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?

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? — Arcane Sandwich

Honestly, I really don't know Singer's body of work well enough to give a best entry point. I started with Practical Ethics, but I'm sure one could start with Animal Liberation, too.

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? — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, I think your interpretation is correct. In addressing this abstract "you" They are acknowledging that no one really escapes hardship - whatever form that might take - and expressing in a personal way the very human sentiment of wishing we (anyone who fits into the abstract you) didn't all have to suffer so much. But we can still console each other and shoulder the suffering together - which might make things a little more bearable. Ergo, that portion of the video.

Thanks, @ToothyMaw. If there's any music video by any band that you would like to share, that has anything to "bring to the table" in terms of philosophical discussion, feel free to do so. In the meantime, I will share another video, since it could give us something to think about, and to talk about.



Here's the Philosophical Exercise that I would propose for that video, I'll post my own answer to this Exercise later.

1) Does everyone have to convert to veganism?
2) If one does not want to be a vegan, is one being selfish?
3) Is it Ethical to be selfish?

Whoever wishes to contribute to this Thread, can freely do so.

I'm on it, sandwich!

1) Does everyone have to convert to veganism? — Arcane Sandwich

I think this speaks to people thinking there might be some way of ethically consuming animal products as a sort of “out” from veganism, and that does indeed seem to me to be a necessary condition for people not being obligated to be vegan. But, I think that if people consider themselves to be bound by “ought's” so to speak, or any sort of moral obligation, especially with regards to the wellbeing of animals, they should themselves be vegan in the lack of a means of producing animal products without suffering or death (if that is even possible). So yes, everyone ought to convert to veganism.

2) If one does not want to be a vegan, is one being selfish? — Arcane Sandwich

Yes, I think it is probably selfish to not want to be vegan because one would likely be knowingly and explicitly participating in processes that harm animals. If this is the case, there is a good chance this is because of an internal calculation that the suffering is happening far enough away and out of sight enough that one is not participating, or they possess the belief that animal wellbeing doesn’t matter or are just generally apathetic. All of those things, I contend, are selfish reasons for not being vegan. Thus, to not be a vegan because one does not want to be a vegan, appears to be selfish.

A side effect of the simpler conclusion that just not wanting to be vegan is selfish is that every vegan that wouldn’t want to be vegan because they like meat or animal products would be selfish. So, I’m not entirely sure on this one. I think that another necessary conclusion should be that selfishness - as reflected in eating meat - mostly only matters when it leads to bad actions like eating meat.

3) Is it Ethical to be selfish? — Arcane Sandwich

No, it is not ethical to be selfish, even if we have evolved to be so.

Thanks, @ToothyMaw!

Here are my answers to the quiz:

1) Does everyone have to convert to veganism? — Arcane Sandwich

1) No, people are under no Ethical obligation to convert to veganism. Why not? Because veganism might be wrong. That is why it makes sense to discuss it in a philosophical sense and a political sense. I'm not saying that veganism actually is wrong, far from it. For all I know, veganism could be right.

2) If one does not want to be a vegan, is one being selfish? — Arcane Sandwich

2) No, if one does not want to be a vegan, one is not necessarily being selfish. At least not if veganism turns out to be wrong. If it turns out to be right, then that is a different matter.

3) Is it Ethical to be selfish? — Arcane Sandwich

3) Yes, it is Ethical to be selfish, as surprising as that sounds. There are Ethical theories about selfishness, and people sometimes even talk about a "selfish gene", which is the title of a book by Richard Dawkins. However, what I would argue is that there is no single Ethics, there are may different Ethics or ethical theories, or theories about morals, and, since that is the case, then, by definition, I am under no Ethical obligation to embrace some specific Ethics of selfishness, or any general Ethics of selfishness, or even the very concept of selfishness as a positive moral value instead of a neutral moral value, or even a negative moral value.

Does that make sense to you?

