What is your opinion on veganism?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by sw651
How? Do explain. 
ite look, it's proper etiquette in an argument to look presentable; there's no point if you're just gonna look like **** is it? Sort yourself out, then we can talk
Original post by WarriorOfPeace
ite look, it's proper etiquette in an argument to look presentable; there's no point if you're just gonna look like **** is it? Sort yourself out, then we can talk
You're trying to give me a lesson on etiquette and you throw insults about? Nice one
Original post by sw651
You're trying to give me a lesson on etiquette and you throw insults about? Nice one
well I am the warrior of peace -- all about dem peaceful discussions
Original post by WarriorOfPeace
well I am the warrior of peace -- all about dem peaceful discussions
Bare peaceful fam
Original post by lustawny
Eat up, fatty
Original post by Ethereal World
Indeed he has. But I'm over it. He's genuinely the worst person I've come across online. I have no idea how one person can be so deluded, and not listen to the majority of people when they tell him that he is not actually being logical.
Basically this is a typical argument with Lustawny.
(L denotes him and E denotes me)
L- I think this
E- I think this, it disagrees with you but this is why, and also I've considered this.
L- yes but this is fact. I have used cold hard empirical evidence. This is logic. You are wrong because I am logic.
E- yes but have you considered that actually most of what we perceive as fact is subjective as well? Anyone with a proper degree level education knows that...
L- omg you're so stupid I've had this argument won now
E- rightttt okay, just imploring that it might be a good idea to think because I don't think you've considered these things and they're important
L- I don't need to. Remember I am logic. And if you disagree with this then YOU DISAGREE WITH DAWKINS and here's a video of DAWKINS and now I'm going to randomly change the subject and talk about religion and reduce everything to the same common denominator because I actually have no clue how to reason.
E- can't continue to bash head against wall. Think I'm off
L- omggggg yeah told you so. I WIN.
E-
Basically this is a typical argument with Lustawny.
(L denotes him and E denotes me)
L- I think this
E- I think this, it disagrees with you but this is why, and also I've considered this.
L- yes but this is fact. I have used cold hard empirical evidence. This is logic. You are wrong because I am logic.
E- yes but have you considered that actually most of what we perceive as fact is subjective as well? Anyone with a proper degree level education knows that...
L- omg you're so stupid I've had this argument won now
E- rightttt okay, just imploring that it might be a good idea to think because I don't think you've considered these things and they're important
L- I don't need to. Remember I am logic. And if you disagree with this then YOU DISAGREE WITH DAWKINS and here's a video of DAWKINS and now I'm going to randomly change the subject and talk about religion and reduce everything to the same common denominator because I actually have no clue how to reason.
E- can't continue to bash head against wall. Think I'm off
L- omggggg yeah told you so. I WIN.
E-
This is completely on point
It accurately captures his personality which could only be improved by the addition of a fedora like the classy gentlesir he is
Original post by Ethereal World
Indeed he has. But I'm over it. He's genuinely the worst person I've come across online. I have no idea how one person can be so deluded, and not listen to the majority of people when they tell him that he is not actually being logical.
Basically this is a typical argument with Lustawny.
(L denotes him and E denotes me)
L- I think this
E- I think this, it disagrees with you but this is why, and also I've considered this.
L- yes but this is fact. I have used cold hard empirical evidence. This is logic. You are wrong because I am logic.
E- yes but have you considered that actually most of what we perceive as fact is subjective as well? Anyone with a proper degree level education knows that...
L- omg you're so stupid I've had this argument won now
E- rightttt okay, just imploring that it might be a good idea to think because I don't think you've considered these things and they're important
L- I don't need to. Remember I am logic. And if you disagree with this then YOU DISAGREE WITH DAWKINS and here's a video of DAWKINS and now I'm going to randomly change the subject and talk about religion and reduce everything to the same common denominator because I actually have no clue how to reason.
E- can't continue to bash head against wall. Think I'm off
L- omggggg yeah told you so. I WIN.
E-
Basically this is a typical argument with Lustawny.
(L denotes him and E denotes me)
L- I think this
E- I think this, it disagrees with you but this is why, and also I've considered this.
L- yes but this is fact. I have used cold hard empirical evidence. This is logic. You are wrong because I am logic.
E- yes but have you considered that actually most of what we perceive as fact is subjective as well? Anyone with a proper degree level education knows that...
