 Hey everybody, today we're debating whether or not veganism is a moral obligation and we are starting right now. Ladies and gentlemen, thrilled to have you here for this epic debate, as this is going to be a huge one, folks. I have been excited for this one for quite a while, so this is going to be a lot of fun. It's our first time having the veganism debate, and also gotta let you know, it's our first time having, You could say, I think this is going to be one of the, our first time having cosmic skeptic, as well as we're excited that I've seen both of these guys before, I've got to listen to them, and I can say this is going to be a very high level discussion. I'm, pardon me for putting you guys on the spot, setting it up, setting the bar high for you, but I'm that confident, it's going to be that good. So I am very excited, folks. Want to let you know though, if it's your first time here, consider hitting that subscribe button, as you've got a lot more debates coming up. In fact, we'll have Hunter Avalon and Joel Patrick on next Friday, and they'll be debating homosexuality and the Bible. So that will be a fun and controversial one, folks, and want to let you know though, we're a nonpartisan channel. So we don't take any stances, I never kind of give my views or anything like that. Instead, we want you to know, we have no stances, it's up for you in the discussion. Feel free to let your voice be heard. And also, whether you be Christian, atheist, vegan, or no matter what walk of life you're coming from, we hope you feel welcome. And with that, we're going to jump right into this, folks. I do want to let you know, as you're listening, I put both of the links to the speakers in the description. So that basically, if you're listening, you're like, hmm, I like that. I want to hear more. Well, you can hear more. That's why I put those links in the description box for you. And with that, this is going to be a pretty easygoing kind of discussion where it's just going to be a flexible, you know, five to 10 minute opening, whatever the speakers feel like they would usefully use in their opening kind of a basic layouts or statements. And then that open discussion, which is probably be about an hour of open discussion. And then we'll go into the Q&A. So if you have any questions, fire them into the old live chat. And if you put at modern day debate, if you tag me and make it easier so I don't miss any of those questions. So thanks so much, folks. We're going to hand it over to Alex or CosmicSkeptic. Thanks so much for being with us, Alex. It's a pleasure to have you. Well, thank you for having me. I'm glad to be here and I'll never pass up an opportunity to debate the issue of animal rights, which to me, I should stress is potentially the most important moral emergency that we currently face. The reason for that being, because whilst there are many things going on in the world that deserve our moral consideration, the consensus on this issue seems so unbelievably small that I feel like I have more of an obligation than on any other topic to put my name out to talk about it. For instance, before we started, you said, James, that you were struggling to find people to talk about veganism because we're such a small group, it seems. But let this not dissuade people. Every single justice movement starts as a minority and that's how we see this. It is a justice movement. This isn't some kind of diet. It's not some kind of fad. We're not doing this for the environment. We're doing this, or at least if we are doing it for the environment, we don't care about the environment for its own sake. We care about it because of the effects that it will have on conscious creatures. But the main reason that we do this is because we care about non-human animals and think that they deserve our moral consideration. Veganism, on the definition that I've already agreed, that we've already agreed upon is essentially the one that comes from the vegan society. It's the one that I cite most frequently and I'm glad to see that you cited it before. I got the chance to do so in our previous emails, which is that veganism is the attempt to minimize to the highest extent practicable the suffering and cruelty towards animals. This to me seems such a simple proposition. And the strange thing that appears to me is that you, Sterling, seem to have argued, at least in some of the comments in the emails that we had before, that veganism is a moral thing to do. It has some kind of moral value. It is a good thing to do. It's a virtuous action. And yet it's not an obligation. There are some people that I argue with who will say that animals don't deserve our moral consideration. It's an amoral thing to do. It doesn't matter if you eat them or not. It doesn't matter if you harm them or not. And to that it's difficult to argue against. It's like, look, maybe we've just hit an impasse here. But if you at least agree that they deserve some moral consideration, that there is something good about being kind to animals and extending the moral consideration, then what we're accepting is that animals are in some sense members of our moral community. And to me, if it is true that it is morally virtuous to not harm an animal, that's because they have moral work. And if they have moral work, then if we have an ability to minimize their suffering, then I think that we have an obligation to do so to the same extent that we would do with any other creature that can feel suffering such as human beings. I would find it difficult to argue exactly which case of veganism I'd like to put forward until I know what your views are, Sterling. But it seems to me that if you're going to concede that there is some moral work within animals, then the proposition that we should be eliminating their suffering where we can do doesn't seem an unreasonable one to me. The other thing to understand is that veganism is not about meat. It's not about animal product. It's about the animals. I've already seen, I mean, I already see people in the comments saying that veganism isn't a moral act because it's not about whether you eat meat. It's about where it comes from. That isn't so many words what vegans are arguing about. That is exactly why the definition says and refers to animal suffering as suffering and exploitation rather than referring to meat. Okay, if you can create a system whereby you're obtaining animal products that causes no suffering or cruelty to animals, far from that being morally permissible, that would be a vegan thing to do. Veganism is about minimizing suffering to animals. And so if you're not causing that suffering to animals, then that's an absolutely vegan thing to do. What we're talking about here is the treatment of animals and the exploitation of animals, not about the products that result from it. Okay, and so to be a vegan, you just have to accept the proposition that we shouldn't be harming animals when we don't need to. And that to me seems so ethically obvious, right, especially in the worst cases that we see. I mean, in the society that we've constructed at the moment and the way that we eat our food, we're not just talking about cows roaming around in the field and then going and being milked. We're talking about factory farming being the predominant source for animal products, which means that around 95% of the animal products that are consumed in the United States come from factory farms. And a lot of people will say to me, look, I'm with you on the factory farming stuff. It's awful what we're doing to those animals, but veganism as a whole pushes it too far. It's like, are we really on the same side here? Are you really with me on the factory farming stuff? Because if you are, that means that you need to make sure that every single time you eat an animal product that it doesn't come from there. To me, the idea that we have an obligation to end this kind of stuff seems to me ethically trivial, right? We are torturing innocent creatures in order to produce food because we like the taste of their flesh, right? As I've said before, we don't justify the torture of our enemies in a human context, even when we have a good reason to do it. And yet we seem to justify torturing the most innocent members of our moral community whose only crime is to be born into the wrong species. And that's another thing that needs to be spelled out. If I'll pay the compliment selling of assuming that you agree that natural selection is the explanation for the origin of species. And if that's the case, then we have a real trouble of an arbitrary boundary between species. We recognize if we resurrect the evolutionary tree that exists between us and our extinct cousins and the rest of the animal kingdom. The tree usually is pictured as starting at the bottom and kind of spreading out to the top. But if we resurrect all of those links and have them standing in a line, you've got a problem of being able to say, where is it along that line? Whereby it goes from me saying that I have an obligation not to throw that person into a gas chamber because I like the taste of their flesh. But once you get past a certain point, maybe it's a virtuous thing to do. You know, you can do it if you fancy it. I'd rather you didn't, but you don't have a moral obligation to avoid it. This to me seems an impenetrable boundary, but I'm interested to hear what you have to say. Go ahead, Sirling. Awesome. Well, thank you. I appreciate James for having me on. I appreciate Alex for being on with us. And hopefully we have a fruitful discussion. As stated, we will be going off of the vegan society's definition of veganism, which is the philosophy and way of living, which seeks to exclude as far as possible and practicable all forms of exploitation and cruelty to animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose. In dietary terms, it denotes a practice of dispersing or dispensing, sorry, with all products derived totally and partly from animals. And I'm going to have three contentions basically that I'm going to be defending here today. Basically, the first one is that veganism is completely arbitrary. And because it's arbitrary, it can't be a moral obligation. And two, all animals are not worthy of equivalent or in some cases any moral protection. And three, veganism is ultimately a super regulatory act. It's ultimately goes beyond above and beyond what we have to do. Now, so the standard argument for veganism is the harm reduction argument. So it's kind of what Alex presented in his opening statement. So it's purchasing and consumption of meat causes a disproportionate amount of suffering in the world of both humans and animals, but particularly of animals, because animals are going to be meat. Furthermore, the practices of factory farms provide a further example of cruelty done in the name of our consumption of animals, which is another harm. But the underlying problem with veganism is that it essentially is essentially that veganism is the moral baseline, and they don't really give grounds for this. So one could eat less meat like flexitarianism. One could eat only non factory farmed meat. One could be an invasive war, which eats invasive species. One could be a lacto ovo vegetarian. One could be a Janus vegetarian, which is lacto vegetarianism. One could be a vegan and bless they eat honey, for example. Or if you want to go even further, like on the reduction of harm side, you could be a full-fledged free game. You could be a local war vegan. You could be a local war free game vegan, or you could do a strict boycott of all animal derived products and companies that profit any way whatsoever from animal use. It seems to me like there's no way to draw the line on where exactly we need to reduce suffering. It seems like all of these are on a continuum of reducing suffering. Like you would have a lot less suffering if you ate vegan, but you were a local war. And it seems like a lot of people who can be vegans can be local wars