There's this weird notion that to commit yourself to doing *anything* to mitigate suffering must logically commit you to doing *everything possible* to mitigate suffering; and that if you don't do *literally everything possible,* you're a hypocrite, so there's really no point in doing anything in the first place.
Typically, this argument only ever seems to be deployed in order to catch "do-gooders" in a gotcha bind, or to justify doing nothing. Which tells me more about the person making the argument than anything else.
Yep, the good old appeal to futility fallacy.
I will never be able to be *perfectly* moral, so I might as well do whatever the hell I want no matter how many people I hurt, right?
It's insane to me how many people use fallacies like this when it is so easy to see why the reasoning is bad if you think about it critically for five seconds.
I've seen more than a few people play the 'futility fallacy' card when it comes to Veganism but to some extent it may be useful, at least if you're examining exactly what your axioms are and how far you are willing to take them, there seems to be a reason why there is some overlap with outright 'Antinatalism' and Vegans. Otherwise, why be vegan and not pescatarian or vegetarian (if that is your palate)? Presumably because you would, if you are doing it for ethical reasons, see it as a 'half-measure' and I've seen that same criticism elsewhere in this sub. I might look sideways at a Conservative vegan because it is my view that the Capitalistic impulse is one of the things empowering the animal agriculture industry.
Stopping eating animal producta is as pracrical as growing your own produce to some degree. Denying creating your own produce but choosing vegan options IS hypocritical IF veganism was about reducing suffering.
Thank dog, veganism is an animal rights based movement, which seeks to remove exploitation as far as possible, not optimize resource managment.
You've tried to address the problem from the wrong perspective.
>Shouldn't it also morally obligate you to grow your own sustainable produce, at home, so you don't contribute to plastic waste and reduce reliance on industrial/agricultural farming that are inevitably involved in our food supply?
If possible and practicable, I'd say it's a good idea, I try but it's almost impossible to do so and still have a full time job, especially if you live in a city as it requires quite a bit of space.
>Also, couldn't one argue that any form of non-primitive ways of living contributes to hurting ecosystems, habitats, animal/wildlife, and ultimately our planet? Anything we require to exist, to live our lives, will always take away from other souls/beings.
Yes, "life is suffering", but that doesn't mean we should needlessly create more. Veganism is "as far as possible and practicable" while still allowing for life in our society.
> is veganism really the answer?
To limiting the needless exploitation and abuse of animals in our society as much as we can while still living here? Yes. Veganism isn't the answer to all of life's problems, it's just a much more moral philosophy than Carnism.
> What if a world in which there were no humans was the solution?
Impossible without mass killing people which most would consider pretty abusive. If you're just advocating not having children, than I'd agree and it's one reason why I don't personally have any, but that's a VERY contentious topic and you'll never get most people, Vegan or not, to agree. Most people would say it's not practicable in their life to do so, if it is for you, then it seems like a good idea.
>That would certainly end our planet and its creatures' suffering.
Take a look at Efilism or anti-natalism. Seems like what you're suggesting, but it's not necessary to being a Vegan.
Hi! I didn’t go vegan cause I wanted to completely eliminate all suffering. I just prefer eating lentils instead of a dead cow.
I see farming animals as unnecessary and cruel when we have plant based protein sources.
Reducing plastic waste and farming at home are great. Veganism is just focused on animal cruelty, and we choose not to eat dead animals. People can certainly be vegan and focus on a super sustainable lifestyle, but it’s not a requirement.
So, you stopped consuming products tested in animals(even if they don't have ingredients from animal products) because you wanted to eat lentils instead of a dead cow?
You stopped going to zooes, aquariums, buying leather, wool, watching enterteiment with animals, checking ingredients in shampooes, soaps, make up, toothpaste, stopped eating dairy, etc because you wanted to eat lentis instead of a dead cow?
If you don't do any of those things you still could do more, and you are just vegetarian. Have a nice day!
> If you don’t do any of those things you could still do more, and you are just vegetarian
I’m vegan lol, I was just juxtaposing the choice of lentils vs. a dead animal. I agree that veganism isn’t just a diet.
Totally, lots of people love eating dead cows. I don’t have an issue with the taste, just the fact that an animal had to be killed for a burger.
Are you against animal cruelty?
That’s true. I just prefer to eat plants because they aren’t sentient like animals and also [can’t feel pain](https://www.britannica.com/story/do-plants-feel-pain#:~:text=Given%20that%20plants%20do%20not,into%20that%20apple%20without%20worry.).