L- omg you're so stupid I've had this argument won now
E- rightttt okay, just imploring that it might be a good idea to think because I don't think you've considered these things and they're important
L- I don't need to. Remember I am logic. And if you disagree with this then YOU DISAGREE WITH DAWKINS and here's a video of DAWKINS and now I'm going to randomly change the subject and talk about religion and reduce everything to the same common denominator because I actually have no clue how to reason.
E- can't continue to bash head against wall. Think I'm off
L- omggggg yeah told you so. I WIN.
E-
he decided i was his enemy yesterday, tagged me in a thread about being slapped Original post by antipol
This is completely on point
It accurately captures his personality which could only be improved by the addition of a fedora like the classy gentlesir he is
It accurately captures his personality which could only be improved by the addition of a fedora like the classy gentlesir he is
Euphoric/10 - Would invite to athiest society
Original post by Zargabaath
Euphoric/10 - Would invite to athiest society
He's so logical and intellectual.
A master debater if ever there was one
Just a few quick hit and run points about the last few pages:
1) Morality (in the sense we are using it) is not objective, or at the very least there is nothing approaching a consensus that it is. There may be some intrinsic biological impulses and such that appear to be moral absolutes (think Rousseau: "...and at the same time so natural, that the very brutes themselves sometimes give evident proofs of it") but even these do not present with sufficient frequency or specificity to be considered such.
2) Dictionaries are not supposed to provide exhaustive definitions of things, or to be the primary authority on meaning. They are a lexical guide, a useful but inherently limited tool.
3) Stringer is very interesting and I've read a great deal of his writing with interest but refutations of his work (whether you agree with them or not) are widely available, so to suggest that his views are somehow representative of "professional philosophers" or that he has "won" the argument is facile.
4) You don't need a degree to be able to debate something, or even to be an expert on something. You certainly don't need any formal training in philosophy to be knowledgeable about it. I don't have a degree. I have never formally studied philosophy. I do however own and have read maybe 30+ philosophy books alongside countless lectures, talks, articles and debates. I'm certainly not an expert - I'm not even close - but I reject the notion that we should disregard what people say based on their formal education. This leads to point 5.
5) Ad hominems just aren't cricket.
6) Seeing as everyone here is fantastically interested in philosophy, I wonder why people are so ready to accept the notion of an objective fact as objective truth. It strikes me that we might at least have to discuss what truth means, whether justifications for belief are sufficient and whether expedience (James) plays a role in what we consider true? It might be worth us reading Dewey and Rorty, or to consider that truth and thus fact conceptually stem from experience. It may then follow that myriad things cause people to experience things differently and thus the water is even muddier. I don't have nearly enough knowledge to have this debate properly, and I would doubt that anyone else here does either but the point I am illustrating is that there is pretty much nothing that is agreed in philosophy so using one person's views to support of what you claim to be an objective statement is an interesting tactic.
7) There is considerable literature about the nutritional effects of eating animal protein(s) and the health implications of vegan and vegetarian diets. I would again encourage people to be critical. The holy grail for one side of this argument is often The China Study but as with above there is an incredible amount of refutations widely available on the internet. The nutrition aspect is perhaps the hardest to navigate, at least it is for me as I am woefully under-qualified to properly engage with a lot of scientific studies but I know better than to think any individual source is gospel.
8) Ultimately my personal opinion is that ethical veganism is a valid choice for people to make, as is dietary veganism, but it is not an objectively better choice than consuming animal products. Vegans are not better people by virtue of their veganism in the same way that people who volunteer and not objectively more compassionate than people who don't. The real thing we need to avoid is being too reductionist about these arguments and diluting them to them vs us tribal arguments. There are good good reasons to be vegan and good reasons not to be, denigrating somebody for their choice won't magically convert them to your cause.
I could say a lot more but I've already spent well over five minutes writing what was meant to be a one minute post so this will do.
1) Morality (in the sense we are using it) is not objective, or at the very least there is nothing approaching a consensus that it is. There may be some intrinsic biological impulses and such that appear to be moral absolutes (think Rousseau: "...and at the same time so natural, that the very brutes themselves sometimes give evident proofs of it") but even these do not present with sufficient frequency or specificity to be considered such.
2) Dictionaries are not supposed to provide exhaustive definitions of things, or to be the primary authority on meaning. They are a lexical guide, a useful but inherently limited tool.
3) Stringer is very interesting and I've read a great deal of his writing with interest but refutations of his work (whether you agree with them or not) are widely available, so to suggest that his views are somehow representative of "professional philosophers" or that he has "won" the argument is facile.
