Page 1 of 2

Thoughts on me response story to Footsoldier?

Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2021 9:38 pm
by NonZeroSum
-

Would be great to get suggestions on this thread or you can comment directly on the google doc linked here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ZZ ... sp=sharing

-

Re; ‘Freeganism Is Evil’ (Vegan Footsoldier vs. Ishkah)

Concept Ideas


The script for my video is going to be a refutation of Footsoldier video where he uses this anti-freegan story analogy about a child paedophile cannibal ring quoted here with this ending:
Footsoldier: “The doctor turned to go and walked gently away but Jane called after him doctor excuse me doctor he turned around to face her what can i do for you she said it's such a shame that the boy had to die such a shame but he's dead now i don't want to waste his body and i'm quite hungry so if you could chop off one of his legs for me i'd quite like to take one home and have it for dinner tonight the doctor obliged and that my over dinner as they were feasting upon the dead child's amputated limb Jane said to Billy it's so tragic that those evil cannibals killed that poor boy but at least his leg isn't going to waste it's lovely nice and tender just how i like and it didn't cost us anything either we didn't contribute financially to the capitalist system so our consciences are clear and clear they were because that night Jane and Billy could sleep soundly with good consciences knowing that the child's body didn't completely go to waste and that they are able to eat for free that day was another victory for human rights.”

Women’s standards

My story analogy attempts to contrast genital mutilation to the social conditioning around women feeling pressured to shave their legs and then compared to the social conditioning around eating rescued animal products, with the characters reflecting on what they just went through.

From Catherine Klein’s video called Thoughts On Freeganism:

“I understand that shaving my legs and my armpits and everything is a sexist double standard, why are women expected to be completely hairless in order to be seen as attractive? It doesn't make sense and I think it's totally badass when women break this norm and go all natural. It does make me question my choices like I probably should be like fuck the patriarchy and stop shaving, just like I probably should be horrified by my leather boots and throw them out because one could argue that shaving your legs is an example of internalized oppression, but at the end of the day, neither of my choices here are causing direct harm to anyone, so I don't really see changing my ways as a moral necessity.”


The Script

Once upon a time a girls genital mutilation ring was discovered in London, this jarringly unethical group of families had forced children to have their clitoris's chopped off and it had been in the news that multiple children had been subjected to the practice, but due to an understaffed and inarguably incompetent police force they had yet to be prosecuted.

After it came to light what had been transpiring the people of Great Britain were horrified, they shuddered at what was one of the most ethically repugnant operations continuing to exist in Great Britain.

The parents in these families had been able to cause unquantifiable tragedy during its short existence until the perpetrators thankfully all were arrested by the police. In the courtroom the parents all admitted guilt and were each sentenced to prison.

Justice! Justice! The repulsed crowd of onlookers shouted as the parents were escorted in handcuffs out of the courthouse and stuffed into the police vehicle. Two human rights activists stood together gravely feeling a sense of deep tragedy for the victims while shedding bittersweet tears of resolution knowing that these foul parents would be put behind bars where they belonged, where they would have the time to contemplate such heinous crimes.

Jane and Billy were their names it was these two human rights activists who played the most important part in the story for they had taken it upon themselves to infiltrate the genital mutilation ring and alert the police.

They already knew what had been going on well before the media picked up on the story and having had little faith in the police to do something about it thankfully Jane and Billy had become vigilantes to track down the perpetrators themselves as without the help of these activists it would have likely taken much longer with much more bloodshed until these terrible parents were finally caught.

The police had broken down the door to the secret location in the middle of the night, the parents had already mutilated their two eldest children's genitals and were in the process of mutilating the youngest two when the police stormed the building.

One of the children fortunately was unharmed but one wasn't so lucky, the girl was experiencing massive blood loss and had gone into shock, so she was rushed to the hospital accompanied by the human rights activists as they had been at the scene when the police made the raid.

They had frantically run to the police station after having received word of the mutilation that would take place that day to alert the police and point out who the doctor and parents responsible were.

At the hospital whilst the medical staff raced to save the injured child's life the human rights activist waited distraught in the corridor just outside the operating theatre, Billy paced up and down with a scowling face furious at himself not having been able to bring the police to the location sooner, Jane sat with her head in her hands, if only they had been able to arrive just five minutes earlier maybe even just one minute earlier, never before had 60 seconds meant so much to either of them.

It wasn't long before the medic walked glumly out of the operating theatre door and into the corridor where the activists waited now frozen, now unable to take a breath in anticipation of the news, looking up from her chair Jane burst into a whale of tears even before those six heartbreaking words could escape from the lips of the medic, we did all that we could.

