 But I also don't know if it's unjust. That's the definition of unjust. It's completely unfair for someone to choose who lives and who dies. You're saying there's a certain point where murder is justified for you. I'm challenging that because, like, well, you know. I still don't know if it's. Could I kill old people? I still don't know if it's my disease. Yeah. You're firing at me, basically. Well, this is this case. This is similar. You wouldn't do that there for this. Would you still eat meat if they had better conditions? Depends on my level of conditions. Would you still eat, like, free-range pigs just cruising around? They lived to a fairly old age, and, yeah. So it wouldn't bother you the killing of them so much? It also depends how they kill. They felt it was literally within a span of 30 seconds, and it was almost like a guillotine. A happy animal has more of an interest in living, yeah? You would assume. Assume, please? Yeah, they've had better well-being, and they want to continue that well-being because they're in this amazing condition. On the presumption that animal minds are equatable completely to human minds, we are just sophisticated animals, aren't we? We don't have to equate minds, say that they're equal, but we can compare them and say that they are sentient. We don't really compare them. If there was no meat, being the key word, worldwide for meat, then I'd happily give up meat forever. However, and certain poor villages are not permitted access to certain resources, so they have to catch rats and stuff and eat meat. I've heard about that. In order to not just survive, but have any decent chance of nutritional input for themselves and their family, they have to eat meat. I get what you're saying, but that would be a case for people in a survival situation where they have to scrounge for rats and things like that. That wouldn't be a case for you. Oh, no. You said I would only stop eating meat if this cultural issue was solved and this issue was solved, but that's got nothing to do with you. So let me ask you this. Do you still think murder is justified as long as they've had a long enough life? I think it's actually better. I would agree with you. I would have made it seem like you're trying to kill a murder. Why? What's your definition of murder? Murder would be the ending of life of a conscious being. You don't think animals are conscious? What do you mean by conscious first? That's the thing, I don't know. So let's talk about the species of animals that you eat, because they're the ones that are concerned. Pig, I'm concerned with those, but pigs. I mean, you know they're more intelligent than a dog. It's not sure. But intelligence shouldn't be the metric, really, because a stupid person should have the same rights as a super intelligent genius, you know, in the moral universe. Can I agree with that? I'm going to play devil advocate and say, do they? OK, well, if it was one or the other, you know, you could start making a case for who's going to be the best choice for society to exist. Maybe it's the genius who's going to create this. I get you, but it's not. We're just talking about, like, not in these crazy one or the other situations. We're just talking about just generally in society. I agree. They should have the same basic human rights. Exactly. That's what I'm talking about. Fundamental rights. The fundamental ones. Yeah. Yeah. So why don't we have that same concept for these non-human animals? You're saying there's a certain point where murder is justified for you. I'm challenging that because, like, you know. I still don't know if it's. Could I kill old people? I still don't know if it's murder, though. Kill someone that. It's against their will. They've got an interest in living. I come along and I rob their existence from them. I call that murder. Taking their existence away from them against their preference to live. So right now, you've got a preference to live. I'm trying to agree there with preference to live. I can't get off and ask, but I'm going to agree. Yeah. As an individual, I don't have a pragmatic or logistical justification or excuse not to eat meat. I don't think I have an excuse. Based on my moral principles. I'm basing this on people's subjective morals. Like, because most people, they are against killing a dog for meat. They're against killing, you know, marginal case human beings for meat. But they have this massive inconsistency for these species of animals. I think a lot of people from Afropomorphize their pets and they give them human attributes. Whether they do or not is irrespective. They project a sense of, like, family and human characteristics. So I do think it's easy for people to do that to non-traditionally domesticated animals as well. They do have human attributes, though. Like a brain, a heart, eyes. They have consciousness. They have pain. So I don't even know what that means in a human. Oh, well, they experience reality from a subjective standpoint. So they don't have a brain. You don't have to have a brain. Are you saying a brain, in terms of its anatomical structure, is essential in order to have what you call consciousness? Because firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by consciousness. And secondly, I'd argue you can come across hypothetically as a thought statement. You can come across in any species that does not have a brain anatomically similar to a mammal, but can still have what we class as consciousness. If we found out there was an entity that was sentient conscious experiencing the world, that would, whatever that was, would need rights. Do you have a plant? Experience world, but I wouldn't say they're conscious. No, no, there's no one in there. There's no one home. So there's no subject inside of a tree experiencing they're rooted into the ground and just, they're like a biological computer that is intelligent and alive. But there's no one in there in that tree. No one home, you know what I mean? Like if you were in a coma right now and your body would, if I cut you, your body would heal and you would react to stimuli probably. Let's just say they're brain dead completely and there's no, but their body is still functioning. That's how I would consider a plant. There's no need for them to have rights because there's no one in there that is suffering or has needs or desires. But in a pig, it's very clear there is. So it comes down to suffering? No, no, not just suffering. Suffering, well-being, experience. They're experiencing the world. I mean, you could technically take away all their pain receptors it's to be wrong to rob their sentience from them to essentially take their experience, their only experience they'll ever have away from them. It's, I don't think that's justified. I mean, if you shot me in the