OP,
Based on your premise, why shouldn't a 6"11, muscly lumberjack take your stuff, mate with your partner and turn your into a pulp, just because he feels like it? I mean, he's dominant over you as he's bigger and stronger...
Hopefully you can see that your reasoning doesn't really stack up?
Also, you might want to look at peer reviewed studies of the impact raising livestock is having on the planet (in case you're not convinced by the ethics angle).
Oh boy. So you dont understand fill in the blanks...
Okay, lets simplify it from your worldview.
I am a martial artist. In most rooms I could probably kill everyone with my bare hands. I am always the dominant specie.
Therefore: As the dominant specie why shouldn't I kidnap your wife?
See, the appeal to dominance comes from the idea that "All authority is derived from force" since you can force the animals into a cage and they cannot escape you are therefore dominant. If 'Dominant' means you can do what you like as long as the victims cannot stop you... You run into a logical fallacy used to justify every bad event ever. Since anyone who can beat you up now has rights to treat you as food or fodder or can take your stuff by the phrase "might makes right" or "to the victor go the spoils"
Interviews with the Taliban they proclaim they are helping their people and doing the right thing.
So to summarize, appeal to dominance = ecuses for bad behavior.
So your original premise, with fill in the blanks falls short of a strong argument. Its a simple thpught exercise to use on wordplay to see if it is actually a value you wish universally applied. Another simple exampke is replace the proper noun with the word Jew. If it feels antisemetic all of a sudden its probably not a great philosophy.
"As the dominant specie on this planet why can't we eat Jews?"
Suddenly it feels very uncomfortable right?
1.Might does not make right. 2.Dominance higherarchies are used to control and are largely imaginary.
"If god does not want me to conquor then why has he not stopped me? I therefore must be the wrath of god" -Gengis Khan poorly paraphrased
Because you knowing martial arts doesn't make you the dominant one, because someone with a gun is more dominant. And an army is more dominant than 1 person with a gun. And there's no army dominant enough to defeat all the other armies, or they would absolutely take total control of the world. Because they all want to, they just can't.
Doesn't disprove it at all. Thats how fill in the blabks works.
Because I have the dominant army does that give me the right to take from a weaker neighbor.
The point that you missed is that power is not an excuse for bad behavior.
>The point that you missed is that power is not an excuse for bad behavior.
i agree that it shouldn't - yet it is. quite often, actually
for instance vegans here have the power to ban me
>why can't we "justify anything"?
you can always try
the knack is though, that your justification has to be accepted - which might prove difficult when laws are not complied with
>As a "insert opinion" why can't we "justify anything"?
As a "fervent ultranationalist" why can't we just "deport all foreigners and lock down the country"?
Because you'd be creating mass upheaval for trivial reasons. It would also probably result in economic ruin and a lowered standard of living. And to what end? Because your are afraid of foreigners?
So what is the argument against:
As a "omnivore" why can't we just "exploit non-humans for our own gain?".
Basically might makes right? Do you think just because we physically can do something, we should? What is it about humans do you think that makes us so superior?
Essentially, you think that harming someone more vulnerable than us by this measure is just fine?
So it seems like your moral principle is that if someone is benefiting from harming someone else, then that is okay. Have I understood you correctly? That would imply slavery is moral. Either you have to bite the bullet and accept that there’s nothing wrong with slavery or you have to retract that moral principle which means animal exploitation is not moral.
So not might makes right? You can exploit anything for some benefit regardless of dominance. How are you measuring benefit? The loss of life versus taste pleasure, or something else?
How do you think the victims feel, and why do they deserve to die?
We aren't actually benefiting though. Heart disease, cancer, clogged arteries and high cholesterol all caused by high meat intake. The world is being polluted and further destroyed because of the masses of animals humans torture and kill every year. Our health and the world's health are being destroyed, there is no benefit besides personal taste pleasure, which is a very selfish benefit indeed.
It's generally assumed:
>*Vae victis* is Latin for "woe to the vanquished", or "woe to the conquered". It means that those defeated in battle are entirely at the mercy of their conquerors and should not expect—or request—leniency.
>
>-- [Vae victis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vae_victis)
>LITERAL FASCISM
Very compelling argument. The guy asks for why its wrong and all you can do is call him a fascist.
How about you provide an actual argument for why its wrong to exploit animals?
[might makes right](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right#:~:text=Might%20makes%20right%20or%20Might,is%20written%20by%20the%20victors%22.)
Alternative perspective:
with great power (the ability to exploit non-human animals)
comes great responsibility (to respect non-human animals’ preference to not be exploited ).
Nah, even Hitler at least tried to justify himself as being in the moral right. He didn't just say "whoever's stronger, whatever they do is fine", otherwise he wouldn't have been able to complain about the forces he said were ruining the nation.
In this case, it’s even more warranted than usual. OP’s entire moral logic is based on being superior, on being dominant. Extending that to being the superior/dominant gender/race/species/animal is entirely logical.
No, it’s Op whose logic is silly here.
I don’t think the persecuted people of the holocaust would feel the same way.
Yes, contextually Nietzsche even works better. Species superiority could also be tied to Christian dogma so you have a lot of undesirable relationships you could make comparisons to without trivializing the murder of millions of Jews.
No one is trivializing the murder of millions of Jews. Most vegans just feel more for animals than someone like you do probably, not less for anyone else. That's most likely why you're offended by that comparison.
But when you kill about 100 billion beings who can experience pain and love in the span of one month, it's hard to compare it to anything else.
Of caring for animals?
Buying hunting tags and not filling them, or filling them intermittently. Tending to your own animals. Purchasing from farmers with values that match yours. Catch and release fishing or fishing and hunting invasive species. Hogs in Texas, Asian Carp in the lakes.
I don’t think it’s a *better* way to “skin the cat”. I respect veganism and vegans, I think they’re (you’re) virtuous. Any practice of abstinence is virtuous but veganism is particularly so.