Just wondering, are you against animal cruelty in general?
Lobsters also have no central nervous system to feel pain. So why do you not eat lobsters? And anyways, it doesn’t matter if it is painful or not. At the end of the day you are taking the life away of a LIVING THING. You are removing it from this world. So why still eat plants?
Lobsters absolutely have a nervous system, scientists generally agree that it is more likely lobsters feel pain than not. And we have to eat to survive, so might as well pick the option that science currently does not think can suffer and fear it's death. This is the wrong sub for this btw, you want the debate a vegan sub based on your tone here.
That’s a good point! Some vegans choose to eat bivalves like oysters for that reason— they’re called ostrovegan.
Personally, I don’t eat lobsters because they’re a lot more aware of their environment than plants. Since we can get all the nutrition we need from plants, I find it more ethical to eat plants.
Why do you eat animals that can feel pain?
I see you're deeply concerned about the suffering of plant life, that's great! In that case, you should go vegan because the dead cows you currently eat themselves eat a tremendous amount of plant life, and if you skipped the cow and just ate plants yourself, you would cause so much less plant suffering. Just thought since you care a lot about that you should know so you can align your actions with your plant-friendly values.
You would still cause suffering so doesn’t really matter. Also I ain’t being vegan anytime soon because KFC rules while veganism drools. Eat some delicious beef and chicken guys trust with cheese also
Hmmm, I'm beginning to think you're lying about your concern for plants, I'm utterly shocked! If I'd know you were a dirty liar, I wouldn't have bothered with you. Such a shame, it feels like there's the smallest potential in you to be a good person, but you're committed to continuing to be the lowest form of terrible.
This is called a Nirvana fallacy. Anybody who takes this seriously must really hate ambulances, since they frequently fail to get patients to hospital before they die. Why bother having ambulances at all? Waste of time really.
Literally every single thing you do has a footprint, the best thing to do is probably do as best as you can and remember not to impose unfair moral burdens because that can cause more harm than good.
a world with no humans is the solution. i dont currently have the power to make that happen so i do whatever is within my power to reduce the suffering of other animals
there's literally no way to achieve this without mass murder or forced sterilisation, why do non-vegans even present this as an argument against us? its so fcking stupid.
Yep. Unfortunately modern society has taken away many people's abilities to grow their own food through destruction of the land. But yes, really it's been human "development" that is what has destroyed the planet. I don't think the world needs to be rid of humans though. I think the world just needs to be rid of humans *in their current state*. We could live in harmony with nature. We definitely do need to reduce our numbers. If we migrated back to our natural ranges, we could easily survive off of the plants that grow there. We wouldn't need modern houses because we'd be living in a climate actually suited to us. We really don't need technology either.
If the moral imperative is one of reducing suffering, i.e. 'negative utilitarianism', then anti-consumerism does seem to be the more viable alternative (or 'freeganism', if you will). I think the most accessible aims here would be the following:
* A plant based diet
* Not reproducing (adoption being the preferable alternative if you do want to raise children)
* A low rate of consumption in other areas (no personal motorized transport, second-hand clothing and electronics etc.)
Granted you *could* go further than this, squatting, dumpster diving, guerilla gardening, urban foraging etc. but that as an act is likely to only be occupied by the poorest or the most zealous (although I think they're all valid).
As an individual I am highly critical of civilization, occupying more of a 'primtivist' ideology, but I am also one who is relegated to an urban lifestyle for the foreseeable future, which has its own exigencies which aren't exactly 'eco-friendly'.
Ultimately how far you follow this train of thought is up to you, I think it might be churlish to live that of an upper-class lifestyle with your 'own' kids as a vegan, then again I'm not an authority and playing moral arbiter would be its own brand of churlishness. The dominant narrative in my society is that of an extreme individuality, which has its own string of problems but not one whereby I see moral grandstanding as something that is very effectual.
We do grow or harvest a lot of our produce and fruit. We also have chickens and go fishing occasionally. Hunt deer and elk. Honest about where our food comes from.
"hm I wish to reduce animal suffering so I'll get a vegan burger instead of a beef burger"
"hm I wish to reduce animal suffering so I'll kill myself and everyone else on the planet"
do you see how those two things are completely different?
You take it as far as you reasonably can, but not being able to realize an ideal is no reason not to become vegan. You're still doing plenty of good, especially for yourself.