back of the head and caused me no suffering. I don't know if it's justified but I also don't know if it's unjust. Unjust? Well, unjust. That's the definition of unjust. It's completely unfair for someone to choose who lives and who dies. It's the definition of injustice. There's no fairness in that. It's, it's difficult because my personal preference is mostly aligned, well, based on conversation with what I can only presume are your sort of moral principles. Yeah. But morality, it's not so clear cut. Why don't you just put it simply? Like you have eggs and dairy here which we know establish that you eat when we have a bunch of industrialized suffering and things like that. Or they all get slaughtered anyway even if you get them from a smaller farm they all go to the slaughterhouse. So you've got that choice here and then you've got the tofu, the beans and the rice and the, you know, the vegan burgers from wherever that, you know, there's plants on the other end of it. There might be some, some issues with the plant farming but none that aren't magnified through feeding crops to animals anyway. So you've got these two choices. How do you, how are you justified making this choice that, you know, causes all this cruelty and killing and not this choice? Pleasure? Yeah. Pleasure with meat? Yeah, we know it. Pleasure with dairy? Pleasure as a... But you're using pain as justice. It's not just pain, I'm saying it's, it's unjust. It's unfair. You're stating it's unjust but you haven't proven it's unjust. You're convinced. But if you're gonna... Convince you. Convince me or someone else that is even less inclined to a very fake nation of animal ethics. You can't just start with the presumption that your conclusion is always justified. Yeah. You're coming at me basically, well this is this case, this is similar, you wouldn't do that there for this. You're coming at it already with a conclusion just fine in your head but if you're gonna convince anyone you need to prove to them with logical premises or should I say foundational claims that they themselves logically don't need just fine and then build up a case. Yeah. So what I usually establish first is if they believe animals matter morally and go off of that and most people do. If they don't then I don't even bother. I mean we can have just a logical discussion about how they're hypocrites in their moral system and they wouldn't want a dog to have their head cut off or what animals do they think that matter morally. Some species they think matter morally and these species they don't care because they've been conditioned. So that's where I would start from. And we started, we kind of started from that with you in a way because you already told me that you're vegetarian for ethics. I didn't stop eating meat because I don't know the taste of meat. It's because it's called to be the object. You really, really? That's why I'm already... Building a bridge is similar. Yeah. Established common ground. Yeah, that's fair to know. I think it comes down to pleasure. Not a justify though you would say. See that I disagree with. It's a where, it's in pain, it's not instant on a microsecond where it can't even register pain. Of course, it's worse. I would say it's worse. Oh it's worse. I would still... The quick killing is still murder. You don't get points with the judge because you didn't torture them. You can kill people with organisms. Yeah, but they're not sentient, I don't, yeah. They're like a little biological. I think it comes down to what I mean by sentience. I am inclined to think most animals, if not all animals, are quite croaked. There's ambiguous animals like mollusks, some mollusks, some mollusks, there's more evidence. Some insects, it's a hard case, that some insects, there's good evidence to suggest they do feel pain in our sentient. They definitely experience. Something is... I don't think pain and sentience need to go hand in hand. There are human beings, no pain in sentience. Of course. Yeah, that's why I don't, it doesn't need to be pain. But in order to feel pain, you have to be a subject, don't you? There has to be someone in there to feel that pain for it to matter. Yeah, so you need to be conscious to feel pain. I think if it was literally instantaneous without premeditation on the animal's part, I think it would be okay. You think it would be morally fine? Because we did establish quick killing of happy animals and I thought we got to this... Just put it this way. So let's just say there's no need for me to kill this random person, right? And I come up with them and they're not going to feel this and they're not even going to know and they've had a happy life up until this point. Let's just say they just got to raise at their job and they've got everything going for them. I come up and go, bang. And you know what it's for though? It's for a cheeseburger. And yeah. So you know, do you see how unjustified and irrational it sounds? To just kill someone for a sandwich, even if there was no suffering and they were happy and free-ranging, it's murder. Do you agree that it's bad to kill animals even if they are not aware? Of course. Yeah, yeah. In the context of eating a food when you have a auto. Yes. I'm trying to agree with you. If it was survival and it's like a line in a wild... I would kill anyone if I was in danger, my family was in danger or survival's a different... Morality doesn't exist in places where they're surviving. Anyway, my point being is that we have enough to share, but it's not shared because a lot of waste, a lot of feed is wasted. Don't forget that all of this cropland, you know like 83% of the farmland on Earth has been used for animal agriculture. Oh yeah, yeah. It's because of the grazing. It has to be the size of Brazil. Yeah, and then they're growing all of these crops and they're feeding to these animals so we can have a little bit of... It's an incredibly unjust way we are distributing our resources as well. And then you've got obviously environmental problems. Problems of like loss of biodiversity, the harm on the life forms in that original habitat. Of course. Animal agriculture itself is one of the most destructive... Well, it is the most destructive in terms of resources, water use and other crazy environmental destruction that happens because of animal agriculture. Also the cruelest thing we do... Well, you certainly made a good point. It's really good talking to you. What's your name? Jordan. Jordan, good to meet you, Jordan. I'm Joey. Nice to meet you, Joey, and yeah. Good thinking. Good philosophizing. Philosophizing. Cheers, mate. It was interesting, wasn't it? He was quite pleasant, wasn't he? I really liked him. He was really honest, too. He enjoyed that, too, didn't he? He was great. I quite enjoyed it, too, actually.