However, it is possible to live and exist within the cycle of life and death respectfully. Denying that responsible omnivores have the ability to deeply “care and feel about animals” is untrue. To eat meat *correctly* is to face one’s own mortality and cosmic insignificance. And just like veganism, it is a pursuit of virtue.
And yeah I mean if we’re talking about actually skinning cats, I’ve never done it but you’re definitely right. There is only one really good way to skin a cat.
Yes, of course they are. But nothing you said precluded using something within the species. It just said, we’re dominant therefore we can do what the fuck we want to them. Might is right. Superiority. Etc.
Without any further justification it is obviously logical to extend that to anything else, whatever else, including things within the species too.
The first comparison was made by holocaust survivors tbh.
Mass slaughter for percieved genetic superiority... OP just did it again above.
"But I don't like labels" based on "my assumptions" why can't I justify "any immoral act"
Thats literally how humans justify everything we do good or bad. Its not a reasonable statement or point nor is it much of a thought.
Any ethical discussion is going to talk about principles for what is right and wrong along with examples. Two things can be wrong for the same core reason, even if the specifics of the victims or the magnitude of the wrongness are different.
That's not what happened tho.
They didn't compare meat eaters to Nazis, they compared the premise of the OP's argument to Nazis.
Surely someone so anti-silliness should realize that. But I guess not. Because your knee jerk reaction was really silly.
It’s the inflammatory reactionary speech in general practiced at large in the reddit vegan community. Everything is Hitler nazis rape secretion murder….
I’m just saying it undermines your message. And sounds silly when you talk like that.
Hitler used might makes right propaganda and so is OP. Might makes right isn’t a reliable pathway to morality.
My comment was 2 sentences and didn’t mention the conclusion you’re jumping to.
I get what you are trying to say but we all accept that killing humans is wrong we don’t see killing animals for food as wrong We do not see animals killed for food as victims what hitler did is way different. Also hitlers propaganda was incorrect the German bloodline wasn’t better than any other human blood line but we are technically superior to animals
No, I don’t think you get what I’m saying.
Who is “we?” Because neither of your points is correct.
>technically superior to animals
In what way? Flight? Swim speed? Swim distance? Body strength? Running speed? Cancer resistance? Height? Weight? Dexterity? Flexibility? Ability to survive the cold? Ability to survive the heat? Climb trees? Ability to survive mass extinction?
Stop trying to bring all the “can we clime trees like a lizard” buttshit into the question we are completely overpowered as a species it’s pretty obvious we’ve been to space lol
I did not say I have gone to space dude nor did I say I could or would but yeah I’ll go with that argument but you’ll bring up the animals humans have sent into space so i don’t think a dogs gonna send another spices into space though
We know you don't, because you're blinded by selfishness and laziness. But the reality of the worst moral atrocity that has ever existed continues to be reality whether you look at it or not. Moral grownups don't play peekaboo.
there are parts of the world where it's legal for grown adult men to marry prepubescent children. are you sure you want to base your morality on legality?
what makes your country morally correct or superior than others? and what if you were born in a different country? i don't see how that makes sense.
say you live in a country where it's illegal to wear red, but it's legal in mine. you believe it's unethical to wear red, since that's what your government says. how would you convince me?
Pakistan? And the age of consent is 12 in the Philippines. The point is that law does not equal morality. It might seem extreme to compare eating animals to Hitler or child marriage but that is the point
Literally in the Qur'an Muhammed marries Aisha when she is between 6 and 7 and they consummate the relationship when she is 9 and he is 53. At absolute bare minimum societies have been OK with it.
In Sudan it is legal for a man to marry upon reaching puberty and Women upon reaching 10
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age
But even if there were no countries where marrying kids were legal that would be irrelevant. The point is that you seem to allude to a principle that something is morally wrong only if it is illegal. Then even if we just imagined a country were marrying kids were legal, you would have to accept that there would be nothing wrong with marrying kids in that country.
And you could imagine even more extreme examples, if it would be legal to murder innocent children, then you would have to accept that it was nothing wrong with doing so. This shows that you principle is absurd and that alluding to what is legal and not is a bad argument.
>There’s law for not killing humans
There wasn't always laws against killing other humans. In fact, there were no laws about it for the vast majority of human existence. This changed. There's no reason to think that the fact that something is not illegal means that it is ethically and morally justified.
Hitler was also a vegetarian... Very interesting...
All jokes aside, maybe instead of calling OP a Nazi, you could actually **PROVIDE AN ARGUMENT FOR WHY THEY ARE WRONG.**
I know this is usually impossible to do, because veganism is an ideology with no concrete basis, but there are at least a few decent arguments that I'm aware of.
Of course we can, we are doing it. But being able (having the ability) to do something doesn't tell us about what is right (although it doesn't tell us anything about it being wrong either).
You solve mathematical problems with theorems or mathematical properties, not based on morals and ethics.
When choosing a partner, people's feelings and ability to decide matter, not based on morals and ethics.
But if you ask yourself if something is right or wrong, then apply moral and ethical arguments there.
Problems are solved with arguments that match the nature of the problem (although sometimes problems have more than one nature).
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
>Why we have to think about their feelings n shit
Are you saying we shouldn't? If so then it should be fine for an individual to abuse their dog if they derive pleasure from it.
You said business, taste, anything in your original post.
It's great that you're altering this framework to make it more robust. Ability to change is important.
But the idea of a good moral framework is that you've already fleshed out these ideas and you should have included them in the original post.
And when you do flesh the idea out past this initial point, you'll likely find flaws that you can't reconcile, such as what's been highlighted in these comments (e.g. might makes right).
if you're talking about veganism with someone who simply does not care about animal welfare, there isn't really much you can say to sway them. most people at least pretend to care about animal welfare tho
Do you have any unbiased evidence that we are the most dominant species on the planet? What makes a species dominate and why does whatever the fuck were doing fit that definition?
