The first video, "Ecocide", was a little like being punched in the face. I definitely agree with the lyrics - I think they even capture an arguably appropriate attitude - and after reading about the band on Wikipedia I think I probably do agree with them in general, even the straight edge parts. I personally don't drink or do drugs (except caffeine) and think veganism is the way to go even if I have failed at it lately. I guess that means I'm not exactly living up to the wise words of Buechner at the moment. So, for me at least, T's all the way down. Cool that they like Peter Singer.

Hi @ToothyMaw, thanks for your contribution to this Thread.

On Straight Edge: I think more of it more as a goal. Straight Edge can be your objective. You won't recover from alcoholism or drug addiction overnight. That's just not how it happens. In fact, in the case of alcoholism, quitting "cold turkey" like that can be unhealthy, even dangerous. It's better to quit gradually. I'm aware that Straight Edge seems unattractive. It is. But hey, who said that Life was supposed to be beautiful by default?

On the topic of veganism, I think the following video will provide even more material for discussion and debate:



Controversially, in the preceding video, Earth Crisis have allied themselves with PETA, and vice-versa. Is that morally correct? If yes, why? If no, why not? These are just general questions of a philosophical and political nature. Anyone is invited to answer them.

I appear to be the only who wants anything to do with this, for whatever reason. Yes, it is moral for Earth Crisis to align with PETA and vice versa. Yes, we should all be vegans and advocate for veganism. Once again, only T's from me.

hey, who said that Life was supposed to be beautiful by default? — Arcane Sandwich

I think life often is beautiful by default, honestly. Clearly not in some ways, as human nature appears to give way to incredible self-destruction, cruelty, and apathy. Maybe It's just my privilege or something, though; those chickens in the video certainly don't live beautiful lives.

I think life often is beautiful by default, honestly. Clearly not in some ways, as human nature appears to give way to incredible self-destruction, cruelty, and apathy. Maybe It's just my privilege or something, though; those chickens in the video certainly don't live beautiful lives. — ToothyMaw

Right, but forget about the chickens for a moment. My heart goes to them and all that, but let's discuss something else that you just said there. Because what you just said is the start of a philosophical debate about the OP of this Thread (as far as I'm concerned, anyway).

You said that life is often beautiful by default. I'm not sure that I agree with that. Can you try to convince me of that, please?

Because then you say "clearly not in some ways", and I agree with that, but then you say "as human nature appears to give away to incredible self-destruction, cruelty and apathay". Here's where I would respond with a fallacy, because a lot of people actually do use this fallacy IRL: "Well what about killer whales when they attack a poor seal that just wants to live? I don't see anyone complaining about that."

What would you say in response to that fallacy? Do you think it's a fallacy, or would you consider it good, sound reasoning on the part of the "orca lawyer"?

You said that life is often beautiful by default. I'm not sure that I agree with that. Can you try to convince me of that, please? — Arcane Sandwich

That would be difficult, as I think I can only speak to my subjective experiences, really, which kind of means I can't say that the world in its entirety is beautiful, but rather it is beautiful (sometimes) when viewed through the lens of my experience. So, I probably can't do that, actually.

Because then you say "clearly not in some ways", and I agree with that, but then you say "as human nature appears to give away to incredible self-destruction, cruelty and apathay". Here's where I would say a fallacy, because a lot of people actually do use this fallacy IRL: "Well what about killer whales when they attack a poor seal that just wants to live? I don't see anyone complaining about that."

What would you say in response to that fallacy? Do you think it's a fallacy, or would you consider it good, sound reasoning on the part of the "orca lawyer"? — Arcane Sandwich

It is clearly garbage reasoning, for the following reasons:

We have little to no control over orcas, and even if we wanted to prevent orcas from doing what they do, we would need to insert ourselves into an ecosystem and disrupt it which could have catastrophic consequences for that ecosystem. So, it is true that orcas cause suffering, but it isn't something we should or can prevent imo. This applies to any predatory animal.

Furthermore, humans very well can mold their behavior such that we don't give in to the darkest parts of our natures, and that is not possible for something like an orca. They just kill to eat because they have to. So, humans can act ethically apart from our evolved instincts, whereas other animals almost certainly cannot.

