 What if I just jump on those dogs and attack them and ate them? What would you think of me as an actual carnivore? I'm against animal cruelty, but I pay for it and I eat it. That's just because our moral values... That's because our moral values are different. Do you agree you're morally inconsistent first? Politically, yeah, because I haven't figured it out. Do you have veganism? Are you vegan yourself? Why am I the vegan? Yeah, you're not vegan. Most people are not. What do you think about this conversation? Come on, we're just trying, so... Okay, okay, okay. So what's the argument so far? He's saying it's cruel. He's saying it's cruel to eat animals. They have to find a slaughterhouse. Well, they don't just die. They're executed against their will to live. And they're also bred for that purpose. If I bred humans for that purpose, would it be morally justified in the European Union? I think it's right, I just said that. Yeah, yeah, they're bred for that purpose. It doesn't... It means nothing, though. I could breed... But why is it morally right to be a vegan or to support veganism? I think it's more morally neutral. Fair enough. Like, okay... I think it's more consistent and it's a better... ...better position than... I think we need this guy. So like, the fact that, I guess, I'm not a vegan, but like, to be fair, I've never really been touched by a topic. But the thing that kind of turned me off as a vegan, like, kind of turned me off personally, is the fact that people try to preach it to other people. And I feel like the imposition of a moral value or like, of what you should eat or what you should eat, that's something I'm kind of popular with. If that makes sense. Yeah, I mean, how else are we supposed to create a better world for animals without making people aware of it? How else does change happen? Right, I mean, awareness is fair enough, but I do agree that the current system in which we slaughter animals like, you know, on like, more scale is bad. But the fact that, the fact that now there is, I feel like without doing that, a lot of people might starve. Because like, it's... Wait a second. I'm here in England right now, I'm talking to these guys and talking to you. Yeah. Would you starve without me? It'll be very expensive. It'll be very expensive, not to... So what's the cheapest food on Earth per calorie? The like... What's the question? What's the cheapest food on Earth? It's rice. Right, right, it's rice. Ah, cheers, boss. Sorry, my friend. You got your horn is very... It's a good horn, it's very effective. It's an effective horn. So, see how he's got this contraption here instead of a horse and cart? It's because we've evolved through technology, not to use and exploit animals. But we can't eat machines, right? Okay, but no, but we can create meat out of plants. But surely that's more expensive, isn't it? Right now, because there's no subsidies for plant-based products. But as more and more people change in culture, we can create more demand for plant-based products. But surely there's an opportunity to cost the subsidies, right? So like, because you're taking it out of somewhere, you have to take it out of elsewhere. Well, this is all... We can debate practical issues. You're debating practical issues. Stop preaching, it's too expensive. I want to know, principally, do you think it's the morally correct thing to do? You're putting in the upper position. I like principally, because then we can decide on the practicalities of it. But principally, do you think slaughtering animals for a burger is wrong? Morally wrong? Again, I think you're putting me on the spot here. No, no, that's what I want to know. Because then we can talk about practicalities. How's it going to work? But in principle, is my position morally correct? But I feel like the moral... Moral pluralism of the society makes sure that we don't have to subscribe to a certain principle, surely. I'm just asking you whether you think my position is... Personally, I don't necessarily think that it's morally wrong to kill animals for them. I personally don't think so. And why? If you think slaughtering animals to eat them is morally wrong, then aren't you saying all carnivores are morally wrong? Because it's in their nature that's our biological needs. The antelope doesn't want to be slaughtered by the carnivore, the natural carnivore, but the natural occurring carnivore is in a survival situation. We are no longer. They have a justification to do what they do, and they cannot conceptualise morality like we do. We don't go around killing each other and committing sex crimes on each other. It happens, but it's against the law and we protect each other with laws and rights and things like this. We can conceptualise morality. We build laws off of them. We don't enslave each other. Well, it happens, but we've got laws stopping that. I'm saying we don't act like animals in nature. And what I'm suggesting is that you can understand morality. If I started to attack a dog right here, you would stop me, probably, or you would think it was crude and weird. Would you? I mean, yeah. But what if I just attacked him and ate them? I mean, what would you think? Because you said the nature of carnival argument. What if I saw a dog here? Maybe he's got some curious hell of dogs. What if I just jump on those dogs and attack them and ate them? What would you think of me? I know I was like a, as an actual carnival. In the practical situation, it would be quite unreasonable. Why would you think it's unreasonable? Right here in civilisation, here