EDIT: look at this curious pattern:

Your answers: 1) Yes, 2) Yes, 3) No
My answers: 1) No, 2) No, 3) Yes

Our answers are entirely different, lol. But that doesn't mean that we can't agree on other points.

No, people are under no Ethical obligation to convert to veganism. Why not? Because veganism might be wrong. That is why it makes sense to discuss it in a philosophical sense and a political sense. I'm not saying that veganism actually is wrong, far from it. For all I know, veganism could be right. — Arcane Sandwich

Wait, what? If one perceives there to be an ethical obligation, and this obligation, appropriately supported by the facts, indicates that everyone ought to do it, then shouldn't everyone do it? Skepticism with regards to the normative moral status of veganism does not mean that people are not obligated to do it, it means that we just shouldn't take it as a decided issue and acknowledge that it can be discussed. But being able to discuss it does not make it not obligatory for everyone in the absence of decisive arguments against veganism.

I mean, no one would say that it isn't wrong to torture and kill other humans merely because some crazy person (or people) might be skeptical of the validity of the position of being against torturing and unjustly killing other humans in pretty much any case, right? I certainly wouldn't, but your reasoning seems to suggest such a thing could actually be undecided. Note that I'm just talking about the reasoning here; I am not disputing that humans should not be tortured and unjustly killed.

If one perceives there to be an ethical obligation, and this obligation, appropriately supported by the facts, indicates that everyone ought to do it, then shouldn't everyone do it? — ToothyMaw

Should they? The usual philosophical retort here is that we're running into Hume's is-ought problem.

Skepticism with regards to the normative moral status of veganism does not mean that people are not obligated to do it, it means that we just shouldn't take it as a decided issue and acknowledge that it can be discussed. But being able to discuss it does not make it not obligatory for everyone in the absence of decisive arguments against veganism. — ToothyMaw

Here is where critics of veganism say that there are indeed decisive arguments against veganism, and that until vegans can reject those arguments, no one has the ethical obligation to convert to veganism. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to the best of my ability here.

I mean, no one would say that it isn't wrong to torture and kill other humans merely because some crazy person (or people) might be skeptical of the validity of the position of being against torturing and unjustly killing other humans in pretty much any case, right? I certainly wouldn't, but your reasoning seems to suggest such a thing could actually be undecided. Note that I'm just talking about the reasoning here; I am not disputing that humans should not be tortured and unjustly killed. — ToothyMaw

Critics of veganism will point out that there are insufficient metaphysical and scientific reasons for comparing humans to non-human animals, as far as Ethics and moralities are concerned. What would you respond to them, in that regard?

(edited for clarity)

For people that still don't know what the fuck we're even talking about in this Thread, here's an explanatory video of what Earth Crisis means (well, what it meant, anyways) to the hardcore punk / heavy metal scenes way back in the day.

If one perceives there to be an ethical obligation, and this obligation, appropriately supported by the facts, indicates that everyone ought to do it, then shouldn't everyone do it?
— ToothyMaw

Should they? The usual philosophical retort here is that we're running into Hume's is-ought problem. — Arcane Sandwich

When I mention "facts", I just mean facts related to the treatment of animals and those that indicate we could easily avoid the concomitant suffering by all stopping consuming animal products. So, the "ought" I am talking about is a softer one, as it really only functions in the presence of (what I believe to be reasonable) suppositions consistent with those facts.

Skepticism with regards to the normative moral status of veganism does not mean that people are not obligated to do it, it means that we just shouldn't take it as a decided issue and acknowledge that it can be discussed. But being able to discuss it does not make it not obligatory for everyone in the absence of decisive arguments against veganism.
— ToothyMaw

Here is where critics of veganism say that there are indeed decisive arguments against veganism, and that until vegans can reject those arguments, no one has the ethical obligation to convert to veganism. I'm just playing Devil's Advocate to the best of my ability here. — Arcane Sandwich

You would have to provide one of these arguments, as I can't remember coming across any arguments against veganism that really seemed all that decisive.