because of the financial requirements there. Given all these facts, I think it seems to me my opponent has two choices. He has two choices. He can show that veganism is the most harm reducing diet that can be attained and that is required by ethics. Or are you would need to prove that every action of purchasing meat and dairy is morally unethical regardless of the source and that the purchase of other food stuffs is comparably unproblematic. So it seems to me that a man who buys milk from a local farm that is raised by the farmer, it doesn't seem to me that that's unethical, not inherently at least. Or a man who owns chickens and gathers their eggs for food, or somebody who buys locally produced honey, for example, like some vegans will buy locally produced honey even though that really doesn't go with the definition of vegan. And it seems even more ridiculous to suggest that a Janus monk who only accepts food that's offered them, but does drink milk that would be offered to them for buy other people is doing more harm than vegans. It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. My second condition was that clearly all animals are not of equal moral worth. It seems like the creatures which are classified or animals, some of them at least are not even sentient, let alone worthy of moral consideration whatsoever. I'm thinking of by vows. I'm thinking of sponges. I'm thinking of insects. I'm thinking most most of the invertebrates and 2012 the American philosopher Gary Burner did a research the review the research literature on pain in animals and he concluded that invertebrates aside from cephalopods probably don't experience pain. And it seems like but it but you can't really say you're a vegan except for you know you eat by vows crustaceans other invertebrates it seems like that's not really what veganism is that doesn't fit the definition of veganism. Because those are animals clearly. And also there's another kind of problem. It seems to me that mere sensation wouldn't be enough to grant more responsibilities. So just because you can feel pleasure and pain doesn't really seem to mean much in the face of, or like in the absence of beliefs, desires, perception memory, psychophysical continuance or sense of future. It seems like if you don't have psychophysical continuance. There's no individual to which you're harming because that person that that individual doesn't continue on that basis through time. Oh, and this is kind of the what's called being a subject of life, which is, which was proposed by American animal rights philosopher Tom Regan. And for what it's worth, Regan thinks that only mammals have those things. And I would extend that to cephalopods as well. And I'm not, I'm not going to be defending his particular theory. I'm just saying that that's what he thinks. And me as an animal rights activist. As mentioned in my position, vegan, veganism is ultimately a super regulatory actions ultimately above and beyond what you need. I often hear cosmic safety, say, if we can reduce so much stuff suffering by not having a steak at dinner. And so why shouldn't we do it. There's kind of a problem with that they're putting aside the issue that it's not just one steak. It's all animal products regardless of circumstance without any regard for utility price or pleasure for the rest of your life. Or, but there's like this further issue, like of why wouldn't you, for example, cause a skeptic, donate all the money that you don't need to survive or keep your job to charities, like pretty much all the money you have, except for what you barely minimum for to it seems like if we have to reduce the amount of suffering and Peter Singer makes this argument. He makes this argument. He says that if the 10 richest people in the world were to donate almost all of their money to charity, we could reduce so much suffering so much so that that would be a moral obligation. And it seems to me that that would be an even further moral obligation for, for that because there's a direct link between you donating to charity and you saving however many lives, let's say we could guarantee like a certain amount of life. It seems like that would be a stronger moral obligation because we know they would save lives while this kind of purchasing a meat, it does reduce the demand, but each individual action doesn't necessarily because and even then there's not really a case for saying there is any individual action. It's just that it doesn't necessarily make one animal die for each time you purchase a steak, for example, there's like a shared more moral culpability, but it's a very small amount of moral culpability. So it seems like you would have a greater obligation to if we follow this kind of framework to give all your money away to charity or almost all your money all the money you need not to live. We are. And okay, I think, I think we're good for just as we have a lot ton pack already and we can if we eventually we get to and we get to add more on but just. Oh no that's fine that's that's that was my whole case. Okay, gotcha thanks so much. And so we'll jump right into the open discussion. Thanks very much guys. All right. Well, look, I mean we can we can take these one by one if you like. Yeah, that sounds like fun. The idea. Well actually maybe we should start in in reverse because the last points you made were smaller and less less broad than the first about the arbitrariness. For example, the issue of charity. I remember reading the life you can save and I think that everybody should read it. Peter saying it makes a far more compelling case for the elimination of unnecessary suffering than someone like Tom Reagan who I think the case for animal rights is not a particularly strong defense of what it claims to be defending on the issue of charity. What second I just want to disagree with that I think that Regan has a much more. He has a broader understanding of the differences between types of animals and I think a subject of a life is a definitely is a more strong version I'm just going to say that like because you have this deep analysis of what it would take because I don't think that sensation is enough. Well you know but besides what we think of these thinkers, Peter singer also points out as well as pointing out, as you say that if billionaires gave their money to charity we'd be solving global poverty. He also points out that if everybody paid their fair share and sort of sort of moral taxation, then what would be required of us what would be required of us if everybody was was abiding by let's say we were trying to construct a moral code by which everybody was to live by. If we construct one on charity, then perhaps people would give away maybe five to 10% of their income something like that charity and global poverty is eliminated right to our best estimates. That's the argument right to do your fair share. That's how much you have to give away. Now, how much, how much is your fair share when it comes to the torture of animals let's say. Well, your fair share is doing absolutely nothing none of that taking part in none of it right. If one animal is tortured that's a moral abomination. So the issues aren't comparable directly because with charity if you aren't you making an assumption that I mean like it seems like like I haven't conceded that we haven't like talked about, you know what qualifies as what I don't think like for example, there'd be such a thing as torturing an ant. So I wouldn't like you see I mean, like so you mean a pig, for example, or like Sure, yeah, pick whichever animal you like when we talk about that in a second because the idea that because something is an animal that therefore must be included in the definition of veganism is to misunderstand what the definition of veganism is which is about the suffering of animals. So if an animal can't suffer, then it wouldn't be included in the definition, but we'll get on to that in a moment. The point about charity is to say you're trying to kind of draw what might be seen as a reductio out of certain it's kind of like if you're going to accept this logic then shouldn't you be giving away everything you own to charity as I just said that's not actually what the argument what the end of the argument is. Secondly, this isn't this isn't as clear cut in a moment. This isn't this isn't as clear. This isn't as clear cut for instance. Yes, I could go and sell my camera equipment. Let's say right, which you may which and I could give that money to charity and that may save some lives. But by buying that camera equipment by paying my rent I'm able to make videos which allow me to make more money to then donate charity, which I do regularly. I mean, I, for instance, by spending money on camera equipment and becoming a vegan advocate. I was able to start a merchandise store from which we sell t shirts of which all of the profits are donated to charity so we've probably actually done more good for the world by not selling those products. But it's not as straightforward as the issue of am I am I obligated to refuse to pay somebody to harm an animal to torture sentient creature so that I can eat its flesh. That to me is a completely different question with a completely different answer but even if I were to just grant it to you and say yes okay fine. Let me just agree with you. I'm I'm being a hypocrite and I should be selling everything that I owned charity that would just be nothing more than a two quay fallacy that would just be to say, look, why aren't you doing this. I might be like fair enough. Yeah, I'm a hypocrite that doesn't change the argument in any way. Now I don't think I'm being hypocrite because I don't think the argument is the same but even if it is, it in no way affects the argument, the obligation of veganism. It just informs us about what the what the rest of our obligations are. I don't know if you have anything to say on that. I do. Okay, so on. There are several points where I think you go wrong one. Yeah, it's true that piercing uses that to argue like for a essentially a fair share type of situation. But the fact is in the moment now, more, more obligations are about what's happening now. And that means that those tap 10 people do have that requirement because we're not all paying our fair share, supposedly at least that's what Peter Schinger says. And so they do have that requirement now they have that more obligation to give away nearly all their money to eliminate global poverty because that would reduce so much harm way more harm than anything else. You didn't really address the fact that I mean that there's a clear more there's a clear link between donating to charity, more so than like not having one animal product or something like that. Like there's like something that is more real about that. So it is a higher obligation because you can directly link the action with saving one person like for example. Why is that more real? Because it's that because you act. So there's a shared moral culpability with eating meat, right? You purchase one steak, but that doesn't kill one animal. Like, eventually so like let's say that 100 people purchase steak, right? And so that the person at the who works at the grocery store orders more product, which in turn makes somebody kill it a cow factory farm or kill one more cow or something. That's a shared moral culpability. While when you donate to charity, you have this one to one correspondence between your action and saving one child at least if we're talking about like one of these that say save it here for $50 you get to save one child's life something like that. If you can I can I finish the point first? Of course. Okay, so for the for charity. The other problem I think with the argument is that I agreed I in my opening statement I said that enough money for you to keep your job which you have a job this is your job. So you need that camera equipment, clearly. And for you to live I'm not saying donate all your money. I'm