in England, right now. Yeah, that's the reason. Why? Because I've got alternatives? Yeah. Maybe, yeah. Okay. So it's wrong for me to jump on that dog like a lion and rip them to shreds alive, right? Because I have other things to eat, yeah? In a survival situation, you probably think, well, he's doing what he's got to do to survive, yeah? But right now, it's the same principle except you're eating these other animals, you're paying someone to do the killing, and we have plant-based alternatives available. Right, so I think the point about that argument is that in terms of alternatives, you're absolutely right about that. But I still feel like it's up to individual choice, right? It's our choice whether or not to eat. Like, for example, if you... So it's my choice to pounce on that dog and rip them to shreds? For sure, but then you have to face the consequences thereof. There we go, thank you. So wait a second. So my choice is to consume animals, but what about the victim's choice? But then you said animals are not, they're not aware of the moral complications. Therefore, they don't have to... So they can't be victims? So they're fair game? For example, if you go and attack those dogs, right? That man will probably pounce on you. Let's just say he didn't exist, they were just there, he didn't exist, they're not his dogs. Right. Okay, we can change that, because yeah, you might say I don't want him to suffer because I've attacked his dogs, all right? But I'll just... I have alternatives, those dogs are just chilling cute, and I'll do it. It's my choice to. It is your choice to. It's natural to, all right? We've always done it, wait a second. We've always done it. We've always done it. That's a distinction, though. We prefer, for dogs, we domesticate wolves, right? That's what happens. For instance, it's your choice to do that, but then you therefore have to face the consequences thereof. And for example, if I choose to eat an animal, right? I face whatever consequences thereof. There's no consequence for you, because it's legal. Exactly. But the consequence is on the victim. Exactly, but for example, if I don't feel like the type of moral indignation that you feel, then, you know, that's just because our moral values, that's because our moral values are different. Your moral values. Subjective morality. Exactly, subjective morality. Your moral value is that for us to eat animals, we have to feel some sort of moral indignation. Whereas if I don't feel that moral indignation, I don't have to feel the same kind of... That's a very dangerous line of thought. Well, but then... So you're saying it's up to the... So, wait a second. I mean, I will let you complete your thought here, but I just want to quickly grab you until you move on. Because you're saying subjective morality makes things okay. So because in your subjective morality, you don't feel bad for killing animals. Therefore, it's okay to do. I think... Is that what you meant by that? Well, I think... No, no, no, that's not what I meant. I think it's wrong to subscribe onto society, a moral standard in which it is wrong for us to eat animals. That's why I think it's wrong. But you do think it's wrong for us to eat animals? Sorry? You do think it's wrong to eat animals? No. Certain animals. But they're not certain animals. It's like, for example, what they said, right? Like, for example, like, you're... Because you do operate within the parameters of this society that we wish, in which we live in, in which you shouldn't attack a dog. So culture dictates morality, then. That is a really difficult question. And I don't really know the answer. I'm looking for logical consistency. Culture sometimes can dictate morality because there are moral things that are cultural. There are also incredibly immoral things that are cultural. So you can't point to culture or society standard and say, therefore, it's moral. Because it's been society's standard to enslave each other. Yeah? At one point in time. Was that moral? Because at the point in time, it was society's standard. No, no, it's a question. Yes or no? No, it's not moral. It wasn't moral at the time. But it was a cultural norm, wasn't it? I think you're kind of mischaracterising, I'm saying. Because, okay. But that's exactly what you meant. No, no, it's not. Because I'm saying specifically the moral standard not to eat animals is... Like, it's different than to say I enslave you. No, no, no, I'm just looking for logical consistency. That's all right. So you're inconsistent. You're saying, in this one case, which is eating animals, we look to society for the standard. In this society, it's wrong to jump on that dog. I mean, there are laws in place, I suppose, about that. Yeah, but it doesn't matter. Legality and morality are separate. Because it was legal to enslave people at one point. Right, but like, okay, fine, fine. But then your argument entirely consists of, upon the premise that the current legal system doesn't work, right? I'm saying you can't point to what's legal and it doesn't equal morality. So if that's not our standard, then what is our standard? I think legality catches up to morality. But we shouldn't, you can't point to what's legal and say that that's always moral. No, but then you're not answering my question. So what is therefore the standard that we should subscribe to? If it's not the legal system, if it's not the things that we have in place, if it's not traditions, like, no, I'm not saying, like, slavery or anything. Like, for example, eating. Traditionals you