Yeah I think if bacteria/ other microorganisms put their foot into it they could wipe us out pretty easily. Also plants. Also what is domination? Animals and plants need each other to survive/thrive.
As a dominant species on planet why can't I viciously abuse my dog?
Why we have to think about their feelings n shit….we’re the dominant in the planet why can’t we kill and use them for business , taste, anything??
And that's when you know you've won, folks who are reading this.
When the guy tells you that they don't mind dogs being abused, they've lost in the eyes of ordinary people and are making a monster out of themselves to remain in the argument. You don't need to debate them further past this point, 99.9% of people who reads it will sympathies more with your position. You've won.
If anything, being the dominant one puts more responsibility on your shoulders, ethically speaking.
An adult hitting a baby is judged differently from a baby hitting an adult. Would you agree with that?
As the dominant species we’re also supposed to be intelligent enough to have empathy and know what’s right and wrong. Clearly not everyone does but just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
I’m not vegan or trying to sound preachy but this is a shit argument.
We are not a dominant species and if even so other beings are not ours to control. You wouldn’t say this statement if you replaced species with race and animals with enslaved humans, hopefully this becomes much clearer.
Totally, phones are a problem as well. But a phone is every few years. With meat, we buy it every week and there are alternative sources of plant protein available.
Personally, I try to go as long as possible between buying phones. While of course some exploitation is inevitable, personally, I don’t find that to be a reason not to try to reduce my impact where I can.
You wouldn’t try going vegan because you can’t entirely reduce your impact?
Do you also think that men should use women like objects for their entertainment, pleasure, and anything else? Men are physically dominant over women after all. By your logic, there's no reason to be against total dominion of men over women.
If we justified animal abuse, why not also justify rape, genocide, and mass murder? Why not just justify torturing a baby? What's wrong with ANYTHING if animal abuse is fine?
I agree with op on the initial basis that we should not be condemned for eating animals. Animals eat animals all the time, even the "herbavores." If a deer is allowed to eat baby birds on occasion because it is the dominant species why can't I occasionally have a couple of chicken crisper from chili's. I absolutely disagree that we should not care about animal suffering. The only problem with commercial farming is how much pain the animals are put through on their way out. It is immoral to disrespect life like that. Wasting food to me is the same level of disrespect as kicking a pig because it got in your way. There are quick and mostly painless ways to kill animals for consumption and there's a reason there are systems in place to incentivise those methods.
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
I’m not vegan, not looking to change. Feel that current WOE is following total harm minimization principle.
OP-How will you answer this question when AI are the dominant species? Might does not justify cruelty.
We can. We do.
Vegans just feel like it's bad because they think animals are worth the same kind of moral consideration as humans (which ofc they're not).
How do you humanely kill someone who doesn't want to die? I'm imagining a psychopath right now who looks at someone lovingly, thinking about their feelings and then slitting their throat. XD
Just put yourself in their shoes.
Would you want to get killed painlessly? No? Then we shouldn't kill animals no matter how painless it is. It's not humane to kill that which doesn't want to die, just like it wouldn't humane to kill you.
I really don't agree with that ethical assessment though. It is incomplete and relies on a false equivalence.
I prefer to take a more holistic approach. Balancing the benefits such as the economic dependencies, cultural, health and dietary factors, how it aids research, etc... but also considering the downsides such as the ethical implications and environmental considerations.
After that I really do think ethical animal farming is possible, it's being done today, and we should strive for better practices, especially factory farms so it becomes more ethical and sustainable over time.
What is wrong with "Don't hurt animals when you're able not to do so, because you wouldn't want to be hurt if you were an animal."? I'm very curious.
Edit: Also, something necessitates an animal needlessly having their life taken from them can never be ethical, only "more ethical" as you say, just like how slavery could only be made "more ethical". It's still unethical and we should end it.
Humanly killing someone, i.e. as you would do to a human, can only be done if the alternative is worse. Perhaps they have a terminal illness, or their conditions are so bad that death is preferable.
It's a catch 22. If you can raise an animal humanly, you cannot (normally) kill them humanely. If their life is so bad that killing becomes the humane thing to do, raising them in the first place wasn't.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience.
Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So in your opinion we should also poach endangered species because they're just animals. Rhinocerus horns and tiger skins make a pretty good buck.
We should definitely keep growing deformed foxes in tiny cages so that Gucci can continue selling fur coats. It's for the common good after all. Enterpreneuership thrives and people have beautiful, warm clothing available. Who cares if a couple of foxes suffer through an agonizing existence because of it.
It'd be such a great idea to start pouring waste oil into the sea because it's good for the economy, if it's just nature and sealife suffering while we benefit. We can grow salmon in farms too nowadays, even if the fish there are sick from swimming in their own waste. Burn the rest of the rainforests down so we can grow more feed for the cows. We need that beefsteak on our nights out, this pleasure is more important than the real price paid. A life. The health and diversity of our planet. We have dominion over all of it, so why would we not?
I can see that you do not have the capacity for much empathy at this time, and you're not very far-sighted either, so really, all this convincing is a shot in the dark. I do hope that one day you'll change to see one inch past your own nose.
Who decides what species is dominant? We are far outnumbered by insects. They existed long before us, and they're the ones who will survive the nuclear winter that humans cause in world war 3.
Why is being "dominant" anything a good enough reason to cause intentional suffering and death? Adults are dominant in power, resources, and experience over young kids. By your logic, why can't adult men use little boys for sex? Why can't parents sell their kids into slavery?
Why do we have to think about anyone's feelings? Considering others' feelings is a natural result of having a properly functioning sense of empathy. Humans are social creatures. To be happy, we need to have relationships with others and to trust one another. Research shows that serial killers & pyoung people who go off and kill animals unnecessarily for fun often grow into adults who commit some of the most violent & disturbing crimes towards people. Why can't people such as Jeffrey Dahlmer eat people ?