Billy threw his arms around Jane in an attempt to comfort her as she cried engulfed in sadness and regret for not having been able to have saved the girl from this terrible fate. Holding back tears himself the surgeon mustered his most professional voice and said I'll give you some space, if you need me I'll be down the hall.

A week later, Billy and Jane were walking round the supermarket together when Jane got a text from their daughter Sam asking for a razor. She turned round to Billy to read out the text and they both looked at each other concerned.

Sam was 14 years old and had been a mini advocate at school for girls not needing to shave their legs if they didn’t want to, so they worried had someone said something really mean to her for her to suddenly want to shave her legs now. They discussed the issue some more, but decided they better get the razor as it was her decision and if she changed her mind again she could always grow the hair back.

When they got home they talked to their daughter and found out someone had said some really mean things to her, but that that was a year ago and it had only made her even more determined to keep her leg hair, but that now it was summer she just wanted to try out shaving her legs to see what it felt like.

Billy and Jane still worried she was being influenced by advertisements or all the bullying over the years, but they were glad to have talked it through and furnished her with her very own razor blade.

The next day was a Saturday and Billy and Jane were busy setting up a Food Not Bombs stall in the town centre, having slaved away all morning on a massive pan of vegan stew that could feed 500 people. The bread to dip in the stew was rescued from a supermarket bin that night and contained the tiniest amount of whey from cows milk.

They put up two signs on the table, vegan stew and freegan bread. As well as tons of pamphlets and leaflets with helpful advice on living a low impact vegan or freegan lifestyle and the various campaign struggles in the city and internationally.

The vegan sign provoked lots of interesting conversations about the ethics of breeding and killing animals. While the freegan sign got people talking about a further layer, asking; how could it be ethical to harm animals when often it doesn’t even go towards feeding people? Which provoked another conversation about the evils of producing such an energy intensive product like meat to just become food waste while people are starving around the world.

So by the time it came to fold down the table and go home, a great day of advocating for human and animal legal rights, plus environmental protection had been had.

Driving home they got to talking about how Jane had used rescued cheese to help her stay strong in her decision to go vegan. And how she hoped that she wouldn’t have been so weak willed to fail without it, like convince herself that she didn’t need to go vegan, but that probably that happens to a lot of people, and so if more people had access to animal products from a source that is doing no harm to animals, which helped them in their transition to not buying it anymore, it could only be a good thing.

That reminded Jane of a documentary she’d watched which talked about a therapist who devised a technique in group therapy to help people quit cigarettes, which was to on day one, empty bags full of cigarettes in the centre of the group sitting in a circle, to show them the abundance, so that that stress about when am I going to be able to get my next rush is dulled.

And how freeganism had had that same effect of re-aligning the value of junk food for her, getting rid of low level addictions, when you see the mountains of packaged baked goods, croissants and doughnuts produced that day in the shop, stacked in a mountain all in front of you, you know you can get that sugar crash whenever you like, you stop seeing it as such a hot option.

Billy then remarked how interesting it is that buying cigarettes for that therapeutic technique is doing a little harm in the short term, but in actuality it serves a greater good long term. And yet with freeganism no harm is even being committed.

Then Jane said; I guess the perceived harm for many is cultural capital, like in most every culture on earth people would have a worse quality of life knowing you’re going to be eaten by other humans, because of how compassion for our fellow human beings works. But at the same time in Tibet, having your energy transferred into that of a bird is seen as a beautiful thing, so funerals at the top of mountains and your remains left as a tasty snack for the vultures is not so unusual.

Then Billy said; And it would be a great thing to move away from graveyards with cold gravestones in rows and more people choosing to be buried at a memorial woodland site where a tree is planted at the same time atop where you are buried, to be nutrients for the tree.

Finally Jane said; Right, so culture can be good or bad, we have to look towards something more concrete like what brings us happy flourishing and go from there.

Like it probably will be a better world when everyone is vegan and we’re all disgusted by thrown out animal products, in the same way as if no one ever felt pressured by sexist beauty standards to shave their legs again, but at the end of the day, it’s not like causing worse quality of life in other humans by normalizing cannibalism or normalizing the standard that women should have their genitals mutilated, neither the choice to shave your legs or eat thrown out animal products causes harm to anyone, so I don't really see why people ought not do it.

Even though I want that culture without any more domestic animals or carnism, I still just see a win in the political act of rescuing animals and food going to be wasted, building relationships with people that can benefit from those calories or companionship, where no positive change would happen otherwise.

