are many who agree with it in principle yet don't practice it.

I was kind of wondering if any of you know any moral philosopher that tries to debunk veganism. What are their arguments? I recently discovered a philosopher here in the Netherlands, Floris van den Berg, that states: "I'm a philosopher, and thus a vegan." He also said that about being an atheist. Since if you rationally think about it, these are the conclusions you'll have to draw. Unless of course there are good arguments against it, but all the arguments I've heard so far are pretty bad ones.

That sounds about right.

I've never heard a good argument against veganism as a choice.

Although I have heard debatable arguments about contentious issues tangentially related to veganism- e.g. there are some possibly good arguments against animal liberation. In the end, they rely on empirical premises that remain to be demonstrated- but at least use valid logic. Such as the premise that banning meat is not fundamentally different from prohibition, and would create an underground market that would result in worse animal treatment than regulation. We don't know that it would be the same, or that people would do that. Raising animals is a bit harder than making hooch, and meat is not a drug that creates the same kind of dependency as alcohol- but at the same time, it's hard to argue that people aren't 'addicted' to meat and that there aren't people who would pay a premium for it on a black market.

None of that, of course, is a valid argument against making the personal moral choice to be vegan yourself (just about enforcing it on a societal scale).

TLDR: There are no arguments against the morality of making the choice to be vegan, only against the social ethics of making that choice for other people (whether it's ethical to force other people to be ethical).

It's really sad some smart people know that veganism is the way to go, like Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, but then don't commit to it. Why would you philosophize and even write about it, when you're not ready to change your own behavior. It makes it look like a hard thing.

I agree. Somebody needs to get on Dawkins about that to follow Einstein's example. Better late than never, and in good company on making the change.

[thebestofenergy]

It's really sad some smart people know that veganism is the way to go, like Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, but then don't commit to it. Why would you philosophize and even write about it, when you're not ready to change your own behavior. It makes it look like a hard thing.

I agree. Somebody needs to get on Dawkins about that to follow Einstein's example. Better late than never, and in good company on making the change.

If Richard Dawkins goes vegan, it'll make a big difference.
He already stated that he wished all poeple in the world were vegetarian; it was a big disappointment for me to discover he was not.

[Volenta]

I agree. Somebody needs to get on Dawkins about that to follow Einstein's example. Better late than never, and in good company on making the change.

I love how Peter Singer exposed this to him here in an interview (great to watch the whole thing if you didn't already, very inspiring).

He already stated that he wished all poeple in the world were vegetarian; it was a big disappointment for me to discover he was not.

He even stated he himself wanted to be a vegetarian.

[Neptual]

It's really sad some smart people know that veganism is the way to go, like Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, but then don't commit to it. Why would you philosophize and even write about it, when you're not ready to change your own behavior. It makes it look like a hard thing.

I agree. Somebody needs to get on Dawkins about that to follow Einstein's example. Better late than never, and in good company on making the change.

If Richard Dawkins goes vegan, it'll make a big difference.
He already stated that he wished all poeple in the world were vegetarian; it was a big disappointment for me to discover he was not.

If/when Dawkins goes vegan/vegetarian will easily make the movement for animal rights easier. Not only will we have a handful of good guys on our side but we'll also have one of the most influential person today. Anyone willing to call Dawkins for me (just kidding.)?

[Volenta]

What do we make out of Daniel Dennett's views on consciousness. I find it very strange to argue that human culture and/or language are the reason we have (a higher) consciousness. If you define consciousness as ability to obtain an accurate picture of reality, it surely helps. But an more intense subjective experience, I don't think so...

Don't particularly like how he thinks of humans being this special, no other animal even coming close in matching us. Animals do not have all the same cognitive capabilities we have—like language—but a lot of them we actually share. Some capabilities are even better developed in other animals (like short term memory of chimpanzees).

A better understanding of consciousness in humans is needed before the discussion can be extended validly to animal consciousness. Consciousness requires a certain kind of informational organization that does not seem to be 'hard-wired' in humans, but is instilled by human culture. Moreover, consciousness is not a black-or-white, all-or-nothing type of phenomenon, as is often assumed. The differences between humans and other species are so great that speculations about animal consciousness seem ungrounded. Many authors simply assume that an animal like a bat has a point of view, but there seems to be little interest in exploring the details involved.

Source / whole article: http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/d ... sness.html

[Twizelby]

I was kind of wondering if any of you know any moral philosopher that tries to debunk veganism.

The Vegan Atheist posted a debate which we all have probably watched where carnists got their a**es handed to them. Peter Singer is not a Vegan although in the past he has expressed support for the movement. his argument is that essentially if he acknowledges the position that he would have to treat every animal death as you would a human death. Ex) Any deer hit would be a prosecutable offense. negligent homicide. he never uses this example but I think that's where he is going with it.

[Volenta]

The Vegan Atheist posted a debate which we all have probably watched where carnists got their a**es handed to them.

Those people weren't really philosophers as far as I know. Mostly general arguments.

Peter Singer is not a Vegan although in the past he has expressed support for the movement.

Well, he's a flexible vegan and vegetarian. Yes, he's not perfect, but I think people shouldn't demonize him for that. And he still supports the movement (what is 'the' anyway?) as far as I know.

his argument is that essentially if he acknowledges the position that he would have to treat every animal death as you would a human death. Ex) Any deer hit would be a prosecutable offense. negligent homicide. he never uses this example but I think that's where he is going with it.

In what sense would he have to treat animal death the same as human death? Could you quote him on this to explain what you mean?

[Twizelby]

In what sense would he have to treat animal death the same as human death? Could you quote him on this to explain what you mean?

I can't find the quote now it was on some transcript I read a couple months ago but I didn't check the age of the interview, so maybe it's outdated. What I got from the argument was that the term speciesist essentially makes it akin to racism. I think we can all agree racism is abhorrent.

Ex. in the case of a fire there should be no thought of "I'm going to save the white guy first then the asian woman because the white guy is more valuable" In a non racist/sexist world it should be "I'm going to save one of these people."

apply speciesism which is now akin to racism and you get "I'm going to save the human before the cat because the human is more valuable" when in a non-speciesist world it should be "I'm going to save one of these sentient beings"

So if you acknowledge that the two are one in the same then discrimination becomes an issue in which case prosecuting a human for running over a human but not for running over a deer, holds the moral or ethical equivalent of racism.

I'm really more of a court jester than a philosopher so don't shoot the messenger. Do with the argument as you will

[brimstoneSalad]

So if you acknowledge that the two are one in the same then discrimination becomes an issue in which case prosecuting a human for running over a human but not for running over a deer, holds the moral or ethical equivalent of racism.

We don't prosecute humans for running over other humans when they run out of cover onto the road suddenly, or are standing out of view around a sharp corner.

It's not negligent homicide- it's an accident.

The only time they would be prosecuted is if motive was suspected due to bizarre circumstances (if it happened to be your arch-enemy that ran out of the forest, or if it was obvious that you should have seen and avoided the person).

Police investigate human deaths more, simply because it's more likely you had a connection and motive to kill somebody than you had to kill a deer (which is just going to seriously damage your vehicle, and provide no benefit to you).

I'm thinking you probably misread Singer on this point.

He doesn't subscribe to equality between all animals, but that alone is not speciesism if it has justification. It's only speciesism when the fact of their species is the only justification- and not the matter of other characteristics.