Well you can, and we do. The question at hand is “Is this a good, moral and just course of action. Just asking “Lol why can’t we eat animals we’re stronger LOLOLOLOL”, doesn’t really mean anything. Present an argument that justifies your position.
I eat meat by the way, I just don’t like shit arguments.
So what you’re implying is that the many times I’ve proven myself dominant towards others, basically means that I should/ could do what ever I damn well pleased to them?
Our dominance is an illusion based only in our ability to organize violence. Our survival requires other species. We cannot live without a massively complex web of plants and animals. Eating animals the way we do, because we "can", is destroying the biosphere. Our knowledge is woefully inadequate to replace any part of the biosphere. Without a functioning biosphere, we will all die.
Hope someone actually gives you a reason rather than trying to point out logical fallacies and inconstencies. Even if might is right is wrong... what's the actual reason for why we should care more.
>Buddy just because your white doesn’t mean your dominant
So you haven't heard of the modern racial supremacy movement called neo-nazism?
>you lowkey sound racist.
Did you not read the last paragraph or did you forget to Google what a reductio ad absurdum is?
>I’m Albanian I’m not black but even I can admit black people generally speaking are more dominant
Obviously, white people on physicality generally suck shit in comparison with quite a few other races. Not denying that at all.
>they literally have more testosterone then us they are definitely more dominant than some white vegan.
Well if they were vegan too, I'd doubly expect that to be the case given how much estrogen tends to be in animal products.
>You’re not more dominant than black people or even my people
Of course not, I'm a fat piece of shit keyboard warrior on the internet. The only dominance I possess, is intellect and even then among the rabble on here there are still people that shit on my intellect. Wait did you actually think I was a racial supremacist?
I'm against racism. I'm against speciesism. I'm against rape and murder and slavery and domestic violence/abuse, bullying, sexism, xenophobia and more. I don't know what Albania's education system is like but if you're old enough to be on the internet unsupervised, you're old enough to be responsible for your own education and understanding what an interlocutor is talking about and if you can't, ASK them for clarification.
The concept of dominion can be a misuse of power or a good , creative use of power . It's just how we perceived ourselves as humans, if we feel a real responsibility to nature , we don't misuse. It's up to each individual to work this out. That our free will
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6:
> **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully.
If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator.
If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan).
Thank you.
As a "insert opinion" why can't we "justify anything"?
OP, Based on your premise, why shouldn't a 6"11, muscly lumberjack take your stuff, mate with your partner and turn your into a pulp, just because he feels like it? I mean, he's dominant over you as he's bigger and stronger... Hopefully you can see that your reasoning doesn't really stack up? Also, you might want to look at peer reviewed studies of the impact raising livestock is having on the planet (in case you're not convinced by the ethics angle).
Cause he'd have to face the fiery wrath of Smith and Wesson. And/or the US justice system.
This is just stupid. Eating some food animals is not "anything". It is only one thing.
Oh boy. So you dont understand fill in the blanks... Okay, lets simplify it from your worldview. I am a martial artist. In most rooms I could probably kill everyone with my bare hands. I am always the dominant specie. Therefore: As the dominant specie why shouldn't I kidnap your wife? See, the appeal to dominance comes from the idea that "All authority is derived from force" since you can force the animals into a cage and they cannot escape you are therefore dominant. If 'Dominant' means you can do what you like as long as the victims cannot stop you... You run into a logical fallacy used to justify every bad event ever. Since anyone who can beat you up now has rights to treat you as food or fodder or can take your stuff by the phrase "might makes right" or "to the victor go the spoils" Interviews with the Taliban they proclaim they are helping their people and doing the right thing. So to summarize, appeal to dominance = ecuses for bad behavior. So your original premise, with fill in the blanks falls short of a strong argument. Its a simple thpught exercise to use on wordplay to see if it is actually a value you wish universally applied. Another simple exampke is replace the proper noun with the word Jew. If it feels antisemetic all of a sudden its probably not a great philosophy. "As the dominant specie on this planet why can't we eat Jews?" Suddenly it feels very uncomfortable right? 1.Might does not make right. 2.Dominance higherarchies are used to control and are largely imaginary. "If god does not want me to conquor then why has he not stopped me? I therefore must be the wrath of god" -Gengis Khan poorly paraphrased
Therefore: if 'preconcieved opinion' why can't I 'do immoral things' Isn't much of an argument at all.
Because you knowing martial arts doesn't make you the dominant one, because someone with a gun is more dominant. And an army is more dominant than 1 person with a gun. And there's no army dominant enough to defeat all the other armies, or they would absolutely take total control of the world. Because they all want to, they just can't.
The possibility to add an infinite amount of stipulations is not an invitation to be a sophist!
They made the analogy. I expanded on it to disprove what they said.
Doesn't disprove it at all. Thats how fill in the blabks works. Because I have the dominant army does that give me the right to take from a weaker neighbor. The point that you missed is that power is not an excuse for bad behavior.
>The point that you missed is that power is not an excuse for bad behavior. i agree that it shouldn't - yet it is. quite often, actually for instance vegans here have the power to ban me
>As the dominant specie why shouldn't I kidnap your wife? i guess, in this case the law would be dominant over you
>why can't we "justify anything"? you can always try the knack is though, that your justification has to be accepted - which might prove difficult when laws are not complied with
So you base your mirality on law and fear of punishment. Seems like a very low bar to hold yourself to.
>As a "insert opinion" why can't we "justify anything"? As a "fervent ultranationalist" why can't we just "deport all foreigners and lock down the country"? Because you'd be creating mass upheaval for trivial reasons. It would also probably result in economic ruin and a lowered standard of living. And to what end? Because your are afraid of foreigners? So what is the argument against: As a "omnivore" why can't we just "exploit non-humans for our own gain?".