“Here, here” they both said while enjoying a little laugh. And laugh they did.

-

Re: Thoughts on me response story to Footsoldier?

Posted: Thu Apr 22, 2021 7:55 am
by NonZeroSum
-

Added an intro and formal arguments to flash on the screen. @brimstoneSalad do you fancy helping make them valid if you're not busy? I end them all with modus ponens, but other premises are probably all over the place.

-

Intro

Yo, so this is a response to Vegan Footsoldiers video entitled 'Freeganism is Evil'. My understanding - extrapolating from his story analogy - was that he believes you can't both be a great human rights advocate and not care about humans interests as a species norm during a humans life time, to then go against them by eating them. And that the same applies to animal rights advocates and animals. But basically I disagree, because animals aren't worrying about events past their death, so they aren't suffering a worse quality of life imagining maybe they'll be eaten by humans after they're dead.

He also wrote in the comments he uses Kant’s indirect principle to justify calling freeganism immoral, so I’ll flash up on the screen my formal refutations of that for anyone curious.

But the point of this video is I’d just like to tell a story analogy back, because I think narratives as intuition pumps are useful.

So here we go...

-

The Story

[see above post]

-

Formal Arguments

A1) Kant’s Indirect Principle Against Advocating For Freeganism (Unsound)


P1) If I accept Kant’s axioms then I accept the indirect principle established in the groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals

P2) If I accept the indirect principle established in the groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals then I would agree that treating non human animals
without dignity would harm myself

P3) If I accept the indirect principle established in the groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals then I have a moral duty to not harm myself

P4) If I agree that treating non human animals without dignity would harm myself and that I have a moral duty to not harm myself then I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity

P5) If I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity then I should reject consuming animal products (as it is the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)

P6) If I should reject consuming animal products then I shouldn’t promote freeganism (as to do so would constitute promoting self-harm)

P7) I accept Kant’s axioms

C) Therefore I should be against freeganism

-

A2) Kant’s Indirect Principle For Advocating For Freeganism (Sound)


P1) If I accept Kant’s axioms then I accept the indirect principle established in the groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals

P2) If I accept the indirect principle established in the groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals then I would agree that treating non human animals without dignity would harm myself

P3) If I accept the indirect principle established in the groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals then I have a moral duty to not harm myself

P4) If I agree that treating non human animals without dignity would harm myself and that I have a moral duty to not harm myself then I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity

P5) If I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity then I should promote freeganism on rare occasions where it’s an effective advocacy tool at encouraging people to stop buying animal products because the principle that I should avoid very minor self-harm in the disgust it brings to mind shouldn’t override the principle that it’s wrong to breed animals to be killed for taste pleasure.

P6) I accept Kant’s axioms

C) Therefore I should be pro-freeganism.

-

A3) Refutation of P5 of A1 undermining the utility of culturally specific disgust reactions


P1) Non human animals don’t experience a worse quality of life worrying about whether they’re going to be eaten by other humans after they’re dead

P2) In some cultures being eaten by animals after you’re dead is seen as a positive, for example in Tibet, having your energy transferred into that of a bird is seen as a beautiful thing or green burials where your body can more easily become nutrients for both animals and plants.

P3) It probably will be a better world when everyone is vegan and we’re all disgusted by thrown out animal products, in the same way as if no one ever felt pressured by sexist beauty standards to shave their legs again, but it’s not comparable to cannibalism where you’re causing worse quality of life in other humans by normalizing it or normalizing the standard that women should have their genitals mutilated as neither the choice to shave your legs or eat thrown out animal products causes harm to anyone.

P4) P3 entails if I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity then I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)

P5) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity

C) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity, and I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)

-

A4) Refutation of P5 of A1 using Tom Regan’s worse-off principle

P1) If I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity then I should promote freeganism on rare occasions where it’s an effective advocacy tool at encouraging people to stop buying animal products because the principle that I should avoid very minor self-harm in the disgust it brings to mind shouldn’t override the principle that it’s wrong to breed animals to be killed for taste pleasure.

P2) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity

P3) P1 entails if I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity then I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)

C) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity, and I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)

-

A5) Refutation of P5 of A1 using W.D.Ross’s principle of prima facie duties

P1) Any felt obligation is a prima facie duty, though it can be overridden depending on the circumstances by another one, that doesn’t mean that the original obligation disappears, it simply means that its defeasible and it usually continues to operate in the background.