saying anything that doesn't help you accomplish ends like comp so like anything frivolous as it were. And that you don't need to further reduce suffering and I'm not. And then on your to call quake from what I'm arguing is that there's a distinction between things you have to do. And things that that are kind of that would go above and beyond like that would, and that my position is that donating all your money to charity, like, all that you don't need for your job you don't need to live is a super negative reaction that you could do, but it goes above and beyond what you are required to do. And that that's my position on that. Have you have you read the life you can save. I have. I was a good argument, but I don't I don't I'm not a utilitarian. And you may remember the point that he made very similar to yours when you say that there seems to be a one to one correspondence with charity that that's simply not the case. Yes, you can donate a certain amount of money and that will buy a certain number of mosquito nets but there's no way to predict which mosquito nets will save people from actually being harmed so it is still a pooled effort you still have a lot of people buying X number of mosquito nets, which statistically will save maybe one child it's the same thing going on. The statistical amount is far greater for one I mean you could so that. So for example, if the $50 shows in their statistics to save one child. That amount is directly related to saving that one child but you don't really have that you have like this one and 36 amount like for example I'm just trying to do an arbitrary number we're saying, I'm saying there's one and 36 chance or something that your purchase that are sorry your share of the moral culpability rather than you having all of the responsibility for saving that one child. So every person that donates one of those $50. Let's say because we're trying to square up the circle here. What person that donates the $50 has that direct correlation to saving the one child, but we have like this one and 36 because like each animal product is a different. It's like, like I said, it's all, it comes into this long chain of things that could happen that might happen involving literally thousands of people rather than just your one purchase like there's one point of purchase versus literally way 36 different people buying animal products or something like that that share in this culpability. So I think that there's a clear distinct difference I don't see how you can get around that perhaps you underestimate how much animal products 50 pounds or $50 can buy you I'm not I'm not sure. I understand the direct correlation that you can have if there are websites you can go to which if you type in how long you've been vegan for it will tell you exactly statistically how many animals you've saved how many gallons of water you've saved your environmental impact because that's another thing to take into account right is that it's not just about the effect of not buying the product because of the animal that was directly harmed and tortured to get the food on your plate but also the environmental effect of your choices which of course the first victims of environmental impact will be non human animals you've got to take a lot more into consideration than I think perhaps you are but even if I'm willing to grant you this and say that yes, you know, saving a certain amount of people is is better or more or more direct. Somehow, then, you know, refusing to pay for people to put pigs into gas chambers like which I don't think is true but even if that's the case sure but that doesn't change the obligation that we have on putting pigs into gas chambers. If I were asking you right if I said that I'm a human being let's just change out the the because if we're killing a pig for taste pleasure right we're talking about sensory pleasure. And so, if I just switch out the sense pleasure if I say that I'm doing it for my hearing right I really like the sound that a pig makes when I put it in the gas chamber I really like the way that it squeals right. I like to pay somebody to lower a pig into a gas chamber and film it for me so that I can listen to the squeals right would you say that I have an obligation not to do that. I don't see how that relates to veganism directly. Because that's exactly what we're doing when we go into a supermarket and we pay money across the counter economically demanding to take me put into a gas chamber. I disagree. So there's I mean that that is that is that is what's happening. That is what you do when you when you put the money like a. So are we actually going to move into a different one of the arguments I think we're talking about now into more like number two. We sure can but I you know this is like this is not a this isn't an interview it's a it's a debate I think and so in that case I think that you should respond to my argument to which is this. If you go into a supermarket and you pay money for a piece of bacon right. That that piece of bacon will come from a factory farm if you got it from a supermarket and what that means is that you are economically demanding that a pig be put into a gas chamber or I shouldn't speak for you. I mean in the United Kingdom 25% of pigs are stunned so to speak and killed by lowering them into a pool of CO2. They're low in pairs in a metal crate which acidifies the liquid in their eyes and their mouths and causes them to spend the last 30 seconds of their lives choking on carbon dioxide and desperately trying to escape. Now that's what happens right. That's what happens when I pay for a bit of bacon right that's where it comes from. Okay so where you're trying but the problem is is that again so one the moral culpability is spread out again it's not one piece of bacon equals one pig dying in a gas chamber for one. Like that's how it was what why are these why are these pigs being loaded into gas chambers why does it happen. So and again so when we're talking about this. This makes a lot of assumptions right like if I were to tell you what assumptions am I making I'm just telling you're making assumptions that I think for one that pigs are equivalent to. Any other type of animal like that I believe that we should be killing pigs rather than I mean I think that it would be perfectly I don't remember saying they kill fish or something like that but you use the example of pigs. So again and I did present actually my opening case. For the subject of a life hypothesis which pigs would be an example of that so I so can you use a different example from. That wouldn't be a subject of a life because I think they'd be perfectly okay for that if they weren't actually. If they weren't like something that had so something doesn't have beliefs desires perception cycle physical continuous yeah I think that'd be fine. Right but the thing is you're misunderstanding because. It makes the assumption that you purchase it from a factory farm to I'm sorry I should know I said I said you purchased it from a. Okay I said that you I said that you purchased it from a supermarket this is what I specified. I also made no comparison to any other animals you can value any animals on whichever scale you like but here I'm talking about pigs because what I'm saying is this. If the definition of veganism is about the minimization of suffering and exploitation if you take an animal which is incapable of being exploited because it doesn't have the qualities. That you that you think are necessary for an animal to be exploited then they wouldn't fall under the definition of veganism. Okay they'd be an animal but they wouldn't be suffering so that wouldn't matter what I'm asking you is this. It just says it does not say anything about whether the animals are fish or whether the animals are okay. It says a philosophy and a way of living which seeks to exclude as far as as possible impracticable all forms of exploitation of and cruelty to animals for. Yada yada yada right which means exploitation of and cruelty to if you have an animal which is not capable of of experiencing cruelty and exploitation. Then you can do whatever you like to it and it's still vegan because to be a vegan is to eliminate the exploitation and the cruelty. Not just to eliminate the use of animals in some vague aspect that that's the definition of veganism so I'd still like to hear an answer to my question which is this. Even if all this commits you to is that in some cases there is a moral obligation. If you go to a supermarket and you pay that money right. I believe that I have an obligation not to do so because when I pay for that to happen I am economically demanding I'm even if I even to use your terms. I'm contributing to an economic demand for a pig to be lowered into a gas chamber. What I'm saying is if I did the exact same thing but the pig was being loaded into the gas chamber because I like the way it sounded instead of me liking the way it tastes. That it would be uncontroversially true that I have an obligation not to do so that you think me a moral monster. If I thought in any way I had the right to demand a pig to be loaded into a gas chamber because I like the way that it sounded. And yet that is exactly what we do that is exactly what we do when we go into a supermarket and we hand some dollars across to the cashier to give us some bacon. And I'm asking you do you think it is an obligation to not torture a pig for sensory pleasure or do you not. Okay, so a pig. Yes, I would agree that you couldn't that you shouldn't torture pigs for sensory pleasure. And that's an obligation. Yeah, I think that's an obligation. Okay. For sensory pleasure. But again, thanks for coming. I'm going to go. I'm going to go. I'm going to know because I'm not going to concede that for one all killing of animals is torturing for sensory pleasure. I'm not going to concede that that all products have to be produced that way. I'm not going to. I don't think that even killing at certain animals would be wrong for sensory pleasure necessarily. I mean, and then a philosophy or a way of living. So these are the problem. You're trying to squirm out of the definition but no vegans eat fish. Nobody would consider you a vegan if you ate fish. No, I'm doing no squimming. Oh, and so this is kind of the sword we're trying to do. So I don't think that fish. Are a subject of a life. And so I don't agree with the definition of veganism, but no reasonable vegan would say, well, if you eat fish and you. I mean, so you can still call yourself a vegan if you don't consider them a subject of a life. Nobody would say that. That's a silly argument. No, look, you're misunderstanding. I don't think that. Your disagreement is not with veganism. Your disagreement is with the definition of the terms used in the definition of veganism. For instance, if we were arguing about the exploitation of humans. If I said we had an obligation not to exploit humans. And for some reason I thought that black people were exempt. I was a racist and I said that I'm allowed to exploit black people. And you said, well, hold on. Look, Alex, do you agree that we shouldn't be exploiting humans? And I said, yes, I just don't consider them to be humans. It's like, I'm not disagreeing with the principle there that it's wrong to exploit humans. I've just got it wrong when I say that black people are not humans, right? Even if even if I'm wrong about that, right? I don't disagree with the principle that it's wrong to exploit humans. I've just misunderstood what it means to be a human. In the same respect, if you say something like, well, look, I think it's wrong. We have a moral obligation not to harm certain animals. But I think that other animals don't fall under that category because of X and Y reasons. It's like, you're not disagreeing with the definition that it's wrong to exploit animals. You just don't think these animals are being exploited because they're not subjects of life. You still agree