THE MORALITY :: THE LOGIC
The Difference Between Sexists, Racists, and Speciesists Is Insignificant
I think there are two concepts of morality that commonly currently circulate our mainstream:
- People compare how good each other are; virtue bragging.
- People do not look at people, but instead, the consequences of their decisions, as good or bad.
It may be worth reading my views on Morality, before continuing this read.
In essence, we can socialize our desires to reach a moral state of society. Selfish desires are simple; you decide whatever is your highest motivation, among a list of motives. We can also decide who deserves the ability to have their desire(s) be met when two people’s desires are in conflict. Which is constantly. Common examples of conflicting desires can be seen in economics, effects on climate, production costs, and resource distribution. It is important to measure the level of deservingness, specifically because we are engaged in societies.
Then, there are smaller effects from decisions, such as deciding who eats the last piece of bread in the house or maybe even who lives or dies in some hypothetical situation. Of course a selfish person in power can choose to let the powerless person suffer the consequences of their lack of power, in this hypothetical case, death.
What if the mind of the one who is lower in power, is actually more useful?
We can create a system of fairness, and distribute the fulfillment of desires in a fair way. Where fairness is determined rationally. We can have a system of empathy. We can measure each other’s emotions or predict the emotions at least in a generalized way, and use this to determine who’s desires are more important. I would claim that we all do this. We can see a pig screaming and we are not so stupid that we cannot predict it suffer in either fear or pain.
We can also measure desires themselves relative to each other. Survival matters much more than good tasting meal. Especially since being dead prevents you from eating every single day for the rest of eternity, whereas skipping a meal gives you many more opportunities to eat, in most cases.
In this way, unless we can prove why a pig should lose its survival, for the sake of good tasting food, we should not use our power to reach this goal. We should consider the creature as having equally valid need for life and good tasting food, equally as our desires, UNLESS, we can explain why.
Many humans may be playing video games, right now, in their room, or worse, their mother’s basement, and they may be even living off government money. This person is not necessarily useful to society. The loss of this person and the pig may have the same impact on the rest of us, who have no connection to either of them. One of the video gamers may have died of a heart attack right now and you may not feel personally affected. Similarly as unimportant as the pig, except to their family or friends. It’s worth noting that the video gamer likely has a much higher cost of maintenance and usage of our collective resources.
So we can’t say this particular human is more valuable than the pig, except to their families. We can argue that the pig lives among other pigs, who will be affected by the loss of one of their peers or family members.
Why should this person be allowed to kill the pig and eat them but I cannot kill and eat the video-gaming human? It comes down to the law giving you human privileges.
You have power/privilege that allows you to eat the pig. The numbers in this graphic are somewhat arbitrary.
We are not consistent in how we assign privilege. This is the core issue. This is why it is illogical. This is why it is “immoral”. Why should your quality of life be determined by being born white, or a pig?
Speaking of the defenseless,
Check this post where I make a case that humans may not even be the most intelligent animal. Humans, instead of purely intelligence masters, are more like hive-minded chimpanzee-ants. Note that ants have developed agriculture but chimps have not, and ants clearly are not more intellectually capable than chimps. Human evolution might have selected for reduced cognition and hyper-sociability, or domestication. It has been linked to physiological traits such as adrenal functioning, and spans across species, even birds, resulting in similar cognitive and physical alterations. The post I made on the topic is worth checking out, if you are curious. It is surely very counter-intuitive.
Not that low intelligence is a good reason to holocaust people.
Complaining about white privilege or financial privilege and etc, is hypocritical with the stance of eating animals for taste pleasure. You are just hoping to screw over those lower in power, the pigs, but also stop those who screw you over, those who have higher power: the whites, the males, the rich. Not that we can generalize a group like this with absolute certainty in the first place though.
A common myth is that taste pleasure is impossible or limited with vegan diets.
If you are worried about virtue signaling at this point, here is my thoughts on this. Virtue signaling is an egotistic chase for the highest moral ground. Vegans are often accused of this, as with SJWs. Consider this: an individual who converts you into their moral lens, would be downgrading their status from morally superior, to morally equal, or at least theoretically speaking. If someone wanted the high moral ground, why would they ask you to join their moral grounding? And of course, people will claim their ideological freedom is threatened if you try to convert them. So often, vegans and other controversial ideological groups must walk on eggshells. Do you judge people who walk on eggshells as well? As you can see, this is a highly complicated sociological issue, not just ethical or philosophical.
If social justice activists aren’t vegan, aren’t they really just becoming in-group nationalists rather than inter-sectionalists?
What it’s like to be a vegan surrounded by non-vegan society, in a short film about normalized rape.
THE HEALTH ASPECT
To start, here is a rundown of the health benefits of eating plant-based.
Yes, if you didn’t know, vegan diets have the potential to be more healthy than diets including animal products.
Imagine if asbestos was the leading killer in the world? They might ban it or something!
Carnivores do not get atherosclerosis due to evolutionary adaptions. Herbivores that eat meat, more specifically cholesterol, get atherosclerotic plaques. Humans get atherosclerosis from eating meat/cholesterol. The main cause of atherosclerosis is meat consumption. So thus, the leading cause of death is consumption of meat.
A snippet from the link:
Some of you may claim that there is no correlation between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol.
This is debunked here:
If you choose to eat meat, despite of shorter lifespan, decreased health, and the impact it has on everyone else, is eating meat an immoral decision? What makes you more valuable than your children and all future generations of humans?
For more information on the effects of animal products on health, check out What The Health? for free below. Don’t worry, the audio is English.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT
How much do transportation and fossil fuels matter?
Fossil fuels and animal agriculture both have approximately the same impact to greenhouse emissions, around 20% of total greenhouse gases. More specifically, CO2 is about 60% of greenhouse emissions, while methane is approximately 15%. This means the CO2:methane greenhouse gas quantity-ratio is somewhere around 4:1.
But the ratio of quality of impact on the environment for CO2:methane is approximately 1:80.
So if we factor this into the 4:1 ratio of the quantity, we get 4:80. If you take 4/80, you get 0.05, which translates to 5%. This means that CO2 is approximately 5% of the current problem, in terms of direct effects. From this link, it suggests that animal agriculture is 37% of the methane emissions, which is approximately 1/3 of total methane emissions. If we factor this in, 80 is reduce to 26, which still leaves you at a ratio of 4:26, which has CO2 as 15% of the total problem, and methane from animal agriculture at 85% of the total problem. Of course, it gets more complex as methane can be reduced faster than CO2, but it is far more problematic.
Cowspiracy is a great start to learn about the environmental impacts animal agriculture has, and the influence of wealthy corporations using power to censor this information.
If nothing about being human matters, not our intelligence, technological capacity, etc then it basically boils down to power. Our species is some muscular child beating on the weaker kids in the playground that is the animal kingdom. If we accept this as acceptable standards, then we cannot complain about white supremacists who think they deserve more rights than other demographics. If you think this is acceptable, you may even have similar thinking to Hitler. But remember, I do not judge people’s moral character. But perhaps I do judge their ability to assess the risk of their judgments, and this is something else to address.
Perhaps we should look at the issue of veganism in the light of, not only the animals, but all systems of life, all systems of sentience at least, and all systems of fear, pain, and desire.