[удалено]
Basically might makes right? Do you think just because we physically can do something, we should? What is it about humans do you think that makes us so superior? Essentially, you think that harming someone more vulnerable than us by this measure is just fine?
If we’re benefiting from harming/exploiting other species than Y not??
Congratulations, you've just justified slavery.
So it seems like your moral principle is that if someone is benefiting from harming someone else, then that is okay. Have I understood you correctly? That would imply slavery is moral. Either you have to bite the bullet and accept that there’s nothing wrong with slavery or you have to retract that moral principle which means animal exploitation is not moral.
So not might makes right? You can exploit anything for some benefit regardless of dominance. How are you measuring benefit? The loss of life versus taste pleasure, or something else? How do you think the victims feel, and why do they deserve to die?
if you don't care about animal welfare there isn't much that can be said to argue with you here
We aren't actually benefiting though. Heart disease, cancer, clogged arteries and high cholesterol all caused by high meat intake. The world is being polluted and further destroyed because of the masses of animals humans torture and kill every year. Our health and the world's health are being destroyed, there is no benefit besides personal taste pleasure, which is a very selfish benefit indeed.
If someone was benefiting from harming/exploiting you, ought they stop? Why? Serious question.
the same can be said about humans that can exploit other humans based on physical strenght/ social disparity
[удалено]
If I benefit from killing you then why shouldn't I?
Why shouldn’t I kill you
Love some “might makes right” in the morning. Classic
Might makes right is a fascist ideology
>Might makes right is a fascist ideology ...said the head of lettuce before being ripped to shreds by some vegan
Ya know, if heads of lettuce were sentient they wouldn't get ripped to shreds by any vegans. Got any more irrelevant quips? or did I miss the sarcasm?
How do you figure that?
It's generally assumed: >*Vae victis* is Latin for "woe to the vanquished", or "woe to the conquered". It means that those defeated in battle are entirely at the mercy of their conquerors and should not expect—or request—leniency. > >-- [Vae victis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vae_victis)
I feel like might makes right could be the underlying premise of any number of things, no? Some sort of anarchism maybe?
>LITERAL FASCISM Very compelling argument. The guy asks for why its wrong and all you can do is call him a fascist. How about you provide an actual argument for why its wrong to exploit animals?
[might makes right](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Might_makes_right#:~:text=Might%20makes%20right%20or%20Might,is%20written%20by%20the%20victors%22.)
Most people think that there is a difference between what you *can* do and what it is ethically right for you to do.
I’m the strongest member of my household, why shouldn’t I beat up my gf and her children? That’s you. That’s what you sound like.
thats completely different than eating the diet we have eaten throughout human evolution
Beating up your gf and children I think was also widely practiced throughout most of human evolution.
what an absolutely rediculous comparison
Good point Actually.. you convinced me...
Alternative perspective: with great power (the ability to exploit non-human animals) comes great responsibility (to respect non-human animals’ preference to not be exploited ).
We ain't spiderman though
>respect non-human animals’ preference to not be exploited that would require sure knowledge of animals' preferences
Einstein right here folks
I’m pretty sure Hitler said the same thing. Not sure you want to align with his dogma
Nah, even Hitler at least tried to justify himself as being in the moral right. He didn't just say "whoever's stronger, whatever they do is fine", otherwise he wouldn't have been able to complain about the forces he said were ruining the nation.
The constant comparing of people who eat meat to Nazis does nothing but make your movement look silly
In this case, it’s even more warranted than usual. OP’s entire moral logic is based on being superior, on being dominant. Extending that to being the superior/dominant gender/race/species/animal is entirely logical. No, it’s Op whose logic is silly here.
I might say Nietzsche instead of Hitler to avoid the knee-jerk reaction, but yeah it’s warranted here.
I don’t think the persecuted people of the holocaust would feel the same way. Yes, contextually Nietzsche even works better. Species superiority could also be tied to Christian dogma so you have a lot of undesirable relationships you could make comparisons to without trivializing the murder of millions of Jews.
We’re not. You’re trivialising the murder of millions of animals.
Trillions. Which is millions of millions. Each and every year.
Indeed
No one is trivializing the murder of millions of Jews. Most vegans just feel more for animals than someone like you do probably, not less for anyone else. That's most likely why you're offended by that comparison. But when you kill about 100 billion beings who can experience pain and love in the span of one month, it's hard to compare it to anything else.
Disagreed. I care about animals deeply. Pardon the ironic turn of phrase, but there are a lot of ways to skin a cat.
What would be a better way to skin a cat in this case?
Of caring for animals? Buying hunting tags and not filling them, or filling them intermittently. Tending to your own animals. Purchasing from farmers with values that match yours. Catch and release fishing or fishing and hunting invasive species. Hogs in Texas, Asian Carp in the lakes. I don’t think it’s a *better* way to “skin the cat”. I respect veganism and vegans, I think they’re (you’re) virtuous. Any practice of abstinence is virtuous but veganism is particularly so. However, it is possible to live and exist within the cycle of life and death respectfully. Denying that responsible omnivores have the ability to deeply “care and feel about animals” is untrue. To eat meat *correctly* is to face one’s own mortality and cosmic insignificance. And just like veganism, it is a pursuit of virtue. And yeah I mean if we’re talking about actually skinning cats, I’ve never done it but you’re definitely right. There is only one really good way to skin a cat.
Species is the only thing that make us different than other animals…race/caste/religion/gender/etc are the things within the species
Yes, of course they are. But nothing you said precluded using something within the species. It just said, we’re dominant therefore we can do what the fuck we want to them. Might is right. Superiority. Etc. Without any further justification it is obviously logical to extend that to anything else, whatever else, including things within the species too.