P2) If I have a felt obligation that talking positively about the consumption of animal products is disgusting and would be an act of self-harm to myself AND I learn about people using freeganism as an effective advocacy tool in turning people vegan who wouldn’t otherwise have considered it, such that I now feel a stronger felt obligation to do the same THEN the duty to do the latter is overriding, but I’m going to work extra hard to advocate for veganism such that I can know I’ve contributed to a future world in which no one needs to talk about the positive effects of consuming animal products, because the initial obligation still operates in the background even though it was overridden.

P3) I have a felt obligation that talking positively about the consumption of animal products is disgusting and would be an act of self-harm to myself AND I learn about people using freeganism as an effective advocacy tool in turning people vegan who wouldn’t otherwise have considered it, such that I now feel a stronger felt obligation to do the same.

P3) P1 entails if I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity then I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)

P4) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity

C) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity, and I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)

-

Re: Thoughts on me response story to Footsoldier?

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:02 am
by brimstoneSalad
@NonZeroSum
"P5) If I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity then I should promote freeganism on rare occasions where it’s an effective advocacy tool at encouraging people to stop buying animal products because the principle that I should avoid very minor self-harm in the disgust it brings to mind shouldn’t override the principle that it’s wrong to breed animals to be killed for taste pleasure."

That's a mouth full, but there's a fundamental error there: living in a way that YOU treat animals with dignity doesn't clearly indicate living in a way that encourages others to treat animals with dignity. A Kantian could be perfectly happy with everybody else being monsters and eating meat as long as he himself didn't participate.

You're making more of a consequentialist argument. The argument is superior because consequentialism is sound and deontology isn't, but ignoring the internal contradictions in deontology it would seem to be more challenging to argue for freeganism than shoehorning a consequentialist premise in.

You will need to address dignity more directly somehow. Like that killing an animal isn't treating the animal with dignity, but eating the animal to prevent waste is. I don't think that's an impossible argument to make. You can talk about something analogous to entropy. Like would you rather your body rot in a landfill being eaten by maggots and your death to be in vain, or would you rather be eaten by a more noble creature like a vulture who serves a more dignified niche and would use the energy in your body to a cause a bit higher than a maggot would at rock bottom?

I would suggest going in a different direction. If not dismantling the Kantian premises, then work with them rather than against them.

Re: Thoughts on me response story to Footsoldier?

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:00 pm
by NonZeroSum
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:02 amI would suggest going in a different direction. If not dismantling the Kantian premises, then work with them rather than against them.
Really helpful suggestions, thanks a bunch.

So, I think in scaffolding up my objections, starting with accepting he has a disgust reaction to the mere thought of advocating for freeganism and the lack of dignity he thinks that would show to animals, I've tried to incorporate what you said about making it about his actions:

A3) Refutation of P5 of A1 using Tom Regan’s worse-off principle

P1) If I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity then I should promote freeganism on rare occasions where it’s an effective advocacy tool at encouraging people to stop buying animal products because the principle that I should avoid very minor self-harm in the disgust it brings to mind when advocating shouldn’t override the principle that it’s immoral to pass up easy opportunities to encourage people to stop buying animal products (which leads to the breeding and killing of animals) AND I should act only according to that maxim by which I can at the same time will that it should become a universal law

-

Then in challenging the necessity of the disgust reaction I'll use this argument next:

A4) Kant’s Indirect Principle For Advocating For Freeganism

P1) If I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity THEN I should promote freeganism on rare occasions where it’s an effective advocacy tool at encouraging people to stop buying animal products because although killing an animal isn't treating the animal with dignity, eating an animal to prevent waste is, because you’re eating food that would otherwise have been thrown out, so less food needs to be produced, causing less harm to the environment AND if it had gone to the landfill it might have gotten eaten by maggots which can survive on any food like rotting vegetables, but it would be much less dignity than you could show the animal by putting that energy to use in achieving happy flourishing yourself and setting an example for others.

-

Then the closest I feel I can get to challenging deontology within the remit of this video is promoting a kind of virtue ethics argument a la W.D.Ross:

A5) Refutation of P5 of A1 using W.D.Ross’s principle of prima facie duties

P2) If I accept any felt obligation is a prima facie duty, though it can be overridden depending on the circumstances by another one, that doesn’t mean that the original obligation disappears, it simply means that it's defeasible and it usually continues to operate in the background THEN I accept when I have a felt obligation that talking positively about the consumption of animal products is disgusting and would be an act of self-harm to myself AND I learn about people using freeganism as an effective advocacy tool in turning people vegan who wouldn’t otherwise have considered it, such that I now feel a stronger felt obligation to do the same that the duty to do the latter is overriding, but I’m going to work extra hard to advocate for veganism such that I can know I’ve contributed to a future world in which no one needs to talk about the positive effects of consuming animal products, because the initial obligation still operates in the background even though it was overridden.