4) You don't need a degree to be able to debate something, or even to be an expert on something. You certainly don't need any formal training in philosophy to be knowledgeable about it. I don't have a degree. I have never formally studied philosophy. I do however own and have read maybe 30+ philosophy books alongside countless lectures, talks, articles and debates. I'm certainly not an expert - I'm not even close - but I reject the notion that we should disregard what people say based on their formal education. This leads to point 5.
5) Ad hominems just aren't cricket.
6) Seeing as everyone here is fantastically interested in philosophy, I wonder why people are so ready to accept the notion of an objective fact as objective truth. It strikes me that we might at least have to discuss what truth means, whether justifications for belief are sufficient and whether expedience (James) plays a role in what we consider true? It might be worth us reading Dewey and Rorty, or to consider that truth and thus fact conceptually stem from experience. It may then follow that myriad things cause people to experience things differently and thus the water is even muddier. I don't have nearly enough knowledge to have this debate properly, and I would doubt that anyone else here does either but the point I am illustrating is that there is pretty much nothing that is agreed in philosophy so using one person's views to support of what you claim to be an objective statement is an interesting tactic.
7) There is considerable literature about the nutritional effects of eating animal protein(s) and the health implications of vegan and vegetarian diets. I would again encourage people to be critical. The holy grail for one side of this argument is often The China Study but as with above there is an incredible amount of refutations widely available on the internet. The nutrition aspect is perhaps the hardest to navigate, at least it is for me as I am woefully under-qualified to properly engage with a lot of scientific studies but I know better than to think any individual source is gospel.
8) Ultimately my personal opinion is that ethical veganism is a valid choice for people to make, as is dietary veganism, but it is not an objectively better choice than consuming animal products. Vegans are not better people by virtue of their veganism in the same way that people who volunteer and not objectively more compassionate than people who don't. The real thing we need to avoid is being too reductionist about these arguments and diluting them to them vs us tribal arguments. There are good good reasons to be vegan and good reasons not to be, denigrating somebody for their choice won't magically convert them to your cause.
I could say a lot more but I've already spent well over five minutes writing what was meant to be a one minute post so this will do.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ByronicHero
Just a few quick hit and run points about the last few pages:
1) Morality (in the sense we are using it) is not objective, or at the very least there is nothing approaching a consensus that it is. There may be some intrinsic biological impulses and such that appear to be moral absolutes (think Rousseau: "...and at the same time so natural, that the very brutes themselves sometimes give evident proofs of it") but even these do not present with sufficient frequency or specificity to be considered such.
2) Dictionaries are not supposed to provide exhaustive definitions of things, or to be the primary authority on meaning. They are a lexical guide, a useful but inherently limited tool.
3) Stringer is very interesting and I've read a great deal of his writing with interest but refutations of his work (whether you agree with them or not) are widely available, so to suggest that his views are somehow representative of "professional philosophers" or that he has "won" the argument is facile.
4) You don't need a degree to be able to debate something, or even to be an expert on something. You certainly don't need any formal training in philosophy to be knowledgeable about it. I don't have a degree. I have never formally studied philosophy. I do however own and have read maybe 30+ philosophy books alongside countless lectures, talks, articles and debates. I'm certainly not an expert - I'm not even close - but I reject the notion that we should disregard what people say based on their formal education. This leads to point 5.
5) Ad hominems just aren't cricket.
6) Seeing as everyone here is fantastically interested in philosophy, I wonder why people are so ready to accept the notion of an objective fact as objective truth. It strikes me that we might at least have to discuss what truth means, whether justifications for belief are sufficient and whether expedience (James) plays a role in what we consider true? It might be worth us reading Dewey and Rorty, or to consider that truth and thus fact conceptually stem from experience. It may then follow that myriad things cause people to experience things differently and thus the water is even muddier. I don't have nearly enough knowledge to have this debate properly, and I would doubt that anyone else here does either but the point I am illustrating is that there is pretty much nothing that is agreed in philosophy so using one person's views to support of what you claim to be an objective statement is an interesting tactic.
7) There is considerable literature about the nutritional effects of eating animal protein(s) and the health implications of vegan and vegetarian diets. I would again encourage people to be critical. The holy grail for one side of this argument is often The China Study but as with above there is an incredible amount of refutations widely available on the internet. The nutrition aspect is perhaps the hardest to navigate, at least it is for me as I am woefully under-qualified to properly engage with a lot of scientific studies but I know better than to think any individual source is gospel.