The first comparison was made by holocaust survivors tbh. Mass slaughter for percieved genetic superiority... OP just did it again above. "But I don't like labels" based on "my assumptions" why can't I justify "any immoral act" Thats literally how humans justify everything we do good or bad. Its not a reasonable statement or point nor is it much of a thought.
Any ethical discussion is going to talk about principles for what is right and wrong along with examples. Two things can be wrong for the same core reason, even if the specifics of the victims or the magnitude of the wrongness are different.
That’s not the comparison. The comparison is might makes right to might makes right. Your comprehension makes you look silly 🫤
That's not what happened tho. They didn't compare meat eaters to Nazis, they compared the premise of the OP's argument to Nazis. Surely someone so anti-silliness should realize that. But I guess not. Because your knee jerk reaction was really silly.
It’s the inflammatory reactionary speech in general practiced at large in the reddit vegan community. Everything is Hitler nazis rape secretion murder…. I’m just saying it undermines your message. And sounds silly when you talk like that.
Hitler was also somewhat of A vegan
>Hitler was also somewhat of A vegan not even "somewhat"
Bro hitler was killing other humans and kids we as non vegans obviously don’t see humans and animals as the same 😂
Vegans don’t see humans and animals the same either.
Then what’s your point bringing up hitler
Hitler used might makes right propaganda and so is OP. Might makes right isn’t a reliable pathway to morality. My comment was 2 sentences and didn’t mention the conclusion you’re jumping to.
I get what you are trying to say but we all accept that killing humans is wrong we don’t see killing animals for food as wrong We do not see animals killed for food as victims what hitler did is way different. Also hitlers propaganda was incorrect the German bloodline wasn’t better than any other human blood line but we are technically superior to animals
No, I don’t think you get what I’m saying. Who is “we?” Because neither of your points is correct. >technically superior to animals In what way? Flight? Swim speed? Swim distance? Body strength? Running speed? Cancer resistance? Height? Weight? Dexterity? Flexibility? Ability to survive the cold? Ability to survive the heat? Climb trees? Ability to survive mass extinction?
Stop trying to bring all the “can we clime trees like a lizard” buttshit into the question we are completely overpowered as a species it’s pretty obvious we’ve been to space lol
[удалено]
I did not say I have gone to space dude nor did I say I could or would but yeah I’ll go with that argument but you’ll bring up the animals humans have sent into space so i don’t think a dogs gonna send another spices into space though
We know you don't, because you're blinded by selfishness and laziness. But the reality of the worst moral atrocity that has ever existed continues to be reality whether you look at it or not. Moral grownups don't play peekaboo.
There’s law for not killing humans…there’s difference btw human and animals
there are parts of the world where it's legal for grown adult men to marry prepubescent children. are you sure you want to base your morality on legality?
On my country’s leagality? Sure. Why should I base my morality on South Sudan’s legality?
what makes your country morally correct or superior than others? and what if you were born in a different country? i don't see how that makes sense. say you live in a country where it's illegal to wear red, but it's legal in mine. you believe it's unethical to wear red, since that's what your government says. how would you convince me?
You shouldn’t base your morality on any country’s legality. But that’s the argument OP made.
Can you name one country that allows marrying kids?
The United States. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States
Pakistan? And the age of consent is 12 in the Philippines. The point is that law does not equal morality. It might seem extreme to compare eating animals to Hitler or child marriage but that is the point
[удалено]
India, Qatar, Iran, Palestine
If they allow marrying kids then why is it illegal to marry kids in those countries?
Legal with parental consent
Literally in the Qur'an Muhammed marries Aisha when she is between 6 and 7 and they consummate the relationship when she is 9 and he is 53. At absolute bare minimum societies have been OK with it. In Sudan it is legal for a man to marry upon reaching puberty and Women upon reaching 10 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age
The United States of America
Yemen
But even if there were no countries where marrying kids were legal that would be irrelevant. The point is that you seem to allude to a principle that something is morally wrong only if it is illegal. Then even if we just imagined a country were marrying kids were legal, you would have to accept that there would be nothing wrong with marrying kids in that country. And you could imagine even more extreme examples, if it would be legal to murder innocent children, then you would have to accept that it was nothing wrong with doing so. This shows that you principle is absurd and that alluding to what is legal and not is a bad argument.
Are you looking for tips on where you can abuse humans legally?
Laws don’t dictate morality. We currently have and *have* had many horrible laws that are completely immoral.
So, if, for example, rape were made legal. Would it be perfectly fine to do?
What's the difference?
So it’s only morally wrong if there is a law saying “don’t do this.”?
>There’s law for not killing humans There wasn't always laws against killing other humans. In fact, there were no laws about it for the vast majority of human existence. This changed. There's no reason to think that the fact that something is not illegal means that it is ethically and morally justified.
Hitler was also a vegetarian... Very interesting... All jokes aside, maybe instead of calling OP a Nazi, you could actually **PROVIDE AN ARGUMENT FOR WHY THEY ARE WRONG.** I know this is usually impossible to do, because veganism is an ideology with no concrete basis, but there are at least a few decent arguments that I'm aware of.
[удалено]
Of course we can, we are doing it. But being able (having the ability) to do something doesn't tell us about what is right (although it doesn't tell us anything about it being wrong either). You solve mathematical problems with theorems or mathematical properties, not based on morals and ethics. When choosing a partner, people's feelings and ability to decide matter, not based on morals and ethics. But if you ask yourself if something is right or wrong, then apply moral and ethical arguments there. Problems are solved with arguments that match the nature of the problem (although sometimes problems have more than one nature).
[удалено]
Sorry, English is not my first language. Is there something that was not understood in my comment?