shouldn't look for, either. Yeah, yeah. What's traditional? If it's not that, then like, what is it? What is it? Okay. Let me tell you what I believe. These animals, like pigs and cows and chickens, fish, they are a subject of a life. Okay, like, you're a subject of a life and you're a subject of a life. You experience the world and you can both suffer and feel well-being. These other animals can too. There's someone inside of there experiencing the world. And that is why I believe, like, just like it's wrong to harm these dogs because they're a subject of a life. You might think, oh, they're not on our level or whatever, whatever, we can talk about that. But they are still subjects of a life and their life is important to them and what happens to them matters to them. And that's why I believe we shouldn't have the right to dictate what happens to them for something as trivial as a burger. Now granted, there are situations where I will say that that goes out the window. There's a threshold, like, you're trying to protect yourself from an animal attacking you or, you know, you got to defend yourself. Oh, even think like if a human's attacking, you got to right to defend yourself and kill that human. I think there's always thresholds. But I think that the standards should not be because I like the taste of a sandwich with their body in it. Right, okay. And that's your moral standard, right? But, and you're saying that should be the universal standard. I'm just asking for consistency. I think there's double standards in potentially- Just to jump in. Yeah, yeah. Can you say the same about plants as well? Because they're also subjects of a life. There is no subject experiencing the world inside of a plant. How can you tell, though? Because if animals are up to lower spiritual and human beings, then plants are also- Well, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. So you're making the claim, you're saying plants are a subject. I'm not asking a question. Well, no, I don't, well, no, you said, how do I know? That plants are not sub- Yeah, can you say the same? Well, how do you know that that tile on the floor is not a subject of a life? Plants do react to outside stimuli. Yeah, I don't care about reactions and intelligent reactions. I care about subjects of a life, like someone experiencing the world. I'm rooted into the ground. I am suffering. I am a personality. Don't cut me. This is hurting me. Yeah, but following this argument, since we're not animals, we can't be sure that they experience this as well. We can only observe, but we can't be sure. But you would not want me to jump on that dog and rip him to shreds. Yeah, but that's- How do we know they feel pain? How do we know that they- Yeah, we don't. Right? If you say that we can't- So you wouldn't assume that that dog there is gonna, so are you against animal cruelty? I'm saying logically, we can make this argument, right? Oh, I wanna ask, are you against animal cruelty? Yeah, I would say that. Well, you don't know if they feel cruelty, so why would you care? It's just one of, why would I care? You just said you're against animal cruelty, but why? Logically, you don't even know if they experience pain and suffering. I do a lot of things, but I don't know why, right? Okay, you're asking a question that can only be answered with the science that we have, right? And the science that we have shows that animals behave differently when they're suffering. Okay? They can test- You can test animal pain and suffering. There you go. You can test reactions to the environment, like growing towards the sun and they have maybe electrical reactions, but so does this mobile phone. When I touch it, there's no sentient being in here, right? It's a mechanical. Yeah, but plants are in the same way. There's no subject inside of these flowers. There's no one in there that needs rights. And if you're going to say that there is, then you have, the burden of proof is on you. But it's easy to show that there's a subject inside of a dog or a pig because they behave in a way that is subjective. Some pigs and some dogs have different personalities. They react differently to suffering and fear and pain. That is very intuitive, but don't you think to say- It's scientific as well. It's easier to prove as being- How do I know you're sentient? I'm sorry? How do I know that you're sentient and conscious right now? What does that have to do with the argument? Because you were saying, how do I know that an animal is, right? That's what you said? How do I know that you are? You don't need to, but I do. I assume you are. Yeah. Yeah? You can assume. Based on the evidence that we have. Yeah? You have eyes, a brain, mouth, heart, you seem conscious with me and we can make the same assumption with other animals with eyes, brain, pain receptors, spinal cord, they behave in a certain way. We can make all these assumptions. If you're gonna say, how do you know they're sentient? Yeah. I mean, they are assumptions, but I do get your point, so I think that we can- Yeah, yeah, yeah. Of course they're all assumptions we have to make with science. I mean, proving sentience is pretty much impossible. I think it's still like a moral kind of like, you know, disagreement for sure. I mean, because I feel like, for example, if you construct the way that humans have existed, right? So we've evolved to be, I guess, the head of the top of the food chain as well, and we've learned to- No, but that is how it happened, right? And you can say that is wrongly right or wrong, but that's just- Might