-

I'd still like to use the simple story narrative as my first kind of formal argument against inconsistency, but not sure how to go about it:

A2) Refutation of P5 of A1 through rejecting the utility of culturally specific disgust reactions

P1) Non human animals don’t experience a worse quality of life worrying about whether they’re going to be eaten by other humans after they’re dead

P2) In some cultures being eaten by animals after you’re dead is seen as a positive, for example in Tibet, having your energy transferred into that of a bird is seen as a beautiful thing or green burials where your body can more easily become nutrients for both animals and plants.

P3) It probably will be a better world when everyone is vegan and we’re all disgusted by thrown out animal products, in the same way as if no one ever felt pressured by sexist beauty standards to shave their legs again, but it’s not comparable to cannibalism where you’re causing worse quality of life in other humans by normalizing it or normalizing the standard that women should have their genitals mutilated as neither the choice to shave your legs or eat thrown out animal products causes harm to anyone.

P4) P3 entails if I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity then I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)

P5) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity

C) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity, and I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)

-

Here's the updated end of the story for context:
Then Jane said; I used to think it would be as simple as saying, “imagine if you grew up knowing that you were going to be killed for your meat!” Because of how compassion for our fellow human beings works, we couldn’t imagine causing them that fear. The harm would have this cumulative effect on the culture, our community bonds, and who we know we are. Like abhorring female genital mutilation.

But it’s not the same thing. Animals aren’t burdened by those questions, don’t know they’ll be killed for their meat, don’t live in fear of that end.
But by buying animal products, we perpetuate the industry that profits from their killing, and contributes to the devastation of the environment.

Billy said, that’s the point isn’t it? In Tibet, having your energy transferred into that of a bird is seen as a beautiful thing, so funerals at the top of mountains and your remains left as a tasty snack for the vultures is not so unusual. He said; it would be a great thing to move away from graveyards with cold gravestones in rows. Imagine if more people chose to be buried at a memorial woodland site. A tree planted in remembrance of you, your remains feeding the tree.

Finally Jane said; Right, so culture can be good or bad, we have to look towards something more concrete like what brings us happy flourishing and go from there. Like, it probably will be a better world when everyone is vegan and we’re all disgusted by thrown out animal products. And it would be great if no one ever felt pressured by sexist beauty standards to shave their legs again!

But at the end of the day, it’s not like cannibalism, where you’d be causing worse quality of life in other humans by foretelling a gruesome ending. And the same goes for normalizing the standard that women should have their genitals mutilated. Both ideas are barbaric, and rightly rejected.

Neither the choice to shave your legs or eat thrown out animal products causes harm to anyone, so I don't really see why people ought not do it. Even though I want that culture without any more domestic animals or carnism, I still just see a win in the political act of rescuing animals and wasted food, building relationships with people that can benefit from those calories or companionship, where no positive change would happen otherwise.

“Here, here” they both said while enjoying a little laugh. And laugh they did.
-

Much appreciated again, I'll definitely credit you in the description for having helped with this.

-

Re: Thoughts on me response story to Footsoldier?

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:16 pm
by brimstoneSalad
@NonZeroSum Here's another argument regarding dignity:

P1. A corpse being used to save the life or suffering of a peer is the most dignified use for a corpse (e.g. organ donation, or another such use)

P2. If person X was going to torture and murder an animal for meat if meat was not otherwise available, person X turning to Freeganism instead is a corpse being used to save the life or suffering of a peer

C1. If person X was going to torture and murder an animal for meat if meat was not otherwise available, person X turning to Freeganism instead is the most dignified use for a corpse

P1. If person X was going to torture and murder an animal for meat if meat was not otherwise available, person X turning to Freeganism instead is the most dignified use for a corpse

P2. Person X was going to torture and murder an animal for meat if meat was not otherwise available

C. Person X turning to Freeganism instead is the most dignified use of a corpse


This doesn't work if person X was not otherwise going to murder another animal, but if that person were not then you can appeal to saving the corpse from waste (and the intention to do so rather than satisfy flesh craving, which would be deontologically important).

Re: Thoughts on me response story to Footsoldier?