8) Ultimately my personal opinion is that ethical veganism is a valid choice for people to make, as is dietary veganism, but it is not an objectively better choice than consuming animal products. Vegans are not better people by virtue of their veganism in the same way that people who volunteer and not objectively more compassionate than people who don't. The real thing we need to avoid is being too reductionist about these arguments and diluting them to them vs us tribal arguments. There are good good reasons to be vegan and good reasons not to be, denigrating somebody for their choice won't magically convert them to your cause.
I could say a lot more but I've already spent well over five minutes writing what was meant to be a one minute post so this will do.
1) Morality (in the sense we are using it) is not objective, or at the very least there is nothing approaching a consensus that it is. There may be some intrinsic biological impulses and such that appear to be moral absolutes (think Rousseau: "...and at the same time so natural, that the very brutes themselves sometimes give evident proofs of it") but even these do not present with sufficient frequency or specificity to be considered such.
2) Dictionaries are not supposed to provide exhaustive definitions of things, or to be the primary authority on meaning. They are a lexical guide, a useful but inherently limited tool.
3) Stringer is very interesting and I've read a great deal of his writing with interest but refutations of his work (whether you agree with them or not) are widely available, so to suggest that his views are somehow representative of "professional philosophers" or that he has "won" the argument is facile.
4) You don't need a degree to be able to debate something, or even to be an expert on something. You certainly don't need any formal training in philosophy to be knowledgeable about it. I don't have a degree. I have never formally studied philosophy. I do however own and have read maybe 30+ philosophy books alongside countless lectures, talks, articles and debates. I'm certainly not an expert - I'm not even close - but I reject the notion that we should disregard what people say based on their formal education. This leads to point 5.
5) Ad hominems just aren't cricket.
6) Seeing as everyone here is fantastically interested in philosophy, I wonder why people are so ready to accept the notion of an objective fact as objective truth. It strikes me that we might at least have to discuss what truth means, whether justifications for belief are sufficient and whether expedience (James) plays a role in what we consider true? It might be worth us reading Dewey and Rorty, or to consider that truth and thus fact conceptually stem from experience. It may then follow that myriad things cause people to experience things differently and thus the water is even muddier. I don't have nearly enough knowledge to have this debate properly, and I would doubt that anyone else here does either but the point I am illustrating is that there is pretty much nothing that is agreed in philosophy so using one person's views to support of what you claim to be an objective statement is an interesting tactic.
7) There is considerable literature about the nutritional effects of eating animal protein(s) and the health implications of vegan and vegetarian diets. I would again encourage people to be critical. The holy grail for one side of this argument is often The China Study but as with above there is an incredible amount of refutations widely available on the internet. The nutrition aspect is perhaps the hardest to navigate, at least it is for me as I am woefully under-qualified to properly engage with a lot of scientific studies but I know better than to think any individual source is gospel.
8) Ultimately my personal opinion is that ethical veganism is a valid choice for people to make, as is dietary veganism, but it is not an objectively better choice than consuming animal products. Vegans are not better people by virtue of their veganism in the same way that people who volunteer and not objectively more compassionate than people who don't. The real thing we need to avoid is being too reductionist about these arguments and diluting them to them vs us tribal arguments. There are good good reasons to be vegan and good reasons not to be, denigrating somebody for their choice won't magically convert them to your cause.
I could say a lot more but I've already spent well over five minutes writing what was meant to be a one minute post so this will do.
You. Are. Incredible.
Hopefully lustawny (and sw651) read some of the points about objective truth and philosophy. They sure as hell need to.
Thank you for being a voice of reason and the realisation that no human is flawless.
Original post by antipol
He's so logical and intellectual.
A master debater if ever there was one
A master debater if ever there was one
He must debate a lot, do you think he's a Mass Debater?
Original post by ByronicHero
Just a few quick hit and run points about the last few pages:
1) Morality (in the sense we are using it) is not objective, or at the very least there is nothing approaching a consensus that it is. There may be some intrinsic biological impulses and such that appear to be moral absolutes (think Rousseau: "...and at the same time so natural, that the very brutes themselves sometimes give evident proofs of it" but even these do not present with sufficient frequency or specificity to be considered such.
2) Dictionaries are not supposed to provide exhaustive definitions of things, or to be the primary authority on meaning. They are a lexical guide, a useful but inherently limited tool.