I mean, no one would say that it isn't wrong to torture and kill other humans merely because some crazy person (or people) might be skeptical of the validity of the position of being against torturing and unjustly killing other humans in pretty much any case, right? I certainly wouldn't, but your reasoning seems to suggest such a thing could actually be undecided. Note that I'm just talking about the reasoning here; I am not disputing that humans should not be tortured and unjustly killed.
— ToothyMaw

Critics of veganism will point out that there are insufficient metaphysical and scientific reasons for comparing humans to non-human animals, as far as Ethics and moralities are concerned. What would you respond to them, in that regard? — Arcane Sandwich

If one can imagine, or grant, that animals can suffer in ways similar to us, then one can rightly compare humans and animals at least insofar as the capacity to suffer is concerned. And if you do that, it kind of follows that we shouldn't, say, throw lobsters into boiling pots of water if they can consciously perceive pain like a human, if at least partially because we wouldn't do that to a human or something else that could consciously perceive pain. That is to say, if the experience of being boiled alive is consistent across animals and humans, we can establish a baseline that indicates which actions are more or less acceptable without dubious comparisons.

So, I'm not saying that animal suffering is as important as human suffering, or that the two are qualitatively identical, but if you grant that animals can suffer, often really intensely, then it should be as obvious that animal suffering is undesirable as it is that human suffering is undesirable. If you accept that and what I wrote above, then I think veganism follows without comparing humans and animals in fallacious ways.

edit: if my argument at the end there is really similar to someone else's, I didn't mean to copy it. I just wrote what came to mind.

Our answers are entirely different, lol. But that doesn't mean that we can't agree on other points. — Arcane Sandwich

Disregarding 3), our answers to 1) and 2) are mostly different because you seem to hold some reservations about whether or not universal vegan claims can be made in the presence of skepticism about veganism's true moral correctness.

As for 3), I didn't do any research and just said what came to mind, and I think your answer is better in some ways.

1) No, people are under no Ethical obligation to convert to veganism. Why not? Because veganism might be wrong. That is why it makes sense to discuss it in a philosophical sense and a political sense. I'm not saying that veganism actually is wrong, far from it. For all I know, veganism could be right. — Arcane Sandwich

2) No, if one does not want to be a vegan, one is not necessarily being selfish. At least not if veganism turns out to be wrong. If it turns out to be right, then that is a different matter. — Arcane Sandwich

3) Yes, it is Ethical to be selfish, as surprising as that sounds. There are Ethical theories about selfishness, and people sometimes even talk about a "selfish gene", which is the title of a book by Richard Dawkins. However, what I would argue is that there is no single Ethics, there are may different Ethics or ethical theories, or theories about morals, and, since that is the case, then, by definition, I am under no Ethical obligation to embrace some specific Ethics of selfishness, or any general Ethics of selfishness, or even the very concept of selfishness as a positive moral value instead of a neutral moral value, or even a negative moral value. — Arcane Sandwich

You seem to have answered 1) and 2) in a way that is compatible with the claim that you are under no obligation to accept an ethics of selfishness or to embrace selfishness as a positive moral value, for the reason of there being many different ethics. But I don't think that the existence of many different ethical theories implies that you are under no obligation to embrace any given ethical theory; there are degrees of plausibility, rigor, etc. that indicate if you ought to embrace it.

Allow me to introduce an analogy. There might be a proliferation of, say, ways of opening a chess game that might lead to you winning, but that large number of openings doesn't mean that one or another opening was not superior from a statistical standpoint in terms of the likelihood of it leading to a win. In fact, a calculation regarding this is probably done by any great chess player every time they play a game. I would view the large number of ethical theories in a similar way. Some are more or less rigorous and plausible, and able to be universalized, even if each of them might resolve the question of what is right and wrong in their own way. So, just because something could resolve the question doesn't make it the best choice, or even one of the best choices.