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:18 pm
by brimstoneSalad
@NonZeroSum Do you think you can incorporate these arguments into the freeganism article on Philosophical Vegan wiki as well?

Re: Thoughts on me response story to Footsoldier?

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:37 pm
by NonZeroSum
brimstoneSalad wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 12:18 pm @NonZeroSum Do you think you can incorporate these arguments into the freeganism article on Philosophical Vegan wiki as well?
Sure, yeah good idea. I think with the argument above he would just reject in P1 that dignity has anything to do with the equation, but swapping it for wellbeing would agree about it being a good act to increase wellbeing using Tom Regan's worse off principle.

-

Re: Thoughts on me response story to Footsoldier?

Posted: Thu Apr 29, 2021 4:48 am
by NonZeroSum
-

Updated A2:

A2) Refutation of P5 of A1 through rejecting the utility of culturally specific disgust reactions

P1) Non-human animals don’t experience a worse quality of life worrying about whether they’re going to be eaten by other humans after they’re dead, humans do.
P2) IF there exists healthy human cultures in which humans being eaten by non-human animals after they’re dead is seen as a positive (for example in Tibet, having your energy transferred into that of a bird is seen as a beautiful thing or green burials where your body can more easily become nutrients for both animals and plants) THEN healthy human cultures in which non-human animals are eaten by humans is also likely possible
P3) There exists healthy human cultures in which humans being eaten by non-human animals after they’re dead is seen as a positive
P4) If non-human animals don’t experience a worse quality of life worrying about whether they’re going to be eaten by other humans after they’re dead, humans do AND healthy human cultures in which non-human animals are eaten by humans is likely possible THEN even if it'll be a better world when everyone is vegan and we're all disgusted by animals products (in the same way as if no one ever felt pressured by sexist beauty standards to shave their legs again), that doesn't mean that it's not morally permissible to consume some of those animal products at the moment (i.e. it’s not comparable to cannibalism where you’re causing worse quality of life in other humans by normalizing it or normalizing the standard that women should have their genitals mutilated as neither the choice to shave your legs or eat thrown out animal products necessitates violating anyone's rights)
P5) IF (even if it'll be a better world when everyone is vegan and we're all disgusted by animals products, that doesn't mean that it's not morally permissible to consume some of those animal products at the moment) THEN (IF I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity THEN I should not reject consuming animal products [as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity])
P6) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity
C) I should live in a way which treats animals with dignity, and I should not reject consuming animal products (as it is not the antithesis of treating animals with dignity)

-

Re: Thoughts on me response story to Footsoldier?

Posted: Fri Apr 30, 2021 1:09 am
by NonZeroSum

Re: Thoughts on me response story to Footsoldier?

Posted: Mon May 10, 2021 5:31 am
by NonZeroSum
-

@indy thoughts on freeganism and my pro-freegan arguments? Would be curious to get a deontologists feedback.

Re; ‘Freeganism Is Evil’ – A Pro-Freegan Story Analogy

My arguments in summary:

Firstly it can be great animal rights advocacy in rare circumstances like so; by setting up a Food not Bombs stall in the town centre and putting up a vegan sign in front of a big pan of vegan stew and a freegan sign infront of rescued bread. The vegan sign can provoke lots of interesting conversations about the ethics of breeding and killing animals. While the freegan sign can get people talking about a further layer of if it is true that harming animals for their meat, milk and eggs was necessary to feed the population, how come so very much meat, milk and eggs ended up rotting in supermarket skips instead? Which can provoke further conversation about the evils of producing such an energy intensive product like meat to just become food waste, while people are starving around the world.

Secondly non-human animals we farm don’t experience a worse quality of life worrying about whether they’re going to be eaten by other humans after they’re dead, humans do as a species norm.

Thirdly there exists healthy human cultures in which humans being eaten by non-human animals after they’re dead is seen as a positive, for example in Tibet, having your energy transferred into that of a bird is seen as a beautiful thing or green burials where your body can more easily become nutrients for both animals and plants. So then, healthy human cultures in which non-human animals are eaten by humans is also likely possible.

And finally, even if it’ll be a better world when everyone is vegan and we’re all disgusted by animals products (in the same way as if no one ever felt pressured by sexist beauty standards to shave their legs again), that doesn’t mean that it’s not morally permissible to consume some of those animal products at the moment i.e. it’s not comparable to cannibalism where you’re causing worse quality of life in other humans by normalizing it or normalizing the standard that women should have their genitals mutilated as neither the choice to shave your legs or eat thrown out animal products necessitates violating anyone’s rights or causing harm to anyone.

-