3) Stringer is very interesting and I've read a great deal of his writing with interest but refutations of his work (whether you agree with them or not) are widely available, so to suggest that his views are somehow representative of "professional philosophers" or that he has "won" the argument is facile.
4) You don't need a degree to be able to debate something, or even to be an expert on something. You certainly don't need any formal training in philosophy to be knowledgeable about it. I don't have a degree. I have never formally studied philosophy. I do however own and have read maybe 30+ philosophy books alongside countless lectures, talks, articles and debates. I'm certainly not an expert - I'm not even close - but I reject the notion that we should disregard what people say based on their formal education. This leads to point 5.
5) Ad hominems just aren't cricket.
6) Seeing as everyone here is fantastically interested in philosophy, I wonder why people are so ready to accept the notion of an objective fact as objective truth. It strikes me that we might at least have to discuss what truth means, whether justifications for belief are sufficient and whether expedience (James) plays a role in what we consider true? It might be worth us reading Dewey and Rorty, or to consider that truth and thus fact conceptually stem from experience. It may then follow that myriad things cause people to experience things differently and thus the water is even muddier. I don't have nearly enough knowledge to have this debate properly, and I would doubt that anyone else here does either but the point I am illustrating is that there is pretty much nothing that is agreed in philosophy so using one person's views to support of what you claim to be an objective statement is an interesting tactic.
7) There is considerable literature about the nutritional effects of eating animal protein(s) and the health implications of vegan and vegetarian diets. I would again encourage people to be critical. The holy grail for one side of this argument is often The China Study but as with above there is an incredible amount of refutations widely available on the internet. The nutrition aspect is perhaps the hardest to navigate, at least it is for me as I am woefully under-qualified to properly engage with a lot of scientific studies but I know better than to think any individual source is gospel.
8) Ultimately my personal opinion is that ethical veganism is a valid choice for people to make, as is dietary veganism, but it is not an objectively better choice than consuming animal products. Vegans are not better people by virtue of their veganism in the same way that people who volunteer and not objectively more compassionate than people who don't. The real thing we need to avoid is being too reductionist about these arguments and diluting them to them vs us tribal arguments. There are good good reasons to be vegan and good reasons not to be, denigrating somebody for their choice won't magically convert them to your cause.
I could say a lot more but I've already spent well over five minutes writing what was meant to be a one minute post so this will do.
1) Morality (in the sense we are using it) is not objective, or at the very least there is nothing approaching a consensus that it is. There may be some intrinsic biological impulses and such that appear to be moral absolutes (think Rousseau: "...and at the same time so natural, that the very brutes themselves sometimes give evident proofs of it"
but even these do not present with sufficient frequency or specificity to be considered such. 2) Dictionaries are not supposed to provide exhaustive definitions of things, or to be the primary authority on meaning. They are a lexical guide, a useful but inherently limited tool.
3) Stringer is very interesting and I've read a great deal of his writing with interest but refutations of his work (whether you agree with them or not) are widely available, so to suggest that his views are somehow representative of "professional philosophers" or that he has "won" the argument is facile.
4) You don't need a degree to be able to debate something, or even to be an expert on something. You certainly don't need any formal training in philosophy to be knowledgeable about it. I don't have a degree. I have never formally studied philosophy. I do however own and have read maybe 30+ philosophy books alongside countless lectures, talks, articles and debates. I'm certainly not an expert - I'm not even close - but I reject the notion that we should disregard what people say based on their formal education. This leads to point 5.
5) Ad hominems just aren't cricket.
6) Seeing as everyone here is fantastically interested in philosophy, I wonder why people are so ready to accept the notion of an objective fact as objective truth. It strikes me that we might at least have to discuss what truth means, whether justifications for belief are sufficient and whether expedience (James) plays a role in what we consider true? It might be worth us reading Dewey and Rorty, or to consider that truth and thus fact conceptually stem from experience. It may then follow that myriad things cause people to experience things differently and thus the water is even muddier. I don't have nearly enough knowledge to have this debate properly, and I would doubt that anyone else here does either but the point I am illustrating is that there is pretty much nothing that is agreed in philosophy so using one person's views to support of what you claim to be an objective statement is an interesting tactic.
7) There is considerable literature about the nutritional effects of eating animal protein(s) and the health implications of vegan and vegetarian diets. I would again encourage people to be critical. The holy grail for one side of this argument is often The China Study but as with above there is an incredible amount of refutations widely available on the internet. The nutrition aspect is perhaps the hardest to navigate, at least it is for me as I am woefully under-qualified to properly engage with a lot of scientific studies but I know better than to think any individual source is gospel.