So, deflecting to orcas is pretty dumb.

edit: didn't mean to call humans animals there.

It is clearly garbage reasoning, for the following reasons:

We have little to no control over orcas, and even if we wanted to prevent orcas from doing what they do, we would need to insert ourselves into an ecosystem and disrupt it which could have catastrophic consequences for that ecosystem. So, it is true that orcas cause suffering, but it isn't something we should or can prevent imo. This applies to any predatory animal.

Furthermore, humans very well can mold their behavior such that we don't give in to the darkest parts of our natures, and that is not possible for something like an orca. They just kill to eat because they have to. So, humans can act ethically apart from our evolved instincts, whereas other animals almost certainly cannot.

So, deflecting to orcas is pretty dumb. — ToothyMaw

Right, but this is the part where the "orca lawyer" steps in and says: "But mate, orcas kill for sport sometimes, they get a kick out of it, they think it's fun. So if the orca can hunt for sport and enjoy it, why cant I? Why can't I go and hunt whatever I feel like hunting? Why can't I shoot a 'roo or an elk or a guanaco or whatever it is that people hunt in their respective continents?"

What would you respond to the "orca lawyer"? This is an open question, anyone can join the Thread and answer it.

Thank you very much for taking the time and energy to contribute to this Thread, @ToothyMaw. Much appreciated.

Right, but this is the part where the "orca lawyer" steps in and says: "But mate, orcas kill for sport sometimes, they get a kick out of it, they think it's fun. So if the orca can hunt for sport and enjoy it, why cant I? Why can't I go and hunt whatever I feel like hunting? Why can't I shoot a 'roo or an elk or a guanaco or whatever it is that people hunt in their respective continents?" — Arcane Sandwich

Since no one else seems to want to respond: that is like asking why one cannot willfully flush their Christmas toy truck decorations down the toilet because a child has done something similar. You could do it, but that reasoning doesn't make it any less destructive to your plumbing. Except in the case of dealing with killing or maiming animals, you just killed or maimed something, so the stakes are a lot higher than having to hire a plumber.

I mean, are we going to swim out there and stop the orcas? Is the orca lawyer committed to waging a campaign to end the unnecessary killing of seals? Is that feasible? Would that be a wise way of spending resources if we want to reduce suffering? Or should we just not kill animals in the tens of thousands in slaughterhouses?

Hi @ToothyMaw, thanks for continuing to engage with this Thread.

I mean, are we going to swim out there and stop the orcas? Is the orca lawyer committed to waging a campaign to end the unnecessary killing of seals? Is that feasible? Would that be a wise way of spending resources if we want to reduce suffering? Or should we just not kill animals in the tens of thousands in slaughterhouses? — ToothyMaw

I think you've refuted the orca lawyer's case with what you just said there. So, yeah, to the RL "orca lawyers" out there, in the world, reading this Thread: we're not stupid.

EDIT: Ok, back to the Main Topic of the OP: the philosophical and political ideas of the band Earth Crisis. In that sense, I'll share their "War Call", if you want to call it that. I'm post the lyrics as well.

Without further ado, their song titled "Firestorm":

Street by street.
Block by block.
Taking it all back

The youth's immersed in poison--turn the tide, counterattack.
Violence against violence:
let the roundups begin,
a firestorm to purify the bane
that society drowns in.

No mercy, no exceptions, a declaration of total war:
the innocents' defense is the reason it's waged for.

Born addicted,
beaten and neglected,
families torn apart,
destroyed and abandoned,
children sell their bodies,
from their high they fall to drown,
demons crazed by greed,
cut bystanders down.

A chemically tainted
welfare generation
Absolute complete
moral degeneration

Born addicted,
beaten and neglected,
families torn apart,
destroyed and abandoned,
children sell their bodies,
from their high they fall to drown,
demons crazed by greed,
cut bystanders down.

Corrupt politicans,
corrupt enforcement,
drug lords and dealers:
all must fall.

The helpless are crying out
We have risen to their call.