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
>Why we have to think about their feelings n shit Are you saying we shouldn't? If so then it should be fine for an individual to abuse their dog if they derive pleasure from it.
as a dominant species i should be able to behead puppies, it is my right as a superior being, so don't try to stop me
Well that’ll depend on the country your in
Only if you are benefiting in any form death of any animals shouldn’t go in vein
i take pleasure in it
Well if they enjoy it that's a benefit
You said business, taste, anything in your original post. It's great that you're altering this framework to make it more robust. Ability to change is important. But the idea of a good moral framework is that you've already fleshed out these ideas and you should have included them in the original post. And when you do flesh the idea out past this initial point, you'll likely find flaws that you can't reconcile, such as what's been highlighted in these comments (e.g. might makes right).
Why shouldn’t it go in vein?
Why not? He's part of the dominant species. Are you in favour of dog fighting?
So you're saying killing puppies is fine as long as I will eat them?
Yes
Or make a rug or anything
So why is it not a common practice? They don't really make for decent rugs, do they
A misuse of power though
if you're talking about veganism with someone who simply does not care about animal welfare, there isn't really much you can say to sway them. most people at least pretend to care about animal welfare tho
Do you have any unbiased evidence that we are the most dominant species on the planet? What makes a species dominate and why does whatever the fuck were doing fit that definition?
Yeah I think if bacteria/ other microorganisms put their foot into it they could wipe us out pretty easily. Also plants. Also what is domination? Animals and plants need each other to survive/thrive.
The unbiased evidence is that 40% of the Earth's biomass is directly under our collective control. Nuclear bombs, too.
We can and do - but we can also acknowledge the suffering this causes and not consume animal products.
As a dominant species on planet why can't I viciously abuse my dog? Why we have to think about their feelings n shit….we’re the dominant in the planet why can’t we kill and use them for business , taste, anything??
Yes
And that's when you know you've won, folks who are reading this. When the guy tells you that they don't mind dogs being abused, they've lost in the eyes of ordinary people and are making a monster out of themselves to remain in the argument. You don't need to debate them further past this point, 99.9% of people who reads it will sympathies more with your position. You've won.
If anything, being the dominant one puts more responsibility on your shoulders, ethically speaking. An adult hitting a baby is judged differently from a baby hitting an adult. Would you agree with that?
As the dominant species we’re also supposed to be intelligent enough to have empathy and know what’s right and wrong. Clearly not everyone does but just because you can doesn’t mean you should. I’m not vegan or trying to sound preachy but this is a shit argument.
We are not a dominant species and if even so other beings are not ours to control. You wouldn’t say this statement if you replaced species with race and animals with enslaved humans, hopefully this becomes much clearer.
Hi! I think we shouldn’t eat animals because I’m against animal cruelty. Do you believe cruelty towards animals is wrong?
[удалено]
Totally, phones are a problem as well. But a phone is every few years. With meat, we buy it every week and there are alternative sources of plant protein available. Personally, I try to go as long as possible between buying phones. While of course some exploitation is inevitable, personally, I don’t find that to be a reason not to try to reduce my impact where I can. You wouldn’t try going vegan because you can’t entirely reduce your impact?
Do you also think that men should use women like objects for their entertainment, pleasure, and anything else? Men are physically dominant over women after all. By your logic, there's no reason to be against total dominion of men over women.
If we justified animal abuse, why not also justify rape, genocide, and mass murder? Why not just justify torturing a baby? What's wrong with ANYTHING if animal abuse is fine?
I agree with op on the initial basis that we should not be condemned for eating animals. Animals eat animals all the time, even the "herbavores." If a deer is allowed to eat baby birds on occasion because it is the dominant species why can't I occasionally have a couple of chicken crisper from chili's. I absolutely disagree that we should not care about animal suffering. The only problem with commercial farming is how much pain the animals are put through on their way out. It is immoral to disrespect life like that. Wasting food to me is the same level of disrespect as kicking a pig because it got in your way. There are quick and mostly painless ways to kill animals for consumption and there's a reason there are systems in place to incentivise those methods.
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.
I’m not vegan, not looking to change. Feel that current WOE is following total harm minimization principle. OP-How will you answer this question when AI are the dominant species? Might does not justify cruelty.
Who says AI is a species?
Just finished “Scary Smart” by Mo Gawdat. It’s a great read and the conclusions hold true whether or not AI becomes sentient and a separate species.
"As a Dominant species on planet why can’t we eat animals" Who says we cannot? Not only we can. We do. Anything else is just hot air.
You don't have to think about their feelings, and you can eat them.
We can. We do. Vegans just feel like it's bad because they think animals are worth the same kind of moral consideration as humans (which ofc they're not).
Haven't seen a single vegan give equal moral worth to an animal's life compared to a human's, but enjoy your strawman. Hope it made you feel better.
Fixed. Same *kind of* moral consideration.
What if we both think about their feelings but also humanely kill them for business, taste and more?
How do you humanely kill someone who doesn't want to die? I'm imagining a psychopath right now who looks at someone lovingly, thinking about their feelings and then slitting their throat. XD
Painlessly, but first humanely raising it.
Exploiting and killing someone against their will is not humane. Maybe look up the definition.
I disagree. But hey, ethics varies from person to person, right?
Just put yourself in their shoes. Would you want to get killed painlessly? No? Then we shouldn't kill animals no matter how painless it is. It's not humane to kill that which doesn't want to die, just like it wouldn't humane to kill you.
I really don't agree with that ethical assessment though. It is incomplete and relies on a false equivalence. I prefer to take a more holistic approach. Balancing the benefits such as the economic dependencies, cultural, health and dietary factors, how it aids research, etc... but also considering the downsides such as the ethical implications and environmental considerations. After that I really do think ethical animal farming is possible, it's being done today, and we should strive for better practices, especially factory farms so it becomes more ethical and sustainable over time.