8) Ultimately my personal opinion is that ethical veganism is a valid choice for people to make, as is dietary veganism, but it is not an objectively better choice than consuming animal products. Vegans are not better people by virtue of their veganism in the same way that people who volunteer and not objectively more compassionate than people who don't. The real thing we need to avoid is being too reductionist about these arguments and diluting them to them vs us tribal arguments. There are good good reasons to be vegan and good reasons not to be, denigrating somebody for their choice won't magically convert them to your cause.
I could say a lot more but I've already spent well over five minutes writing what was meant to be a one minute post so this will do.
This is a top post I must say.
Original post by Zargabaath
He must debate a lot, do you think he's a Mass Debater?
I'd wager online mass debating is all he'll ever do
Original post by antipol
I'd wager online mass debating is all he'll ever do
PRSOM
Original post by ByronicHero
...
Thanks for your input. Glad to see a moderate voice of reason here. I do think that you're too quick to emphasise disagreement amongst moral philosophers, however, and too quick to try to take the middle ground.
Original post by ByronicHero
1) Morality (in the sense we are using it) is not objective, or at the very least there is nothing approaching a consensus that it is. There may be some intrinsic biological impulses and such that appear to be moral absolutes (think Rousseau: "...and at the same time so natural, that the very brutes themselves sometimes give evident proofs of it") but even these do not present with sufficient frequency or specificity to be considered such.
I would disagree on this. In my view, there are objective moral values, and objectivity in ethics is the dominant view amongst moral philosophers, with philosophers endorsing moral realism outnumbering those who do not believe that morality is objective by more than two-to-one. There have been a number of excellent works in recent years defending objective morality, including most notably On What Matters by Derek Parfit and The Point of View of the Universe, co-authored by Peter Singer.
Original post by ByronicHero
2) Stringer is very interesting and I've read a great deal of his writing with interest but refutations of his work (whether you agree with them or not) are widely available, so to suggest that his views are somehow representative of "professional philosophers" or that he has "won" the argument is facile.
Again, an even larger majority of moral philosophers - 60% - believe that eating meat is immoral.
Original post by ByronicHero
7) There is considerable literature about the nutritional effects of eating animal protein(s) and the health implications of vegan and vegetarian diets. I would again encourage people to be critical. The holy grail for one side of this argument is often The China Study but as with above there is an incredible amount of refutations widely available on the internet. The nutrition aspect is perhaps the hardest to navigate, at least it is for me as I am woefully under-qualified to properly engage with a lot of scientific studies but I know better than to think any individual source is gospel.
The China Study is simply not the holy grail for one side of this argument. I'm fully in agreement with the refutations of the China Study.
All that is required for vegetarians/vegans (I will refer to them as veg*ns) is to demonstrate that a veg*n diet can be just as healthy as an omnivorous diet. The peer-reviewed scientific literature strongly supports this conclusion. As the American Dietetic Association have stated:
...appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.
Original post by ByronicHero
8) Ultimately my personal opinion is that ethical veganism is a valid choice for people to make, as is dietary veganism, but it is not an objectively better choice than consuming animal products. Vegans are not better people by virtue of their veganism in the same way that people who volunteer and not objectively more compassionate than people who don't. The real thing we need to avoid is being too reductionist about these arguments and diluting them to them vs us tribal arguments. There are good good reasons to be vegan and good reasons not to be, denigrating somebody for their choice won't magically convert them to your cause.
In terms of the issue of consumption of animal products, I would argue that veg*ns are being more ethical in their conduct than omnivores. That doesn't, of course, mean that veg*ns are more ethical in other aspects of life, but on this issue, I think that the position that veg*ns are being more ethical is easily defensible.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ByronicHero
1) Morality (in the sense we are using it) is not objective, or at the very least there is nothing approaching a consensus that it is. There may be some intrinsic biological impulses and such that appear to be moral absolutes (think Rousseau: "...and at the same time so natural, that the very brutes themselves sometimes give evident proofs of it"
but even these do not present with sufficient frequency or specificity to be considered such.What sense...? The majority of philosophers are moral realists. As the reddit link provides, many of them do think there are objective truths to many things but aren't absolutists; hence, many would argue that morality is indeed objective.