A firestorm to purify — Earth Crisis

The Philosophical Exercise here would be:

1) In your honest opinion, is it fair for Earth Crisis (and Straight Edge in general) to blame societal problems solely on drugs? Or are there other elements of "society" that need to "take the blame" here, so to speak?

2) What, if any, is the actual intent behind the lyrics of their song "Firestorm"? Whatever that might be, would it be feasible and morally correct? In other words, what would be the Ethical justification for such acts? Would they even have a rationale to begin with?

3) The philosophical and political ideas of the band Earth Crisis can be accurately described as Vegan Straight Edge. It's not representative of the larger Straight Edge community (due to their commitment to Veganism), and it's not representative of the large Vegan community (due to their commitment to Straight Edge). Could you, as an honest reader, imagine a hypothetical scenario in which Earth Crisis' Straight Edge premises, together with their Vegan premises, deductively entail a contradiction?

1) In your honest opinion, is it fair for Earth Crisis (and Straight Edge in general) to blame societal problems solely on drugs? Or are there other elements of "society" that need to "take the blame" here, so to speak? — Arcane Sandwich

This question is actually a little more difficult than I initially thought. Because, in a way, Straight Edge seems to have provided an all-encompassing account of what our society faces and how to resolve it and adding veganism just amps that up even further - perhaps in a good way, perhaps not. I’m not sure. But I’ll give my opinion anyways:

No, I don’t think it is reasonable to blame drugs for every problem in society; to do so indicates a reductive way of looking at the problems that face us even if the core reasoning of Straight Edge has an internal logic and high level of appeal.

I will start by pointing out that, although it doesn’t indicate invalid reasoning, it seems that Earth Crisis’s core reasoning, and that of the Straight Edge movement in general (if Firestorm is any indication), is circular: people do drugs because of societal circumstances, this makes people less effective at advocating for themselves or acting morally, which then leads to the use of more drugs and/or the toleration of living on the terms of corrupt cops and politicians who themselves then enable this process.

So, according to this reasoning, it seems that the best thing we can do to interrupt this process is stop doing drugs (Or rise up and resist the bad people with violence). Whether or not that is true, this loop is not closed; there are many more reasons than drugs that people are more or less moral or more or less rational, or more or less good at advocating for themselves, including systemic factors, cultural factors, factors like upbringing - even if that last one could be related to bad experiences associated with drugs. I think that those factors could easily eclipse the problem of people doing drugs in certain circumstances.

Really, you would have to believe that the pernicious influence of drugs has suffused everything to believe that stopping doing drugs will actually rid us of all of our problems. But based on what I’ve read, that one guy (Buechner, I think) from EC said that stopping doing drugs doesn’t actually make one a good person; one still has to act with that added mental clarity.

systemic factors — ToothyMaw

I suppose I should at least give one specific, significant factor. Consider the influence of corporations on policy in the United States, for example. That might be able to be related to drugs somehow, I guess, but I think it has far more to do with public apathy, ignorance, etc.

Hi @ToothyMaw, thanks for your continued participation in this Thread. It is much appreciated.

This question is actually a little more difficult than I initially thought. — ToothyMaw

It brings me great joy to read those lines. Philosophy is supposed to be difficult by default.

I think that you've stated some excellent thoughts, ToothyMaw. And they are well worth considering.

that one guy (Buechner, I think) from EC said that stopping doing drugs doesn’t actually make one a good person; one still has to act with that added mental clarity. — ToothyMaw

And I, personally, think he's absolutely right about that, but I don't expect others to share this sentiment. Let us continue.

Here is how I would have answered the third question of the exercise: It doesn't seem, at first glance, that a contradiction can be deduced from the set of the core Straight Edge premises and the set of the core Vegan premises. That being said, who says that a contradiction would be the only epistemic problem here?

The way I see it, even if there is no logical contradiction between those two sets of premises (i.e., being Straight Edge and being Vegan at the same time), I still see the peril of reductionism, so to speak. You've stated it very eloquently. The idea, if I understood you, would be something like the following:

1) "Reductionist" Straight Edge: they say that drugs are the cause of every problem in society.
2) "Reductionist" Vegan: they say that the use of animal products is the cause of every problem in society.