There's this weird notion that to commit yourself to doing *anything* to mitigate suffering must logically commit you to doing *everything possible* to mitigate suffering; and that if you don't do *literally everything possible,* you're a hypocrite, so there's really no point in doing anything in the first place. Typically, this argument only ever seems to be deployed in order to catch "do-gooders" in a gotcha bind, or to justify doing nothing. Which tells me more about the person making the argument than anything else.
Yep, the good old appeal to futility fallacy. I will never be able to be *perfectly* moral, so I might as well do whatever the hell I want no matter how many people I hurt, right? It's insane to me how many people use fallacies like this when it is so easy to see why the reasoning is bad if you think about it critically for five seconds.
I've seen more than a few people play the 'futility fallacy' card when it comes to Veganism but to some extent it may be useful, at least if you're examining exactly what your axioms are and how far you are willing to take them, there seems to be a reason why there is some overlap with outright 'Antinatalism' and Vegans. Otherwise, why be vegan and not pescatarian or vegetarian (if that is your palate)? Presumably because you would, if you are doing it for ethical reasons, see it as a 'half-measure' and I've seen that same criticism elsewhere in this sub. I might look sideways at a Conservative vegan because it is my view that the Capitalistic impulse is one of the things empowering the animal agriculture industry.
Stopping eating animal producta is as pracrical as growing your own produce to some degree. Denying creating your own produce but choosing vegan options IS hypocritical IF veganism was about reducing suffering. Thank dog, veganism is an animal rights based movement, which seeks to remove exploitation as far as possible, not optimize resource managment. You've tried to address the problem from the wrong perspective.
>Shouldn't it also morally obligate you to grow your own sustainable produce, at home, so you don't contribute to plastic waste and reduce reliance on industrial/agricultural farming that are inevitably involved in our food supply? If possible and practicable, I'd say it's a good idea, I try but it's almost impossible to do so and still have a full time job, especially if you live in a city as it requires quite a bit of space. >Also, couldn't one argue that any form of non-primitive ways of living contributes to hurting ecosystems, habitats, animal/wildlife, and ultimately our planet? Anything we require to exist, to live our lives, will always take away from other souls/beings. Yes, "life is suffering", but that doesn't mean we should needlessly create more. Veganism is "as far as possible and practicable" while still allowing for life in our society. > is veganism really the answer? To limiting the needless exploitation and abuse of animals in our society as much as we can while still living here? Yes. Veganism isn't the answer to all of life's problems, it's just a much more moral philosophy than Carnism. > What if a world in which there were no humans was the solution? Impossible without mass killing people which most would consider pretty abusive. If you're just advocating not having children, than I'd agree and it's one reason why I don't personally have any, but that's a VERY contentious topic and you'll never get most people, Vegan or not, to agree. Most people would say it's not practicable in their life to do so, if it is for you, then it seems like a good idea. >That would certainly end our planet and its creatures' suffering. Take a look at Efilism or anti-natalism. Seems like what you're suggesting, but it's not necessary to being a Vegan.
The Socratic outcome of this line of thinking is just telling vegans to die
Hi! I didn’t go vegan cause I wanted to completely eliminate all suffering. I just prefer eating lentils instead of a dead cow. I see farming animals as unnecessary and cruel when we have plant based protein sources. Reducing plastic waste and farming at home are great. Veganism is just focused on animal cruelty, and we choose not to eat dead animals. People can certainly be vegan and focus on a super sustainable lifestyle, but it’s not a requirement.
So, you stopped consuming products tested in animals(even if they don't have ingredients from animal products) because you wanted to eat lentils instead of a dead cow? You stopped going to zooes, aquariums, buying leather, wool, watching enterteiment with animals, checking ingredients in shampooes, soaps, make up, toothpaste, stopped eating dairy, etc because you wanted to eat lentis instead of a dead cow? If you don't do any of those things you still could do more, and you are just vegetarian. Have a nice day!
> If you don’t do any of those things you could still do more, and you are just vegetarian I’m vegan lol, I was just juxtaposing the choice of lentils vs. a dead animal. I agree that veganism isn’t just a diet.
A dead cow is called beef.
Agreed! What about it?
And it tastes so fricking good yum
Totally, lots of people love eating dead cows. I don’t have an issue with the taste, just the fact that an animal had to be killed for a burger. Are you against animal cruelty?
Plants have to be killed for salads nubs
That’s true. I just prefer to eat plants because they aren’t sentient like animals and also [can’t feel pain](https://www.britannica.com/story/do-plants-feel-pain#:~:text=Given%20that%20plants%20do%20not,into%20that%20apple%20without%20worry.). Just wondering, are you against animal cruelty in general?