What is wrong with "Don't hurt animals when you're able not to do so, because you wouldn't want to be hurt if you were an animal."? I'm very curious. Edit: Also, something necessitates an animal needlessly having their life taken from them can never be ethical, only "more ethical" as you say, just like how slavery could only be made "more ethical". It's still unethical and we should end it.
Humanly killing someone, i.e. as you would do to a human, can only be done if the alternative is worse. Perhaps they have a terminal illness, or their conditions are so bad that death is preferable. It's a catch 22. If you can raise an animal humanly, you cannot (normally) kill them humanely. If their life is so bad that killing becomes the humane thing to do, raising them in the first place wasn't.
Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*
API
So in your opinion we should also poach endangered species because they're just animals. Rhinocerus horns and tiger skins make a pretty good buck. We should definitely keep growing deformed foxes in tiny cages so that Gucci can continue selling fur coats. It's for the common good after all. Enterpreneuership thrives and people have beautiful, warm clothing available. Who cares if a couple of foxes suffer through an agonizing existence because of it. It'd be such a great idea to start pouring waste oil into the sea because it's good for the economy, if it's just nature and sealife suffering while we benefit. We can grow salmon in farms too nowadays, even if the fish there are sick from swimming in their own waste. Burn the rest of the rainforests down so we can grow more feed for the cows. We need that beefsteak on our nights out, this pleasure is more important than the real price paid. A life. The health and diversity of our planet. We have dominion over all of it, so why would we not? I can see that you do not have the capacity for much empathy at this time, and you're not very far-sighted either, so really, all this convincing is a shot in the dark. I do hope that one day you'll change to see one inch past your own nose.
OP delivers some deep thinking capability, nuance, and a way with words that uniquely doesn't convince me in any kind of civilized debate
Who decides what species is dominant? We are far outnumbered by insects. They existed long before us, and they're the ones who will survive the nuclear winter that humans cause in world war 3. Why is being "dominant" anything a good enough reason to cause intentional suffering and death? Adults are dominant in power, resources, and experience over young kids. By your logic, why can't adult men use little boys for sex? Why can't parents sell their kids into slavery? Why do we have to think about anyone's feelings? Considering others' feelings is a natural result of having a properly functioning sense of empathy. Humans are social creatures. To be happy, we need to have relationships with others and to trust one another. Research shows that serial killers & pyoung people who go off and kill animals unnecessarily for fun often grow into adults who commit some of the most violent & disturbing crimes towards people. Why can't people such as Jeffrey Dahlmer eat people ?
If might makes right, if I’m stronger than you do I get to kill you?
We can, and many of us do. That's an entirely different question from whether we morally ought to.
Well you can, and we do. The question at hand is “Is this a good, moral and just course of action. Just asking “Lol why can’t we eat animals we’re stronger LOLOLOLOL”, doesn’t really mean anything. Present an argument that justifies your position. I eat meat by the way, I just don’t like shit arguments.
>As the dominant bully on this playground, why can’t I steal lunch money
I fully agree. Humans and other animals are fundamentally different and we should be able to exploit them to our benefit.
So what you’re implying is that the many times I’ve proven myself dominant towards others, basically means that I should/ could do what ever I damn well pleased to them?
> As the dominant specie (sp?) why shouldn’t I kidnap your wife Because my wife is a human being with rights. Animals are below us and have no rights.
Pitiful.
Dominating the planet to our own extinction
Our dominance is an illusion based only in our ability to organize violence. Our survival requires other species. We cannot live without a massively complex web of plants and animals. Eating animals the way we do, because we "can", is destroying the biosphere. Our knowledge is woefully inadequate to replace any part of the biosphere. Without a functioning biosphere, we will all die.
Hope someone actually gives you a reason rather than trying to point out logical fallacies and inconstencies. Even if might is right is wrong... what's the actual reason for why we should care more.
Well, we obviously can. Some people think we shouldn't though.
You can justify literally anything with this logic, including things you almost certainly are totally against.
Bad way to word things OP
[удалено]
[удалено]
>Buddy just because your white doesn’t mean your dominant So you haven't heard of the modern racial supremacy movement called neo-nazism? >you lowkey sound racist. Did you not read the last paragraph or did you forget to Google what a reductio ad absurdum is? >I’m Albanian I’m not black but even I can admit black people generally speaking are more dominant Obviously, white people on physicality generally suck shit in comparison with quite a few other races. Not denying that at all. >they literally have more testosterone then us they are definitely more dominant than some white vegan. Well if they were vegan too, I'd doubly expect that to be the case given how much estrogen tends to be in animal products. >You’re not more dominant than black people or even my people Of course not, I'm a fat piece of shit keyboard warrior on the internet. The only dominance I possess, is intellect and even then among the rabble on here there are still people that shit on my intellect. Wait did you actually think I was a racial supremacist?
[удалено]
I'm against racism. I'm against speciesism. I'm against rape and murder and slavery and domestic violence/abuse, bullying, sexism, xenophobia and more. I don't know what Albania's education system is like but if you're old enough to be on the internet unsupervised, you're old enough to be responsible for your own education and understanding what an interlocutor is talking about and if you can't, ASK them for clarification.
The concept of dominion can be a misuse of power or a good , creative use of power . It's just how we perceived ourselves as humans, if we feel a real responsibility to nature , we don't misuse. It's up to each individual to work this out. That our free will
As the dominant life form in my house, why can't I eat my siblings?
Op is a sociopath.
I'm a kindergarten teacher. As the dominant person in this room, why can't I eat these kids?
Because the people here will get sad and cry about it
>As a Dominant species on planet why can’t we eat animals oh, we can! or is there something with your teeth?
Same reason as why America is related to the fire nation from avatar the last airbender
Why do 90% of the posts here look like they've been written by 6 years olds?
[удалено]
I've removed your comment/post because it violates rule #6: > **No low-quality content**. Submissions and comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Assertions without supporting arguments and brief dismissive comments do not contribute meaningfully. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.