Instead, you seem to be suggesting that the following (if anything) would be more rational:

1) In the case of "True" Straight Edge: drugs are not the cause of every problem in society, though they are one of the main problems.
2) In the case of "True" Veganism: the use of animal products is not the cause of every problem in society, though it is one of the main problems.

Is that correct, or is it not?

(edited for the sake of clarity - Arcane Sandwich)

The way I see it, even if there is no logical contradiction between those two sets of premises (i.e., being Straight Edge and being Vegan at the same time), I still see the peril of reductionism, so to speak. You've stated it very eloquently. The idea, if I understood you, would be something like the following:

1) "Reductionist" Straight Edge: they say that drugs are the cause of every problem in society.
2) "Reductionist" Vegan: they say that the use of animal products is the cause of every problem in society.

Instead, you seem to be suggesting that the following (if anything) would be more rational:

1) In the case of "True" Straight Edge: drugs are not the cause of every problem in society, though they are one of the main problems.
2) In the case of "True" Veganism: the use of animal products is not the cause of every problem in society, though it is one of the main problems.

Is that correct, or is it not? — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, I would say so. Like you seem to be saying, it isn't like people even have to abandon the main thrust of, or the vast majority of the normative claims made by, Straight Edge or ethical veganism to avoid reductionism; they just need to accept that neither provides a totally comprehensive account of what the problems are that face society or what we should do to address those problems. You can still be a devout fan of Earth Crisis and love Peter Singer and avoid this very real peril.

Thank you very much once again, @ToothyMaw. I'm not that familiar with the work of Peter Singer. I know of him, but I have not read any of his works yet. What would you recommend that I start with?

Changing the subject, back to this Thread. I am quite huge fan of Earth Crisis myself. Yet (and I say this as a fan), sometimes it seems to me that their message fails to engage with the listener as an individual. And that's something very interesting in its own right. Earth Crisis speak "to the masses", if you will. Well, that's technically inaccurate, since the last lines of their song "Ecocide" are literally "by me, and by you", so, they do engage with the listener as an individual in some sense. However, there is another band that does that far better: Hatebreed. They are not Vegan nor Straight Edge, but they have something in common with Earth Crisis, because they are part of the larger "world" of Hardcore Punk / Heavy Metal. Besides, Jamey Jasta himself (lead singer of Hatebreed) as said on several occasions, even on social media, that Earth Crisis is one of the bands that inspired him to form Hatebreed. So, let's take a look at one of their songs, shall we?



I actually quite like that song and video. It sends out a positive message, even though the instrumentation and the lyrics are a bit "harsh" for the positivity that they are attempting to transmit to the listener.

What do you make of that, @ToothyMaw? Feel free to just "ramble on" about it, even if it has no logic to you.

Thank you very much once again, ToothyMaw. I'm not that familiar with the work of Peter Singer. I know of him, but I have not read any of his works yet. What would you recommend that I start with? — Arcane Sandwich

I would just get right to Practical Ethics, although it isn't an easy read in some sections (both in terms of being comprehended and being uncomfortable to read). That book is probably the main reason I ever tried to go vegan (something I'm doing again). I should say that Peter Singer is definitely not reductionist; I was just speaking to that some people who like Peter Singer or what he has to say might think in reductionist terms. Although that might be difficult now that I think about it, as he speaks on so many important things.

Changing the subject, back to this Thread. I am quite huge fan of Earth Crisis myself. Yet (and I say this as a fan), sometimes it seems to me that their message fails to engage with the listener as an individual. And that's something very interesting in its own right. Earth Crisis speak "to the masses", if you will. Well, that's technically inaccurate, since the last lines of their song "Ecocide" are literally "by me, and by you", so, they do engage with the listener as an individual in some sense. However, there is another band that does that far better: Hatebreed. They are not Vegan nor Straight Edge, but they have something in common with Earth Crisis, because they are part of the larger "world" of Hardcore Punk / Heavy Metal. Besides, Jamey Jasta himself (lead singer of Hatebreed) as said on several occasions, even on social media, that Earth Crisis is one of the bands that inspired him to form Hatebreed. So, let's take a look at one of their songs, shall we? — Arcane Sandwich

I actually quite like that song and video. It sends out a positive message, even though the instrumentation and the lyrics are a bit "harsh" for the positivity that they are attempting to transmit to the listener.