with the proposition that if they did fall under that category. That it would be wrong to exploit them. And that's all veganism is. Veganism is the proposition that if an animal can be exploited. If it is the kind of animal which is subject to that experience, of which it's capable of exploiting and suffering and committing cruelty against, that we should not do so. And that's what you're agreeing with. That is just the definition of veganism. Okay, so that I completely disagree with that. I think that's one of the silliest arguments I've ever heard in terms of, you can't say that you're a vegan. Dietary terms denote the practice with dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals. I think fish are animals. I think that I think that birds are animals. I just don't think they're a subject of a life. So I think that it would be a, I think that we would be allowed to eat them. Right. So, well, look, I mean, I'm still explaining. I'm still explaining. Okay. So that's what I think. Now nobody, no reasonable person would say, yes, a vegan can eat fish and birds. When we talk about dietary terms, that's just what vegan means. I mean, it literally says it in the definition. I thought we were talking about the ethical definition. And I'm agreeing and I'm saying that these things are animals. And that that part of the definition, at least this is what the vegan society says. And I don't see, and I've never met a vegan who would say that eating fish and birds, you can still call yourself a vegan. It seems like that's completely insane. But do you, so do you just, are you just granting the second? Well, I mean, I'm asking, you're welcome to that opinion. You're welcome to that opinion if you like. I remember, I hope the audience will at least remember when I began with the throat clearing in my opening statement, that the veganism I'm advocating here is not a dietary veganism. I agree with you that the definition of being a dietary vegan is just to not eat animal products. But people might be doing that for health reasons. They might be doing that for environmental reasons. They might be doing that for any reason under the sun. But I'm not interested in that. What I'm interested in is the exploitation of animals. I'm talking about the ethical definition of veganism, which is about the elimination and minimization of cruelty to animals. And so if you want to switch to the dietary definition, then you go ahead, but we won't be in disagreement that there are, of course there are animal products, which I think it's ethical to eat. Absolutely. Because I don't care about the fact that it's an animal product. I care about where it came from. Right. Okay. Let me ask you a question. What if I said I was a vegan, but all animals except for cows are not part of that definition. Like there's no exploitation of anything except for cows. Would I still be a vegan? I would think that you were wrong, but I think that you, like you would still be agreeing with the vegan principle. Right. I mean, all we can do is disagree about definitions here then. Because I think that in order to be an ethical vegan, you have to believe that animals in general, like even, I mean, I just don't see how you can say that. What about humans? Yeah. Let me, let me go to that too. What if it was just humans? Like that's the only type of animal that I think that you can use and exploit. Would you still be a vegan? Right. Well, I think you're just like, like, sorry, let me, yeah. Okay. Go ahead. Sorry. Right. Because the thing is, if we understand veganism to mean the same thing, which we apparently do, or did at least up until you started talking about diet, that it's about the elimination of suffering and exploitation, then the reason that you would give for excluding certain animals from, from that consideration would be because they can't be exploited and they cannot experience cruelty. So you might say, for example, you might take the date, the root of day card or someone like CS Lewis, you might say that animals can't feel pain. Right. And so yes, I'm, I agree with the principle of veganism that we should eliminate suffering of animals. But you might say a CS Lewis did that because other animals can't suffer that, I therefore don't have an obligation not to kill a pig. Right. It's like, okay, the problem there is not one of veganism because you're agreeing with the principle, the moral principle that we should eliminate suffering where, where we can. Right. The problem there is that you, that's not a problem with veganism. That's a problem with your understanding of animals and the nature. I'm going to, so what I'm going to say is this, you're, you're essentially casting negative utilitarianism as ethical veganism. Essentially. Well, I agree with the principle of negative utilitarianism. They are like, that's, that's just what it means to be a vegan. That seems like what you're saying. Well, I think they're committed to being a vegan. Yeah. So veganism is a natural extension. They seem equivalent because if you just agree with any type of suffering that's morally relevant, that's equivalent to saying that all forms of exploitation cruelty to animals for food. It's just that you're saying that those terms are so flexible that they can mean almost anything. And if they can mean almost anything, like animal can mean almost anything. Then it's just equivalent. It's just like, it's a literal tontology or not tontology, but they just, they're just the same statement. Ultimately, it's like a way of living with sheikhs includes far as practical and possible all forms of exploitation. You could start, you could stop there because all moral, all moral agents are, you know, included in those forms of exploitation. They're, they're assumed by there even being such a thing as exploitation. In so many words, what I'm saying, look, if you agree with, what is what extra work is cruelty to animals doing. If you agree with the work is it doing? Well, I think that most people interpret animals in that definition to mean nonhuman animals, but that's up to you if you want to interpret that way or not. If you do, then we have a useful definition, which essentially is that it would be similar to being an advocate for, for women's rights, not meaning that you don't care about men's rights, but just that you're talking about women's rights in this particular context in the same way I could say that we're talking about the elimination of the exploitation of nonhuman animals. But that is just a derivative of a broader philosophy that also applies to humans. You say, look, if you're just saying, it's like you're criticizing me somehow for saying something akin to, well, it seems Alex that you're just saying that therefore we should just like not exploit any being that has sentient capacity. It's like, yeah, that's exactly my argument. The point is this, it's one of consistency. If you believe there's such things moral obligation towards human beings, then you're going to have to name the reason or the justification, but not affording that to other animals, which can also experience suffering and cruelty. That's exactly what I'm saying. So if you turn around and say, look, your argument just says that, that we should be eliminating all exploitation. It's just negative utilitarianism. It's like, yeah. Okay, but that's not equivalent to ethical veganism. And I think that we, I think we're just at an impasse here. That's not what I define as, I don't think that that's what the definition that the vegan society would agree with. I don't think that that's what most vegans use in their daily life to mean veganism. But I would have to disagree there. And I think that we should. I don't think we do need to disagree. Let me just ask you this. Let's take the definition at face value. Let's say that the definition of veganism, it means to be an ethical veganism. You have to say that if an animal can be exploited and can experience cruelty, we have an obligation not to inflict it upon them. Do you agree with that statement? So do I agree with it morally or do I agree that that would be a definition of veganism? Do you agree with that as a moral obligation, regardless of whether you think it's a good definition of veganism? So just that they just feel pain and sensation? No, I don't agree with that. If an animal is capable of experiencing cruelty and exploitation, we have a moral obligation not to inflict it upon them. Do you agree with that? I think exploitation is kind of vague. Can you expand that out a little bit? Okay, fine. How about if an animal is capable of experiencing cruelty or suffering, let's say. If an animal is capable of experiencing suffering, we have a moral obligation not to inflict it upon it without good reason. Okay, no. I don't think that suffering is enough. Well, I don't think that pain is enough or suffering is enough. That's what my second contention is going to be. Okay, so what else is needed? Let's move on. So are you doing the name-the-trade type of argument then? Well, that's not what I was doing there, but we can do that. That's what I thought you were doing. We can do that if you like. That's fine, because I'd be interested to hear what your trade is. What do you think the-what do you think the trade actually is that makes a difference? I think that that pretty neatly, like, scoots into the second premise, right? I mean, the second argument, the cut-second contention. Like, that I think that not all animals are worthy of equivalent or in some cases any moral protection. Yes, I agree. Okay. So, okay. There are quite a few different trades. I think that the argument makes a lot of assumptions. Like, for what it doesn't do any distinction when accidental properties. And the original version of the argument wasn't even sound. Like, it had no identity of indiscernible premise. But even if we go with, like, the sound version, it still makes a lot of assumptions. So, like the one I said about accidental and essential properties. And I think that there are a lot of different things that make us different from animals. Like, and there are diff-there's a whole scale of, like, of different kind of animals have different characteristics which are more or less similar to us. So, I'm going to give you four examples, four trades. So, intentionality, capacity for more reasoning, rationality, and kinship. Now kinship, you know, I'm just going to explain kinship. The rest are pretty easy. I'm sure you understand them. So kinship is similar. When I talk about kinship, I'm talking about how a, how we have more responsibilities for offspring than we have to distant neighbors. Or somebody like our distant evolutionary cousin. For example. Okay. And so, and I think that if you remove those traits, you no longer have a human. So those are essential traits to be human. If you don't have any kinship, you don't have any intentional intentionality, you don't have capacity for more reasoning. You don't have rationality. I don't think you really are a human. I think that those are essential traits of being human. So in other words, you would, you would say that somebody, a human being who's severely disabled enough that they don't have those qualities is no longer human. Those things wouldn't, you wouldn't even be a human if you didn't have those qualities. How would you be a human if you had no, what would it mean to be a human without intentionality, capacity for more reason? You would just kind of look like a human. Well, you can say you want- And our kinship. Like our kinship, because they don't originate from any human gametes. Sure. So you want, you once had those things. And you're now on a, you once had those things and you're now on a coma to the extent that you have none of them. Are you a human being? Well, I would still have a, I would still have a capacity. Those, that's an accidental trait. But you're, you're not, you're not waking up. It's an, it's still accidental. It's accidental to who I