3) Stringer is very interesting and I've read a great deal of his writing with interest but refutations of his work (whether you agree with them or not) are widely available, so to suggest that his views are somehow representative of "professional philosophers" or that he has "won" the argument is facile.
Yes, and it's largely taken that these responses are weak, which is why most philosophers will still buy into Singer's arguments. Singer has also responded to many of these refutations as well. The point wasn't that you should just blindly listen to them, but that lustawny mentioned that vegan arguments are often taken apart, which isn't true.
4) You don't need a degree to be able to debate something, or even to be an expert on something. You certainly don't need any formal training in philosophy to be knowledgeable about it. I don't have a degree. I have never formally studied philosophy. I do however own and have read maybe 30+ philosophy books alongside countless lectures, talks, articles and debates. I'm certainly not an expert - I'm not even close - but I reject the notion that we should disregard what people say based on their formal education. This leads to point 5.
Nobody has that -- I haven't claimed to be the expert myself. But if you're going to mention things which are just philosophically incorrect and brush them off as if they're mere reddit posts then there's going to be trouble.
7) There is considerable literature about the nutritional effects of eating animal protein(s) and the health implications of vegan and vegetarian diets. I would again encourage people to be critical. The holy grail for one side of this qualified to properly engage with a lot of scientific studies but I know better than to think any individual source is gospel argument is often The China Study but as with above there is an incredible amount of refutations widely available on the internet. The nutrition aspect is perhaps the hardest to navigate, at least it is for me as I am woefully under-
I'm not sure what to get at here. It should be quite obvious that philosophers would've considered the health implications of both.
See:https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/388xkv/for_any_philosopherstudent_of_philosophy_who_isnt/crtpyt6
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by ByronicHero
Just a few quick hit and run points about the last few pages:
1) Morality (in the sense we are using it) is not objective, or at the very least there is nothing approaching a consensus that it is. There may be some intrinsic biological impulses and such that appear to be moral absolutes (think Rousseau: "...and at the same time so natural, that the very brutes themselves sometimes give evident proofs of it" but even these do not present with sufficient frequency or specificity to be considered such.
2) Dictionaries are not supposed to provide exhaustive definitions of things, or to be the primary authority on meaning. They are a lexical guide, a useful but inherently limited tool.
3) Stringer is very interesting and I've read a great deal of his writing with interest but refutations of his work (whether you agree with them or not) are widely available, so to suggest that his views are somehow representative of "professional philosophers" or that he has "won" the argument is facile.
4) You don't need a degree to be able to debate something, or even to be an expert on something. You certainly don't need any formal training in philosophy to be knowledgeable about it. I don't have a degree. I have never formally studied philosophy. I do however own and have read maybe 30+ philosophy books alongside countless lectures, talks, articles and debates. I'm certainly not an expert - I'm not even close - but I reject the notion that we should disregard what people say based on their formal education. This leads to point 5.
5) Ad hominems just aren't cricket.
6) Seeing as everyone here is fantastically interested in philosophy, I wonder why people are so ready to accept the notion of an objective fact as objective truth. It strikes me that we might at least have to discuss what truth means, whether justifications for belief are sufficient and whether expedience (James) plays a role in what we consider true? It might be worth us reading Dewey and Rorty, or to consider that truth and thus fact conceptually stem from experience. It may then follow that myriad things cause people to experience things differently and thus the water is even muddier. I don't have nearly enough knowledge to have this debate properly, and I would doubt that anyone else here does either but the point I am illustrating is that there is pretty much nothing that is agreed in philosophy so using one person's views to support of what you claim to be an objective statement is an interesting tactic.
7) There is considerable literature about the nutritional effects of eating animal protein(s) and the health implications of vegan and vegetarian diets. I would again encourage people to be critical. The holy grail for one side of this argument is often The China Study but as with above there is an incredible amount of refutations widely available on the internet. The nutrition aspect is perhaps the hardest to navigate, at least it is for me as I am woefully under-qualified to properly engage with a lot of scientific studies but I know better than to think any individual source is gospel.
8) Ultimately my personal opinion is that ethical veganism is a valid choice for people to make, as is dietary veganism, but it is not an objectively better choice than consuming animal products. Vegans are not better people by virtue of their veganism in the same way that people who volunteer and not objectively more compassionate than people who don't. The real thing we need to avoid is being too reductionist about these arguments and diluting them to them vs us tribal arguments. There are good good reasons to be vegan and good reasons not to be, denigrating somebody for their choice won't magically convert them to your cause.