What do you make of that, ToothyMaw? Feel free to just "ramble on" about it, even if it has no logic to you. — Arcane Sandwich

I can't help but think about how that video relates to creating change in general.

It seems to me that in order to galvanize people to create positive change, it will always be useful to prescribe actions or directives to people in general (in fact, we have to), but we cannot forget that every person is different; one not only needs to appeal to a common understanding and humanity when attempting to influence people to act towards preserving the environment, adopting ethical veganism, etc. but must also provide a personal context that makes acting make sense. That is done by appealing to the individual in each of us.

Take Hatebreed’s message here, for example, of self-growth and effecting positive change in one’s life despite. Coupling this kind of message with the idea that we are individuals with our own moral arcs and (in some ways discrete) identities tied to those morals, heavily informed by some larger ideas or ideals, but never quite dictated - at least in a reductive sense - I think one can make a strong case for a subset of the public that is highly mobilized and effective at creating change.

Applying this: the ethical vegan acts ethically despite the influence of the meat industry, general ridicule, apathy towards cruelty, veggie burgers that fall the fuck apart when you bite into them, etc. There is psychological and moral growth to be had in advocating for ideas and ideals and acting morally in a more personal sense. As such, there is something meaningful to strive for other than just the validation of one’s beliefs - one is ethical. One makes the necessary sacrifices. One is making a difference. Accentuating this relationship is a large part of how we edify each other.

I would just get right to Practical Ethics, although it isn't an easy read in some sections (both in terms of being comprehended and being uncomfortable to read). That book is probably the main reason I ever tried to go vegan (something I'm doing again). I should say that Peter Singer is definitely not reductionist; I was just speaking to that some people who like Peter Singer or what he has to say might think in reductionist terms. Although that might be difficult now that I think about it, as he speaks on so many important things. — ToothyMaw

I'm looking at the wiki for Practical Ethics (1979), but I've noticed that Singer published another book before that one, titled Animal Liberation (1975). Why do you think that Practical Ethics would be the more approachable of the two?

It seems to me that in order to galvanize people to create positive change, it will always be useful to prescribe actions or directives to people in general (in fact, we have to), but we cannot forget that every person is different; one not only needs to appeal to a common understanding and humanity when attempting to influence people to act towards preserving the environment, adopting ethical veganism, etc. but must also provide a personal context that makes acting make sense. That is done by appealing to the individual in each of us. — ToothyMaw

Yes, I agree. It's a complicated point. Because it's as if one would be speaking in a sort of "double way", one would be "speaking in general" and "speaking to each person individually". It's a bit of a tall order, in merely communicative terms.

Take Hatebreed’s message here, for example, of self-growth and effecting positive change in one’s life despite. Coupling this kind of message with the idea that we are individuals with our own moral arcs and (in some ways discrete) identities tied to those morals, heavily informed by some larger ideas or ideals, but never quite dictated - at least in a reductive sense - I think one can make a strong case for a subset of the public that is highly mobilized and effective at creating change. — ToothyMaw

The case of Hatebreed's song "Looking Down the Barrel of Today" is an odd one in a purely sociological sense. For example, the video displays some textual messages that are not actually part of the song's lyrics. One of those messages says "We wish those painful things never happened to you..." And I ask "what painful things?" and who are they referring to when they use the word "you"?

My interpretation is that they are speaking to "you in general", if that makes any sense. They're not saying "You, Arcane Sandwich", they're not saying "You, ToothyMaw". It's a sort of "you" in general, whoever that person might be.

Regarding the part about the "painful things" that they wish never happened to that "abstract you", they are effectively assuming that anyone (everyone, really) has undergone some painful things in their lives (whatever those "painful things" might be in each individual case), and they're saying that they wish that those (the painful things) never happened to anyone. And they're saying that without even knowing what those "painful things" are in each individual case.

Do you think that my interpretation of that video is more or less correct?