am. It's not what I am essentially. Sure. But I did have them. So obviously essentially- I agree with that. What leads to me is have the capacity. Sorry, I shouldn't interrupt you. I apologize. No, I agree with that. It's an accidental property, but it's not a potential property anymore because you don't have the potential for moral capacity. It's gone. It's disappeared. You're not waking up from that coma. Are you, are you any longer human? I still would have kinship too, for one. There's not way, any way you can remove kinship. Kinship just means that you originate from human gametes because human gametes are, yeah, exactly. Well, that seems, that seems a bizarre trait to afford moral worth from. Well, I actually did give you a reason. Just the fact that you would originate. Okay. I gave you a reason. Run it by me again. Run it by me again. So we have more, more responsibility to our offspring than to our neighbors because we share greater kinships with them. Okay. And the same is true across the animal kingdom, you know. Yeah. No, yeah, definitely. I agree. But there's like even further, right? Like I'm saying even the nearest human relative is, it is almost, is much further away than your neighbor. So other animals do have that trait. Oh yeah. Okay. So then, so then that's not a trait because we're looking for the trait of difference, right? We're looking for the trait that distinguishes human beings from other animals to the extent that we can treat the other animals how we like. And what I'm saying is it's a spectrum, right? Animals have these traits to certain degrees. So I'm saying that the less they have this trait, the, there comes a point where they don't have any, that they don't have any moral value at all. And that's, that's what I'm saying. Some animals don't have any moral value because they lack these traits to such a significant degree. Yeah, that's fine. But, but look, I mean, all you're saying there is that some animals are worth more than others. I'm saying that they, yeah, enough that you could kill them and eat them. Yeah, definitely. No, but that, that's a whole nother jump. Because as you say, as you quite rightly point out, I care more about my family than I care about a stranger. But to say that I care about the stranger so much less that I'm able to put them in a gas chamber to eat their flesh seems a bit of a further step. I'm going to need a bit more from you to justify that kind of difference. Okay, two points. One point is that, okay, just because, so for example, if I were to tell you that last night I took a living being, I cut out its insides and I put it into a saucepan until it made vaguely screaming sounds, right? That might disturb you. But if I told you it was a potato, it probably wouldn't disturb you very much. So let's not like, you know, I mean, we use this kind of emotionless language to try to get to, try to prompt a reaction. But you keep straw manning me and saying that, that we're going to using a gas chamber to kill these pigs. You keep using an example of pigs, but why are you using the example of fish? Like I think that it would be completely allowed to kill fish in almost any way that I can think of. Right, because I'm trying to get you to agree with the principle of veganism. That's a separate argument from trying to get you to agree that fish should fall under the type of animals which we think are capable of experiencing cruelty. That's a separate argument. Again, I don't think that the, that negative utilitarianism is equivalent to ethical veganism. You say something like, look, I think it would be ridiculous for someone to call themselves a vegan and to eat fish. And I would agree with you, but not because of the definition of, of the definition of veganism, but because I think fish are capable of feeling pain and are capable of experiencing cruelty. Therefore, the only thing that's kind of ridiculous about it is the attempt to exclude them from doing. So it's like, you could turn around. What would be the distinction between ethical vegetarianism and ethical veganism? Well, the difference is that vegetarians seem to not actually care about the exploitation of animals. They care about the end result. They care about whether it's meat or whether it's a product. The life of a dairy cow is probably much worse than the life of a cow that solely raised the meat or is killed at a young age for, for veal or something like that. Vegetarians seem to have made a, made a genuinely arbitrary distinction between exploiting an animal for their flesh and exploiting an animal for their products. We as ethical vegans decide that the exploitation of animals for sensory pleasure is wrong regardless of what the product is, regardless of what the sense is, regardless of what the animal is, as long as it's, as long as it's capable of experiencing cruelty, we do not have the right to inflict that cruelty upon them. I would argue that the vegetarianism's, vegetarianism, ethical vegetarianism literally has no distinction except for the disagreement of the nature of exploitation. Like literally that you could follow the same philosophy and say you're an ethical vegetarian, a philosophy, a way of living that seeks to include as far as practical possible all forms of exploitation. Like just stop. Sure. Yeah, you could call yourself, you could call yourself a vegetarian and say that I'm vegetarian because I'm against the exploitation of animals and I don't think that, you know, forcibly impregnating a cow and milking them is exploitation. It's like, okay, right, your problem there isn't the moral principle, your problem is the definition of exploitation, right? In the same way that your problem, Stirling is not with veganism, but with the moral characterization of particular animals, which is irrelevant to the point. What I'm trying to get you to agree with, what I'm trying to get you to agree with is the proposition that if an animal is capable of experiencing cruelty, we do not have the right to inflict cruelty upon them for no good reason. Well, and I say that that's just, that's just not what veganism is. I could say I'm an ethical pescatarian and a philosophy, a way of living which seeks to include as far, basically I could, that's all I have to say and I'm saying, well, no, I'm an ethical pescatarian and then the debate is out of stock because we disagree about that nature of things. I mean, we have that, and then we have the other two premises that we haven't really touched too much. I mean, we touched a second one a little bit, but the veganism is completely arbitrary and thus can't be a moral obligation. Well, I mean, tell me how this is, I don't think it gets any less arbitrary than this, right? Right. It's a basic principle, right? If you value an animal less, fine. If you value an animal more, fine. And you say things, you said earlier, you could be this kind of vegan or you could be that kind of vegan. It's like, yeah, there are multiple ways to do the right thing, right? If we were arguing about whether or not God existed and I said, yeah, but you could be a Christian or you could be a Muslim or you could be a deistic Buddhist or something. It's like, yeah, okay, but so what? That doesn't in any way affect the proposition of whether or not God exists. In the same way, yeah, there are many ways of being vegan but that doesn't in any way affect the wrong deployed animals. Okay, then you misunderstood my point. There's no way to draw the line at veganism because there are ways of life which go beyond veganism that seem to reduce suffering more. And so the question is, why say that veganism is the definition where the moral baseline is? In order to do this, you have to be a good person. You have to have this moral obligation. Why is that the minimum amount? You said, for example, somebody could be a vegan who eats backyard hens. Who eats backyard chicken eggs or something. Yeah, it's like, no. Let's walk through this one. Let's try and set up a situation where you're a vegan who is trying to stop the suffering exploitation of animals but you think it's permissible to eat backyard eggs. Where'd you get the hens from? Right, so you purchased them from somewhere. I get it. That's a problem in itself. There's still being grown in battery farms of the suffering of those animals. Okay, wait a minute. So if you did take that away from them, you're reducing the suffering of that individual chicken because it doesn't have to live. One, it doesn't have the possibility of going to someone else who would abuse it. So it seems like that would reduce more suffering. Two, you're taking it out of the condition in which it is clearly suffering. So you're taking it out of the situation. It's similar to rescuing almost in that case. What if you rescued the hens? It's better than a purchase them, for example. Thank you for preempting my exact argument. Sorry. Because of course, if you are taking an animal for its own sake, then of course, you still shouldn't be buying it. If you're handing over money to somebody who's growing hens in a battery farm, it makes nonsense of the concept of economic supply and demand to say that by buying that product you're somehow eliminating the suffering or minimizing the suffering. They're going to go and get more chickens. They're going to go and breed more chickens. So the only way that it would be ethical to do so is to save them. So you save them from that situation. How many eggs? How many eggs? How many eggs are they laying? I don't know. I'm sure you're aware. So two a week. So 104 eggs, which might be about right because these hens are really engineered because of the way that they've been grown, such that they'll grow more than they would do in the world. In the world, chickens would lay maybe about 12 eggs every year. And you've got a chicken here laying 104 eggs per year. What kind of problems does that bring about? Firstly, having an egg is like having a period for a chicken. So it's not a comfortable experience. Second thing is a lot of chickens experience osteoporosis because the calcium that's needed for their bone structure is redirected to the eggs. So common practice across sanctuaries and what you should be doing if you've rescued a chicken and it's laying this many eggs, you should be feeding the eggs back to the chicken. That's the standard practice. In other words, if you save the chicken but you're not doing it for its own sake, you're doing it so that you can eat its eggs, you're still contributing to the suffering of that chicken. And you shouldn't be breeding that chicken because it's laying so many eggs that it's living a very uncomfortable experience, and not eating its eggs, by feeding its eggs back to it and not breeding it. So the best you would have on your plate, the very best would be you save a chicken, you save a chicken, you don't eat its eggs, and then you don't breed it. That is what sanctuaries do. We're no longer talking about the consumption of animal products. We're no longer talking about your next door neighbor going and getting some eggs to make an omelet. We're talking about a sanctuary. We're talking about the saving of animals that are suffering. So it's not as arbitrary as you think in other words. If you say, well, I'm going to be a vegan and I'm going to have a backyard hen, that backyard hen is still suffering and you're still responsible for its suffering. What makes that so much more morally relevant? I mean, it seems like the amount of reduction of suffering you're doing by not eating any animal products besides those eggs would surely outweigh any suffering you're doing to the chicken, especially if you don't eat all of its eggs. Let's say that you just eat half of its eggs. So it seems like it's just arbitrary on where you decide to draw the leg. I mean, come on. You went on one side for gathering the eggs for food, right? What about on the other side for veganism, for example? Or like barcading all animal-based products