This seems to indicate that if there is a selfish theory of ethics that is sufficiently supported, then we ought to adhere to it, as it seems wrong to just retreat to other less supported theories because we don't like selfishness.

edit: your reasoning seems more linear than I would expect and appears to be pre-loaded with some ideas, such as the idea that the existence of many ethical theories means one has no obligation to adhere to any one theory due to its merits.

Hi @ToothyMaw, thank you very much for your contributions to this Thread, they are much appreciated.

Disregarding 3), our answers to 1) and 2) are mostly different because you seem to hold some reservations about whether or not universal vegan claims can be made in the presence of skepticism about veganism's true moral correctness. — ToothyMaw

Perhaps, though I'm not sure if I would phrase it like that. Can you elaborate on that point, please?

As for 3), I didn't do any research and just said what came to mind, and I think your answer is better in some ways. — ToothyMaw

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm not sure. At this point in the conversation, it might be useful to cite other people besides just the two of us. Maybe Peter Singer says something in Practical Ethics, but since I haven't read that book myself, I wouldn't know.

I would view the large number of ethical theories in a similar way. Some are more or less rigorous and plausible, and able to be universalized, even if each of them might resolve the question of what is right and wrong in their own way. So, just because something could resolve the question doesn't make it the best choice, or even one of the best choices. — ToothyMaw

I'm not sure if I understood this. Can you please elaborate?

This seems to indicate that if there is a selfish theory of ethics that is sufficiently supported, then we ought to adhere to it, as it seems wrong to just retreat to other less supported theories because we don't like selfishness. — ToothyMaw

Here is where I disagree. If the evidence in favor of a "selfish ethics" in the style of Ayn Rand is nothing more than Richard Dawkin's book about the selfish gene, then I have the right to ask for two things: a better selfish ethics, and better evidence in support of it. That's just for starters. I then need to see a definitive solution to Hume's is-ought problem. Furthermore, I then need to see why selfish ethics are better for everyone in general (i.e., for society at large) than non-selfish ethics. Finally, I then need to see if selfish ethics are better for non-human animals than non-selfish ethics. Until all of that is delivered, I have no obligation to support an ethics of selfishness, in any way, shape or form.

edit: your reasoning seems more linear than I would expect and appears to be pre-loaded with some ideas, such as the idea that the existence of many ethical theories means one has no obligation to adhere to any one theory due to its merits. — ToothyMaw

Perhaps. Can you please elaborate on this point?

Thanks again for everything, @ToothyMaw!

When I mention "facts", I just mean facts related to the treatment of animals and those that indicate we could easily avoid the concomitant suffering by all stopping consuming animal products. So, the "ought" I am talking about is a softer one, as it really only functions in the presence of (what I believe to be reasonable) suppositions consistent with those facts. — ToothyMaw

Perhaps. Could you elaborate further on this point?

You would have to provide one of these arguments, as I can't remember coming across any arguments against veganism that really seemed all that decisive. — ToothyMaw

True. I'll look for one later today, and if I can't find any, I'll just make one up for the sake of argument and for the purposes of this conversation. I don't have one ready at the moment : )

If one can imagine, or grant, that animals can suffer in ways similar to us, then one can rightly compare humans and animals at least insofar as the capacity to suffer is concerned. And if you do that, it kind of follows that we shouldn't, say, throw lobsters into boiling pots of water if they can consciously perceive pain like a human, if at least partially because we wouldn't do that to a human or something else that could consciously perceive pain. That is to say, if the experience of being boiled alive is consistent across animals and humans, we can establish a baseline that indicates which actions are more or less acceptable without dubious comparisons.