makes right. You know that argument. The might makes right argument, yeah. Yeah, but you, who are you? So like, but then you're just disagreeing with how we got there, right? You're disagreeing with how we got there, and you're disagreeing- We're in a position of power right now. Right, we are in a position of power. So what should we do with that power? You're saying we are morally obligated to do some- Protect the vulnerable, maybe? To protect the animals, that's what you're saying, right? The vulnerable? The animals. I'd categorize them as vulnerable. But that's your categorization. What would you categorize a chicken, say? It's an animal. Well, you wouldn't categorize them as vulnerable? But like, you don't have, like you choose to categorize as vulnerable because that's place within your moral object, moral view of the world. But I don't necessarily have to because we're different, right? So you wouldn't say they're vulnerable beings. Easily attacked and dominated is what I mean. So like, okay, but your, that characterization there, kind of instills a moral belief of the world in which you have to think they're vulnerable and therefore, vulnerable means deserving of protection as well. And that's your- Well, not necessarily. I mean, it just means that easily attacked kind of thing. But it instills kind of an empathetic response in which you want us to- My whole argument is not hinging on whether or not they're vulnerable. It's that they're vulnerable conscious beings having a subjective experience. Okay, again, again. I'm like, it's fine to have like a moral disagreement on this issue. You don't think- But I would ask for consistency though. But I feel like- You can be morally inconsistent. And you can say, well, these animals deserve protection. I'm against animal cruelty, but I pay for it and I eat it. You know, that would be inconsistent, I would say. Okay, fine. Like, okay, you want moral consistency, but I think like, even moral- Why do we need to demand moral consistency? Well, you don't have- I mean, it's just a double standard. I could say, this person here, they deserve moral treatment. This person here, they don't. And you would say, well, do you have a justification for that? And I'll say, no, I don't have to be morally consistent. But how do I know their sentient? We've done it for thousands of years. We've killed other people. I can decide who lives and who dies. We've always done that. You know, like, I could make- I could apply your ethics out to the human race, which has been done before. But I don't think- No, that's not my point. My point is we have two different- That was your point. You're saying, why can't you be more- My point is we have two different ethical viewpoints, and therefore we can agree to disagree. But there- No, we can. Yeah, we can. We can. But I was saying, why can't we be morally inconsistent? I gave you an example of moral inconsistency and how it's problematic. You found a specific moral inconsistency that would be damaging to the real world. You found one. You gave me a very specific example in which I will look like the bad person, in which case I would look like the bad person. But moral consistency doesn't have to manifest itself in that specific way. Moral inconsistency can be- Like, I just don't know- Show me how- Okay, how are you morally consistent? Do you agree you're morally inconsistent first? Relatively, yeah. Because I haven't figured it out, right? And that's- We're figuring it out now. Hey, brother. Hey, brother. I'm here, by the way, man. Hey, brother. Oh, really? No, I just- Oh, my God, that's great. Cheers, brother. Okay. We can agree to disagree. Of course. You know what? Thanks for listening and thanks for the discussion, because you're intelligent. I appreciate your questions as well. All right? So thanks for stopping by. See you later. How are you doing, all right? I'm good, mate. I'm good. Oh, mate. Can I get a picture of you? Yeah, of course. It's not all right. Yeah, of course. I'm a massive fan of yours. Of course. I exploited your dogs here- Oh, no, it's like you don't touch my dogs, though. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Hello, pug face. That is so cute. I was only joking. I would never want to eat you. Oh, dear. Oh, dear. That's one of the reasons why I tell me. Oh, really? Yeah. Well, I've- Explain the story. Well, I just felt hypocritical. Looking at your dogs. Well, going around telling people how much I love my dogs and animals. Yeah, I was happy to eat it. And I suppose I've always had that, it's the wrong thing to do. But I sort of turned a blind eye to it. And I was a real, you know, if I didn't have meat with food, that it wasn't dinner. It wasn't dinner. Yeah, same here. And that was the way I was raised, you know? It was meat and, you know- Betcha. Every meal had meat in it. Yeah. So, yeah. So you're not likely the other gentleman who had his- What's the matter with being morally inconsistent? You've had a problem with being morally inconsistent. Yeah, I felt that, you know, environmentally, I think veganism is the biggest drive that we can have in terms of, you know, climate change. Yeah, yeah. And with that, if you're not going to harm any animals or, you know, put them for endless suffering just for- Endless suffering is a good one. As Ed would say, for, you know, that moment of taste pleasure. Yeah. It's just not- and vegan food now, especially in London, is so good. There's so many places around. All right, really good work. No worries, brother. Take care. Thanks for stopping, mate.