in companies that profit in any way from animal use as far as practical, as far as you can find out whether they do that. Why isn't that required? It would reduce more suffering or being a local vegan, for example. You'd purchase only food stuffs from your immediate area where it doesn't have to be traveled thousands of miles, possibly killing bugs, possibly killing rodents, for example. Yeah. Sure. There were two questions there and I'm afraid I've forgotten the first one. You'll have to run it by me again. So I think it was just one question. It's just that why isn't it morally required to go to the next level of reducing suffering, right? So it seems like there's other principles that are not veganism or at least not what I would define as veganism that go above and beyond, like, veganism or something like boycotting all animal-based products. And no matter what, not animal-based products, but all products in companies anyway from animal use. It seems like you're drawing the line at veganism for an arbitrary reason. Okay, there were two questions and I remembered the first one. It wasn't a question, though. That's why I was wrong to phrase it as such. You said, surely it would be better. I mean, you know, because if you're eating hens from a backyard farm that's far better than the suffering that would be included in factory farming. It would be better to get eggs from there than to get eggs from there. Better and worse ways to do an immoral thing, right? Like, it would be better for me to mug a homeless person than to mug and stab them, right? But neither are morally permissible. I could say, yeah, but if I just mug them and push them away, think about how much suffering I'm saving by not stabbing them. It's like these are both things that you are doing by choice that you don't have to do. So you don't get to say something like, but look how much suffering that I'm saving, how much good I'm doing by, you know, limiting the amount that I'm exploiting animals and what you do towards the exploitation of animals unnecessarily and inflicting cruelty upon them. Everything you do is a bonus immorality, right? So you don't get to kind of reduce that to half, still be committing an immorality and kind of rest on the laurels on the fact that you've reduced yourself. So a reducitarian, as you say, would still be in a moral gutter to say, well, look, I've made some progress. It's like, well, good. Well, you better keep going so that you can meet your moral obligation, right? And you can rest on that. But also on your point on them, it seems like you've misunderstood the concept of a boycott when it comes to something like animal products, right? What would this involve? So I'm no longer going to go and shop at Waterstones Bookshop to buy my books because they have a café that serves milk in its coffee, right? Because I need to boycott any industry that relies on animal exploitation. I'm going to drop out of university and say, right, this would be absurd. Not only would it be absurd. Now, that might be your point. It might be to say, see, it would be absurd to try and eliminate the suffering to the highest extent. No, the reason it's absurd is because it's self-contradictory, right? It's actually not in my best interests. If we've got a company that is exploiting animals but also has products that are not exploiting animals, not only do we have a moral permissibility to shop at that place. Let's say, for instance, the KFC burger or something and they've got it here and a lot of people say, no, we need to boycott products. We need to boycott companies that rely on animal exploitation. It's like, you've got a company here that is exploiting animals and has a product where it's not exploiting animals, right? And if we show that we are contributing to a demand for products that don't exploit animals, especially when a lot of the people buying that product are people who are on the fence and who would have still gone into KFC may well have bought a chicken burger but I think they'll try the vegan burger. You're signalling to that company that the world is changing and that they should be doing more to accommodate veganism, right? So, not only is it like, well, I think it's permissible to shop at a company that abuses animals in some areas of its product. It's like you have an obligation to do so, right? If you want to be an activist in a sense. Because by doing so you are signalling that the world is changing and you're actually contributing to the spread of veganism and the normalization of veganism, too. So, if you say like this is arbitrary because you could be a reducer-terian you could be someone who boycotts industries of animal exploitation altogether it's like, no. The only reason that seems arbitrary is because we're misunderstanding what it means to be vegan because a reducer-terian is not a vegan because somebody who is boycotting all of these industries, yeah, sure, I mean they're a vegan but they're not committed to that by veganism, right? Again, we just seem to be misunderstanding that this is the most basic principle is one of the most basic ethical principles in the world to say that if we can avoid cruelty and exploitation to animals, we should avoid it, right? And whichever way you want to do that that's fine. But these other areas, these other areas that you're using to kind of imply that there's some arbitrariness to this about like reducer-terians or backyard hens or boycotting that they are to miss the point. Okay, so I'm again a disagree, obviously. This seems like the kind of, again so if we agree that boycotting all companies that profit in any way from animal use would reduce suffering because you're disrupting the profits it seems like you do reduce harm by a lot. And let's say that you don't do it with companies that have like vegan options, for example, that have like, let me phrase it this way exclusively vegan options, only incidentally vegan options, like they're vegan just because incidentally they're vegan. Some products that don't have animal products by incident. It doesn't seem like you have justification for shopping at all. Secondly, it seems like you kind of dropped the point on veganism, for example. It seems like veganism completely would be just straightforwardly or more morally would reduce more suffering and I don't think that it's entailed by ethical veganism. I think that it goes above and beyond ethical veganism. And I don't see where, why we're not required to do veganism if we're required to do veganism. It seems like it just straightforwardly it just seems like it straightforwardly follows from those premises. Insimilarly with the local bar vegan, I think that if we're required to do veganism, we're required to get our animal products or products from places that are closer because it would reduce the suffering in fact of sentient creatures. And so my argument essentially is that when you say that that veganism is the moral baseline then nothing else then nothing else prevents enough suffering to be a moral obligation. It's just arbitrary that you pick that that's the point where we have to stop. That that's the point where we have the moral baseline and any more reducing suffering is not, you know, is not sufficient or any less would any less would be not sufficient and any more would be supernegatory. And I don't think we've really, we haven't really touched it in a while. We still haven't addressed what would make an action above and beyond the call of duty. Is there anything? I'll address your first point first. Okay. Which is, I mean, look at what you just said. You said that I think something like veganism is not entailed by ethical, is not kind of part of ethical veganism. It goes above and beyond it. It's like, okay, sure, but that makes it a different issue. We're discussing ethical veganism and whether that's an obligation to say something like, but then surely you have an obligation to go further and accept this other moral proposition. Like, okay, fine, we can discuss that if you like. Like, that may be true. You may say something like if you're a vegan on the on the principle that you that you're not in favour of cruelty towards people who can or individuals and people who can suffer that you shouldn't be a racist. And imagine I was arguing with someone who was a vegan but also a racist and I said, but hold on your logic should stop you from being a racist. It's like, okay, yeah, probably right actually. Yeah, true. Great. We'll have that discussion, but that in no way has anything to do with the conversation about veganism. It seems like what you're almost doing is agreeing implicitly by saying something like, but what about these arbitrary notions like veganism which go above and beyond veganism? It's kind of like you're saying, well, okay, I get the veganism thing. Yeah, sure. Veganism, ethical veganism at a base level is a moral obligation. But what about these other things? Are they moral obligations? Well, I don't know. But like, as you I've never. As you point out yourself, they are separate issues. So we're not talking about veganism. We're not talking about veganism. I'm asking you what principle, no, no, I'm asking you what principle would allow you to get to veganism that doesn't get you to veganism, that doesn't get you to local for veganism, vegetarianism. You see what I'm saying? I'm saying that there any principle that you're going to apply for an argument for veganism is going to extend to further beyond veganism so that even so that and I don't think that so for example, those things are not the same thing. So in order to be so if you're an ethically a fregan or an ethically a local bore vegetarian or ethically a local bore vegan those things are further they reduce more suffering so that they're not the same thing as veganism and if that's the moral baseline like why is that not the moral baseline? Why is the moral baseline here? Rather or even that's why I directed it both ways. I think that it would be absurd to claim that a jainist monk, for example is causing more suffering than a vegan and I think that even though they still drink milk, even though they would drink milk I still I don't see why this is the baseline. I haven't heard an argument for why there is an obligation specifically to just veganism and nothing less and nothing more. Like why does no argument that makes veganism? Nobody is saying that. Nobody is saying that veganism is an obligation nothing more, nothing less. I'm saying that veganism is a moral obligation among many that we have, right? It's as simple as that. To say something like well your logic seems to lead you to other moral propositions okay, fine what on earth has that got to do with whether or not ethical veganism is a moral obligation? Because I gave you examples both ways. I gave you examples toward less than veganism and I gave you examples toward more than veganism. I'm trying to figure out and I explained why would the Janist example, for example I explained why the ones that you said were less than vegan such as reducitarians and the like are not in fact are not meeting the moral baseline and that if there is a moral baseline that exists beyond ethical veganism then we're no longer talking about ethical veganism it's really that simple whether it wouldn't be justified what would be justified would be ethical veganism you only addressed one of my examples which was the background head but we could talk about Janist vegetarianism fine, what do you want to know about it? well, I think Janist vegetarianism reduces more suffering than veganism because they only eat food that's donated to them and I think that reduces more but they still drink milk so it definitely wouldn't come as a it definitely wouldn't be the food that's donated to them but were purchased by other people like they donated to them it makes no difference the food that's being donated to them could have come from an immoral source and they'd have a moral obligation