So, I'm not saying that animal suffering is as important as human suffering, or that the two are qualitatively identical, but if you grant that animals can suffer, often really intensely, then it should be as obvious that animal suffering is undesirable as it is that human suffering is undesirable. If you accept that and what I wrote above, then I think veganism follows without comparing humans and animals in fallacious ways. — ToothyMaw

I definitely agree that lobsters should not be boiled alive. But in this part of the conversation, another stock character jumps in, I call him the "Lawyer of Ethical killing". What that guy says is that if you kill animals in an ethical way, then it is ethical to consume them. This argument is usually used by "Ethical fishermen". They will tell you that fishing is OK, but that other fishermen are "doing it wrong" when they simply leave a helpless fish to suffocate after successfully catching it. They will say that as soon as you catch a fish, you have to insert a knife into its brain (it's as gruesome as it sounds). That, is ethical killing according to the "Lawyer of Ethical Killing". So (he wants to conclude), the activity of fishing is an ethical activity, which means that fish can be consumed in an ethical way. What would you respond to that character, the "Lawyer of Ethical killing"?

This seems to indicate that if there is a selfish theory of ethics that is sufficiently supported, then we ought to adhere to it, as it seems wrong to just retreat to other less supported theories because we don't like selfishness.
— ToothyMaw

Here is where I disagree. If the evidence in favor of a "selfish ethics" in the style of Ayn Rand is nothing more than Richard Dawkin's book about the selfish gene, then I have the right to ask for two things: a better selfish ethics, and better evidence in support of it. That's just for starters. I then need to see a definitive solution to Hume's is-ought problem. Furthermore, I then need to see why selfish ethics are better for everyone in general (i.e., for society at large) than non-selfish ethics. Finally, I then need to see if selfish ethics are better for non-human animals than non-selfish ethics. Until all of that is delivered, I have no obligation to support an ethics of selfishness, in any way, shape or form. — Arcane Sandwich

I think I agree that all of that would have to be delivered, too. I'm just saying that a selfish ethics is not off the table merely because Ayn Rand or somebody hasn't been able to produce a theory strong enough to deliver on the conditions you list. I agree with you on this one.

Disregarding 3), our answers to 1) and 2) are mostly different because you seem to hold some reservations about whether or not universal vegan claims can be made in the presence of skepticism about veganism's true moral correctness.
— ToothyMaw

Perhaps, though I'm not sure if I would phrase it like that. Can you elaborate on that point, please? — Arcane Sandwich

I'm saying that you appear to think that the reasoning for veganism, that is, that we ought to stop consuming animal products to reduce non-human suffering, cannot be generalized to apply to everyone, because it is possible that veganism is indeed not correct. I think that this doesn't make much sense if we have no reason to doubt that the reasoning could apply universally. To demonstrate this point, imagine this: there is a world in which everyone is vegan, and a world in which people eat meat and consume animal products. According to vegan reasoning, the first world should be more desirable, all other things equal, because it should entail significantly less non-human suffering. Actually, I would argue that it is a fact that that world would almost certainly entail less non-human suffering.

So, then we ask: if non-human suffering is to be avoided, then should we not try to bring about the world in which everyone is vegan? Aren't we obligated to fight for that? That world is far more plausible than some world where society is organized around some contrived, ethical-killing bullshit that no one is actually willing to bring about.

You might argue that I cannot get an ought from an is, but I think you cannot argue for a world in which we are not all vegan if you want to efficiently bring about the greatest reduction of non-human suffering possible.

As for 3), I didn't do any research and just said what came to mind, and I think your answer is better in some ways.
— ToothyMaw

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm not sure. At this point in the conversation, it might be useful to cite other people besides just the two of us. Maybe Peter Singer says something in Practical Ethics, but since I haven't read that book myself, I wouldn't know. — Arcane Sandwich

I read it years ago, so my memory of it is cloudy. I'll go see if I can get some material from Singer that supports it one way or the other. I seem to remember something about preference utilitarianism and fruit trees. I'll get back to you.