I could say a lot more but I've already spent well over five minutes writing what was meant to be a one minute post so this will do.
1) Morality (in the sense we are using it) is not objective, or at the very least there is nothing approaching a consensus that it is. There may be some intrinsic biological impulses and such that appear to be moral absolutes (think Rousseau: "...and at the same time so natural, that the very brutes themselves sometimes give evident proofs of it"
but even these do not present with sufficient frequency or specificity to be considered such. 2) Dictionaries are not supposed to provide exhaustive definitions of things, or to be the primary authority on meaning. They are a lexical guide, a useful but inherently limited tool.
3) Stringer is very interesting and I've read a great deal of his writing with interest but refutations of his work (whether you agree with them or not) are widely available, so to suggest that his views are somehow representative of "professional philosophers" or that he has "won" the argument is facile.
4) You don't need a degree to be able to debate something, or even to be an expert on something. You certainly don't need any formal training in philosophy to be knowledgeable about it. I don't have a degree. I have never formally studied philosophy. I do however own and have read maybe 30+ philosophy books alongside countless lectures, talks, articles and debates. I'm certainly not an expert - I'm not even close - but I reject the notion that we should disregard what people say based on their formal education. This leads to point 5.
5) Ad hominems just aren't cricket.
6) Seeing as everyone here is fantastically interested in philosophy, I wonder why people are so ready to accept the notion of an objective fact as objective truth. It strikes me that we might at least have to discuss what truth means, whether justifications for belief are sufficient and whether expedience (James) plays a role in what we consider true? It might be worth us reading Dewey and Rorty, or to consider that truth and thus fact conceptually stem from experience. It may then follow that myriad things cause people to experience things differently and thus the water is even muddier. I don't have nearly enough knowledge to have this debate properly, and I would doubt that anyone else here does either but the point I am illustrating is that there is pretty much nothing that is agreed in philosophy so using one person's views to support of what you claim to be an objective statement is an interesting tactic.
7) There is considerable literature about the nutritional effects of eating animal protein(s) and the health implications of vegan and vegetarian diets. I would again encourage people to be critical. The holy grail for one side of this argument is often The China Study but as with above there is an incredible amount of refutations widely available on the internet. The nutrition aspect is perhaps the hardest to navigate, at least it is for me as I am woefully under-qualified to properly engage with a lot of scientific studies but I know better than to think any individual source is gospel.
8) Ultimately my personal opinion is that ethical veganism is a valid choice for people to make, as is dietary veganism, but it is not an objectively better choice than consuming animal products. Vegans are not better people by virtue of their veganism in the same way that people who volunteer and not objectively more compassionate than people who don't. The real thing we need to avoid is being too reductionist about these arguments and diluting them to them vs us tribal arguments. There are good good reasons to be vegan and good reasons not to be, denigrating somebody for their choice won't magically convert them to your cause.
I could say a lot more but I've already spent well over five minutes writing what was meant to be a one minute post so this will do.
So with that being the case, did I beat Ethereal in our debate? Feel free to go on my profile and read through it, if you haven't already.
Original post by YesAllMen
...
I was debating whether to enter, seeing as the debate so far has been quite messy and it was hard to synthesise everyone's views!
Original post by lustawny
So with that being the case, did I beat Ethereal in our debate? Feel free to go on my profile and read through it, if you haven't already.
Debates should be a collaboration between two or more people to get to the truth. Framing the debate as a competition immediately means that you're entrenched in your position. We both appear to be atheists, and trust me, I'm well aware of the temptation to make everything about "winning the debate" particularly when it comes to religious arguments, but it's much more productive to view debates as a collaboration.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- if i will only date a vegetarian/vegan will i be unlikely to find a gf
- UK professor suffered discrimination due to anti-Zionist beliefs, tribunal rules
- Is it okay for a vegan to work for a supermarket?
- Birthday cake and vegan friend dilemma
- TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?
- any other vegans here?
- Student threatened with expulsion for private views?
- Who else is vegan on here?
- Getting Kathy fit again. Take II
- going vegan ?
- best cambridge colleges for vegan food?
- University - recipe suggestions for students
- Do you think universities should ban meat from their menus?
- IBS...exams/uni how do u guyz cope
- Is plant milk better than cow milk?
- Self-catered vs Catered accommodation at Bath
- my older sister thinks I am copying her. when im not.
- insecure body image
- Vegan at University of Sheffield - ask me anything!
- Kallisto's Sunday Question: Vegetables