not to accept it in the same way that if somebody came up and presented them the flesh of a murdered baby they'd probably rejected on a moral grounds they can't just say I'm being donated to it also the point is this I don't think that that does reduce suffering for those reasons but even if it did this does reduce suffering this does cause less suffering to animals it's like what is veganism veganism is as we've said so many times so you could drink milk and be a vegan the highest extent yes of course you could in the same way that if you're on a desert island what's the problem the fact that you're laughing shows that you've misunderstood what veganism is if you're on a desert island if you're on a desert island and you're in a position of necessity to eat an animal product to survive you can eat that animal product so you could turn around and say what so you can be a vegan and eat a pig it's like yes because it's not about eating an animal product it's about causing unnecessary suffering and cruelty to an animal I think that it is silly to say that a vegan could be ethically required in a non-necessity situation could say that they were a vegan and still eat various animal products well then you've misunderstood what veganism is go ahead how about I'll respond to this point and I'll allow Stirling to respond and then we can go to Q&A how about that so look it seems that every single time we just come back to the to the problem that in order to justify not being a vegan you are you give an example of an action which would in fact just not be a vegan action or would still be a vegan action in other words see it's not a moral obligation to be a vegan because you could do this you have moral responsibility to do this and every single time you're naming something that is still a vegan action if you say something like it just seems ridiculous to me that you could be a vegan in a situation of non-necessity and still eat various animal products then you misunderstand what veganism is if a vegan eats some roadkill that they find on the side of the road they haven't caused any suffering of animals now I would still argue that they shouldn't eat the roadkill because I'd rather them leave it to wild animals to consume to reduce their suffering which is a whole another ball game which we won't have time to talk about now but believe me we can but let's say all other things being equal if it's in a particular area or something way if it's already decaying or whatever it may be it seems to me absolutely absurd more absurd than it seems to you for a vegan to say I have a moral principle that says that I'm not going to exploit or inflict cruelty upon an animal and so I'm not going to eat roadkill and so if a cow is walking through a field and it kind of spills some milk that happens to fall into a jug I'm not allowed to drink that because that's an animal product it's like are we being serious here we're talking about a moral proposition we're not talking about animal products bad we're not talking about don't drink milk we're saying don't exploit an animal don't inflict cruelty upon an animal that's got nothing to do or is a separate issue from just the consumption of the products that result if you have a product that's obtained in an ethical way then you can do whatever you like with it that's the nature of ethics is to say that if it's ethical it's therefore permissible what I'm saying is that if you're exploiting an animal for food, for clothing for entertainment that you have a moral obligation to avoid doing so and that if an animal product comes about through no suffering and you can perhaps respond to this in a second do you think it would be equally absurd because you said I'm using your phrasing here you said it seems absurd to you that that a vegan in a non necessity situation could have an animal product do you think it's absurd for a vegan to be walking through a field to see a cow having spilt some milk that happens to have fallen into a jug do you think it is absurd for that vegan to think it's permissible to drink that milk and still call themselves a vegan right if you don't then you'll be agreeing with the argument I made a moment ago and if you do then I think you've just shown that you have completely misunderstood what veganism is and think it's about animal products rather than being about the animals thank you very much for that Alex and we will jump over to Sterling for a, I forgot we actually had Cosmic Skeptics started and so Sterling will give you a very brief like last word so this will be like roughly the same amount of time as you just heard from Cosmic Skeptic you can keep it short and pithy because we've got a lot of good questions yes sir so okay just to address his question to me first I don't think that it's absurd that the vegan would be able to have the milk that fell on the ground or fell in the jug I think that it would be absurd for a vegan to say for example buy animal products let's say fish for an example and just say well I'm a vegan except for I don't think that fish have any moral protection I just don't think that that's a definition of veganism that anybody really practically lives I don't think that anybody really believes that's veganism I think he's trying to change the definition because he doesn't want a debate on whether certain animals are worthy of equivalent moral protection with my second contention I think that he doesn't I think he doesn't understand that any type he doesn't he definitely didn't address my argument about what would constitute a moral laboratory act what would constitute something that goes above I think that he doesn't understand that any position like he essentially reduces down ethical veganism to negative utilitarianism which if it is the case then we're arguing about a completely different thing like we can talk about like the actual whether whether a negative utilitarianism is valid I mean I have plenty of objections to negative utilitarianism what I'm doing is I'm granting him negative utilitarianism and I'm giving him problems for your negative utilitarianism following what a standard person would think is a vegan diet and I think that fits that I think that would fit this definition especially when you know just it says in dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products holy are partly derived from animals I don't see how you can get around that so yeah I'd like to thank everyone for coming in I hope that we had a good debate and thank you Thanks so much gentlemen it has been a pleasure this is as I said the first veganism debate it's been a really fun time and I think that people really enjoyed it in fact we'll get right to the super chats Uncivil skeptic thanks for your super chat who had said so glad there are vegans now being platformed here I agree this is long overdue so this is a topic that we should have had a long time ago but we're excited to have it today and so I appreciate that Scott Lott thanks for your super chat who said Alex if humans were carnivore would that affect your opinion on veganism Yes it would because of course the whole vegan argument is about the elimination of unnecessary suffering unnecessary to survival of practicable I mean the word practicable is there in the definition we're not obligate carnivores that's the reason why because we have I mean we're omnivores which definitionally means we have the ability to eat either animal products or plants and because we have that capacity because we're able to make that choice it allows us to have to make the moral decision of doing so if you're in a situation of necessity as I think Sirling and I both agreed like the desert island situation a vegan could eat that pig and the same situation that would just be the situation across the board if we needed to eat animal products to survive Gotcha thanks so much next up Mind Melt thanks for your super chat who said if you ethically source meat products is that more moral than unethically sourcing plant product for I think they mean for example monocropping which I'm new to that if you happen to have the definition of that for us who are new well of course it's about well no I wouldn't be able to give you a definition of monocropping but I understand the thrust of the point which is to say that there are kind of sometimes seemingly competing moral obligations for example you know I don't know avocado farming is destroying the environment and so would it be better to buy so called ethically sourced milk than to buy an avocado let's say something like that an interesting question the answer of course is whichever causes the least suffering the reason why we care about unethically sourced plant based products is by and large because of the effect they have on the environment or because of the effect that they have on the way that they're collected by human beings like for instance there might be people who are in human slavery who are producing something like this right in other words in either case we're still talking about the suffering of people the suffering of animals and we're still just asking a question about what's going to minimize that suffering and also bear in mind that the majority of plants that we're growing are being fed to livestock because it takes more plants to feed livestock than it does to take human beings so of course if you're worried about you know the purchasing of plants then you should be worried more about the purchasing of plants that are being fed to livestock because that's happening on a larger scale then the plants that we're eating for ourselves and also if you consider the plants that are being eaten by livestock you have the double whammy of firstly you know having to pull up the plants and potentially destroy the environment and then having to cause suffering to the animals and the other thing that I take contention with is the idea that we've got such a thing as like ethically sourced milk or something right because in order to get milk you need to forcibly impregnate a cow you need to put a fist inside its anus you need to grab its cervix through the lining of the anus you need to inject it with a little semen unless you're just kind of sitting around waiting for it to be impregnated which I don't think is economically viable under any estimation so I think the whole question is kind of based on a not a false premise well it is based on a false premise if we think that there is such thing that is economically viable to support the human population as like ethically sourced animal products but also like yeah it's still just a question about the minimization of suffering so much and mind melt let me know if I've misunderstood this question who had said so shouldn't the argument be ethical sources are more moral than unethical or immoral well of course they are I mean that goes without saying and this is something Stirling was saying earlier it's like well you know it seems like it would be more moral to be a reducetarian than to be a meat eater yes as I said in response it's also more moral to mug someone to mug and stab them but if you can do neither of these things then you should do neither if I could just briefly you bet okay again but the issue comes down to obligation right I think that's the major issue here like where is the line gotcha thank you very much and mind melt thanks for your super chat Alex's whole argument is based on an emotional argument ignoring the damage done by vegan agriculture would love to switch you over switch you over to my arguments Alex so it sounds like it's there a vegan critic of you though Alex ha of course we don't ignore the impact of vegan agriculture but I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about right you might be talking about for instance I mentioned something like avocados then don't eat avocados right they're not committed to certain foods also people have a complete misunderstanding about the environmental impact of veganism