I'm saying that you appear to think that the reasoning for veganism, that is, that we ought to stop consuming animal products to reduce non-human suffering, cannot be generalized to apply to everyone, because it is possible that veganism is indeed not correct. I think that this doesn't make much sense if we have no reason to doubt that the reasoning could apply universally. To demonstrate this point, imagine this: there is a world in which everyone is vegan, and a world in which people eat meat and consume animal products. According to vegan reasoning, the first world should be more desirable, all other things equal, because it should entail significantly less non-human suffering. Actually, I would argue that it is a fact that that world would almost certainly entail less non-human suffering.

So, then we ask: if non-human suffering is to be avoided, then should we not try to bring about the world in which everyone is vegan? Aren't we obligated to fight for that? That world is far more plausible than some world where society is organized around some contrived, ethical-killing bullshit that no one is actually willing to bring about.

You might argue that I cannot get an ought from an is, but I think you cannot argue for a world in which we are not all vegan if you want to efficiently bring about the greatest reduction of non-human suffering possible. — ToothyMaw

I think I that agree with all of these points. They seem reasonable. But then the critics of veganism typically advance the following counter-points:

Non-vegan counterpoint 1: If someone doesn't consume meat, then that person will have nutrient deficiencies.
Possible vegan response: The vegan can reply several different things to that counter-point. One such response is that an adequate diet based on certain cereals and certain fruit & vegetables (i.e., the ones that have the most protein) can compensate the nutritional deficiencies just mentioned. Critics of veganism will then question what the vegan just said. And on that point, the newest vegan response (that I'm aware of, anyways) is to say that oysters and other bivalves (such as mussels and clams) are indeed vegan. Why? Because they are incapable of experiencing pain. They have a nervous system, but they have no central nervous system (i.e., they don't have a brain), and the sensation of pain (and of suffering more generally) requires a central nervous system, not just any nervous system. So, if oysters and other bivalves can't feel pain, vegans can ethically consume them. The reason why vegans don't eat cows, for example, is not because the cows are animals, rather it's because they're entities that are capable of suffering (and which do indeed suffer in the conditions in which they are raised and killed for human consumption). If, for example, someone discovered a new species of plant in the Amazon rainforest, and it turned out that such a plant was capable of experiencing pain, then it would not be vegan to eat it, even though it's a plant instead of an animal. So, vegans are divided into two camps here, because the question "Are oysters vengan?" has not been universally settled, at least not to my knowledge.

Non-vegan counterpoint 2: Some people like the taste of meat, and we cannot dictate what other people's tastes should be.
Possible vegan response: It seems to me that this counterpoint confuses two different meanings of the word "taste". In one sense, it's true that some people like the taste of meat, because "taste" here means that they like the sensation of meat on their tongue. They like how meat "feels like" to the tongue. But when someone says "we cannot dictate what other people's tastes should be", that's a different sort of discussion. The fact that we cannot dictate what other people's tastes should be is not a sufficient reason for justifying the trivial claim that some people like the taste of meat. That being said, I'm not sure if every vegan (and non-vegan) would agree with what I just said, as a possible vegan response to the counterpoint being advanced by the non-vegan here.

Non-vegan counterpoint 3: Eating meat, or dishes that have meat as one of their ingredients, is a tradition in several cultures. In Argentina, for example, asado (roasted meat, similar to a barbecue) is traditional. So is consuming meat in general. In other countries, they have comparable traditions, as far as cuisine goes.
Possible vegan response: Personally, I'm not exactly sure what vegans should say here. No doubt, this is in part due to my own upbringing as an Argentine. Perhaps it would be easier for me to state an opinion if the example was from a different culture, not one from my own culture, but then I don't know if it would be morally correct to state an opinion about other people's cuisines while remaining silent about the cuisine of my own country.

What do you think of all of that, @ToothyMaw? Thanks again for all of your valuable contributions to this Thread!

The song that started Straight Edge.



EDIT: And, of course, the obligatory parody of that song, by NOFX.