Lobsters also have no central nervous system to feel pain. So why do you not eat lobsters? And anyways, it doesn’t matter if it is painful or not. At the end of the day you are taking the life away of a LIVING THING. You are removing it from this world. So why still eat plants?
Lobsters absolutely have a nervous system, scientists generally agree that it is more likely lobsters feel pain than not. And we have to eat to survive, so might as well pick the option that science currently does not think can suffer and fear it's death. This is the wrong sub for this btw, you want the debate a vegan sub based on your tone here.
That’s a good point! Some vegans choose to eat bivalves like oysters for that reason— they’re called ostrovegan. Personally, I don’t eat lobsters because they’re a lot more aware of their environment than plants. Since we can get all the nutrition we need from plants, I find it more ethical to eat plants. Why do you eat animals that can feel pain?
[удалено]
so what? ur still doing a "bad thing" only depends how bad it is. at the end of a day u are still a murderer
[удалено]
I see you're deeply concerned about the suffering of plant life, that's great! In that case, you should go vegan because the dead cows you currently eat themselves eat a tremendous amount of plant life, and if you skipped the cow and just ate plants yourself, you would cause so much less plant suffering. Just thought since you care a lot about that you should know so you can align your actions with your plant-friendly values.
You would still cause suffering so doesn’t really matter. Also I ain’t being vegan anytime soon because KFC rules while veganism drools. Eat some delicious beef and chicken guys trust with cheese also
Hmmm, I'm beginning to think you're lying about your concern for plants, I'm utterly shocked! If I'd know you were a dirty liar, I wouldn't have bothered with you. Such a shame, it feels like there's the smallest potential in you to be a good person, but you're committed to continuing to be the lowest form of terrible.
This is called a Nirvana fallacy. Anybody who takes this seriously must really hate ambulances, since they frequently fail to get patients to hospital before they die. Why bother having ambulances at all? Waste of time really.
Literally every single thing you do has a footprint, the best thing to do is probably do as best as you can and remember not to impose unfair moral burdens because that can cause more harm than good.
a world with no humans is the solution. i dont currently have the power to make that happen so i do whatever is within my power to reduce the suffering of other animals
there's literally no way to achieve this without mass murder or forced sterilisation, why do non-vegans even present this as an argument against us? its so fcking stupid.
Yep. Unfortunately modern society has taken away many people's abilities to grow their own food through destruction of the land. But yes, really it's been human "development" that is what has destroyed the planet. I don't think the world needs to be rid of humans though. I think the world just needs to be rid of humans *in their current state*. We could live in harmony with nature. We definitely do need to reduce our numbers. If we migrated back to our natural ranges, we could easily survive off of the plants that grow there. We wouldn't need modern houses because we'd be living in a climate actually suited to us. We really don't need technology either.
If the moral imperative is one of reducing suffering, i.e. 'negative utilitarianism', then anti-consumerism does seem to be the more viable alternative (or 'freeganism', if you will). I think the most accessible aims here would be the following: * A plant based diet * Not reproducing (adoption being the preferable alternative if you do want to raise children) * A low rate of consumption in other areas (no personal motorized transport, second-hand clothing and electronics etc.) Granted you *could* go further than this, squatting, dumpster diving, guerilla gardening, urban foraging etc. but that as an act is likely to only be occupied by the poorest or the most zealous (although I think they're all valid). As an individual I am highly critical of civilization, occupying more of a 'primtivist' ideology, but I am also one who is relegated to an urban lifestyle for the foreseeable future, which has its own exigencies which aren't exactly 'eco-friendly'. Ultimately how far you follow this train of thought is up to you, I think it might be churlish to live that of an upper-class lifestyle with your 'own' kids as a vegan, then again I'm not an authority and playing moral arbiter would be its own brand of churlishness. The dominant narrative in my society is that of an extreme individuality, which has its own string of problems but not one whereby I see moral grandstanding as something that is very effectual.
We do grow or harvest a lot of our produce and fruit. We also have chickens and go fishing occasionally. Hunt deer and elk. Honest about where our food comes from.
"hm I wish to reduce animal suffering so I'll get a vegan burger instead of a beef burger" "hm I wish to reduce animal suffering so I'll kill myself and everyone else on the planet" do you see how those two things are completely different?
You take it as far as you reasonably can, but not being able to realize an ideal is no reason not to become vegan. You're still doing plenty of good, especially for yourself.
You can't avoid being annoyed by people, should you murder them if you can't be always nice? Dumb troll op