one of the biggest I hear is something like soy production vegans are eating a lot of soy the soy production is destroying the rainforest not true right well I mean that is true but it's not because of vegans 85% of the soy that we grow is being fed guess where to livestock and not only that but the soy that we're growing to feed to livestock is being grown in South America and destroying the environment 50% of which is given to poultry which means it's not just red meat but also white meat that's causing the damage right the soy that vegans are eating directly the soy that's grown for human consumption is grown in other places like Europe and North America people completely misunderstand the fact that because you can read an article that says look these vegans are destroying the environment because all of the plants they're growing are really bad it's like we don't even come close in terms of the number of plants that we're growing the amount of environmental damage we're doing to even the amount that's being done by just growing the plants to feed to livestock let alone the suffering of the livestock itself and the emissions of the livestock itself so to say that veganism is the environmental kind of monster here is to be looking completely the wrong direction of course there will always be emissions of course we'll always be destroying habitats and using pesticides and things like this but we're about minimizing suffering no one wants to eliminate suffering that's not possible we're trying to minimize suffering and eliminate cruelty and even if you worry about plant production even if plant production was inherently bad for the environment, which arguably it may be the way to reduce that is still to eat the plants directly we're already growing enough crops to feed the world population three times over and we're growing it in the poorest areas of the world too and we're taking those crops, we're bringing them to the west we're feeding them to livestock and then we're eating the steak this is to completely get everything the wrong way around gotcha thanks so much Michael McCaffrey thanks for your super chat who asks Alex how do pets fit into all this ethically speaking yeah I mean the same way any other animal does um it's about minimization to the highest extent practicable of animal suffering so I know that for instance dogs can live on a healthy vegan diet, I know that cats probably can't right because cats are obligate carnivores this is kind of what we were discussing a moment ago somebody asked if humans were obligate carnivores would that change my position because if you need to eat that food then you need to eat that food like you don't have a choice really in the matter in order to survive I think that there's a strong vegan argument to be made that we shouldn't be breeding carnivorous pets for kind of our own purposes because we like pets that's probably a bad thing to do so perhaps we can still continue to breed dogs but maybe we shouldn't be breeding cats some people believe that anyway without needing the vegan argument I think that if that holds um but again we're just talking about the minimization of suffering in many instances I won't know the practical answers to a question it's kind of like people could throw an example they say well what about like this particular cat in this particular situation with this particular food or something it's like well I might not know the practical answers because I don't know exactly what goes into cat food all the time however what I do know is that the answer doesn't exist and it's whatever causes the least suffering even if I don't know what that answer is the other thing to note briefly is that if we live in a situation right now where we're worried about kind of buying cat food because of the suffering that it causes to other animals it's like yeah that's a problem that vegans want to fix too but we're not going to be taken seriously trying to fix that problem if we haven't fixed the problem of human consumption too if there are still people in the world trying to defend the proposition that it is okay to exploit torture or inflict cruelty upon an animal in order to for our taste pleasure then for us to go and argue that we should be kind of worrying about the suffering going into cat food and laughed out of the room it's the same reason we can't really argue about something like medical testing because until we normalize the consideration of animals no one's going to take it seriously in other areas so I'd say that pets do need to be taken into consideration still want to minimize suffering but if you find yourself in a situation where you are committed to still causing suffering for the sake of your pets that is a problem related to the fact that we haven't agreed that humans should stop doing it first gotcha just a brief add-on I just had a question just quick question super short and pivvy okay any type of purchasing of animal seems like it would be wrong under the vegan principle correct like purchasing not rescuing oh yes no we're not in favor of purchasing pets yeah don't buy pets gotcha thanks so much next up appreciate your super chat from Donald Anderson this one confuses me I wasn't sure what they meant they said sirtle with respect to NTT okay so I did name the trade yeah exactly and I did give like four good traits intentionality capacity more reasoning for more reasoning rationality and kinship I think those four are pretty good and I think that the argument does rely on a misunderstanding of the central and accidental properties so that's my response it's also worth buying I wish we could have gotten into Royals feel of ignorance I wish we could have talked about that oh boy yes me too rules definitely should have been a vegan just pointing out that the thrust of the name the trade argument I know that you have quarrels with this sterling but for the sake of the audience the thing is if you say this is the argument if you say that here are the traits which separate us from other animals such that we can kill other animals you are saying that if a human being lacked those traits you'd be okay with treating the human being as you treat the animal now sterling thinks that if you lack those treats you're no longer a human being I would say that if you're a human being who no longer has those capacities that sterling identifies and yet are still alive and still capable of feeling pain I still don't have the right to put you in a gas chamber for the taste of your flesh sterling thinks that you do that that seems to be the decision that you need to make as a listener next up we do have a mind melt thanks for your super chat who was correcting I think maybe they were correct to me and how I read their super chat they said LOL that's not ethically sourced animal products I'm not sure what the context of that was it could be against anybody yes okay thanks so much Nella Dower thanks for your super chat who said if our goal is to minimize suffering then should we allow livestock to go extinct once they're free or are we obligated to keep them alive I don't think we have a moral obligation to keep any species alive I certainly think that as the animal population exists at the moment a lot of people say if you stop if you stop factory farming cows then they're going to go extinct it's like I'd rather be dead than be a cow on a factory farm I can assure you of that but these animals aren't going to go extinct they survived in the wild for many many years before we started factory farming them it's not like we're going to release them all immediately that's not how this is I saw someone earlier before we started saying what happens to all the animals if they can get what they want do we just release them into the wild it's like no this is a gradual process of course it is we just stop breeding them right so in other words they're suffering in our sensory fulfillment they probably won't go extinct just because we stopped specifically breeding them but if they do then they do lots of animals go extinct it's a thing that happens what we should be worried about is the suffering that we are being a cause of not extinctions which aren't intrinsically bad which we're failing to prevent failing to prevent rather than causing I think that if we have a moral obligation to these animals then we have a moral obligation toward their flourishing so like we can't just release them all or we can't let them go extinct I think that we have that moral obligation if we do have the ethical thrust yeah we have a moral obligation towards the individuals we don't have an obligation towards a species because the species doesn't matter what matters is the individual so as long as an individual is alive we should be not torturing it which I would have hoped we could have agreed on by now but if like we also don't need to breed that creature I can say I have an obligation if I'm looking after a pig I have an obligation not to slid its throat or to gas it to death but that doesn't mean I have an obligation to force it to mate and to bring up its children if it dies and the species and the line goes extinct fair enough I haven't caused any suffering because that's what matters let me say what individuals we would stop an obligation to but yeah okay yes the individuals we absolutely would be the ones to stop the animal so I'm going to go on to my next question we have time for maybe one or two more questions we'll go to the standard questions and then definitely just to kind of respect the time of the debaters we will wrap up so I want to say sorry folks we won't get to every question but we're going to try to get through like I said a quick two more Opposer of Religion thanks for your question they said James can we have more vegans on I want to hear more and this has moved me closer to the door is open so this is long overdue I agree and so if you are a vegan and you like debating or if you're in opposition and you want to argue the opposite we welcome the topic and we welcome invites I'm at modern-day debate at Gmail and Facebook and Twitter so thanks so much Larry let's appreciate your question last one they said for cosmic what about the trillions of insects that will be killed protecting the crops we would need as I've already said the majority of crops that were growing and being fed to livestock so if you want to reduce the amount of insects and thank you by the way for implicitly agreeing with the proposition that we should be reducing their suffering that's very charitable of you and if you wish to do so then you should stop eating livestock because they're being fed the crops for which the insects are being killed if you want to reduce those insects being killed eat the crops directly less of them are killed and also if the crops are being grown by vegan companies they're going to be more likely to take into consideration the suffering of animals in the growing of their crops so excellent point I completely agree with you let's uh let's care about these insects and let's go vegan we appreciate it folks thanks so much for being here thanks so much for our guests as the debaters are the lifeblood of the channel they're what make it fun and so we want to say a huge thanks to Cosmic Skeptic and Sterling I have linked them in the description folks so if you're listening and you're like hmm I want to hear more well you can hear more so go click those links in the description and so thanks again though Cosmic Skeptic and Sterling for being with us today thank you for having me you betcha so with that thanks so much for being in attendance folks thanks for all your questions it's been a lot of fun we will be that's right if you hadn't noticed on the bottom right of your screen this just tonight intelligent design will be on trial as Erica Matthews returns as she will be taking on g-man so that should be a lot of fun so thanks everybody keep setting out the reasonable from the unreasonable take care