Most western cultures think that they’ve experienced moral progress over time. These aren’t mere intuitions, however, as these observations often admit of some deep analysis. For example, some argue that our modern liberal intuitions (e.g. everyone is born free, etc.) are grounded in the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes was responding to earlier moral philosophy and was responded to himself in turn. Kant distilled these intuitions into a rigorous metaphysics of moral philosophy, which was still used quite actively well into the 70s.

Now, philosophers don’t think that ‘views have changed, therefore there is no truth.’ Instead, they realize that good analysis of these earlier arguments reveals that they’re close to right but skate around some important moral issues that can be unpacked with analysis. There’s truth that can be found. It appears to all the relevant experts that moral thought is developing in a way that’s strongly analogous to mathematical or natural scientific thought.

These are some of the reasons that subjectivism and relativism are extremely unpopular among experts.

Although we can observe and say that although there are people who have different moral systems than us, such as psychopaths and Spartans; we can actually scientifically evaluate the merits of the competing moral systems and their objective performance in the long run and historically. Historically, evolution has shown that altruistic humans are indeed “fitter” and objectively, game theory has shown that cooperative strategies are objectively better than selfish strategies in the long run.

You don’t need examples or have to worry about cherry-picking. They’re not ours to use. You can’t humanely take a life of something that doesn’t want to die.

Consider that neither the wish to be free from suffering nor the wish to continue existing is unique to our species; these interests are shared by all sentient animals, and indeed can be seen as fundamental biological drives. And if my interest in not being harmed or killed makes it wrong to harm or kill me when harming or killing me can be avoided, then an animal’s interest in not being harmed or killed makes it likewise wrong for us to harm or kill animals when doing so can be avoided.

two of these three images rely on poore-nemecek 2018, a paper that i don’t trust to tell me the co2e of co2

Oat milk is GOAT milk. Not the animal, the expression.

Except we have more than enough food to feed the world AND THEN SOME under the status quo, food insucurity is atleast now before climate change messes with everything a contrived problem that is made by capitalism, not by production

That is not what genocide means.

And there you go proving at least one side of the panel correct.

Those are nowhere near me, you idiot

Here’s the problem with that:

“But I don’t want to go to Sizzler.”

Yeah, getting real tired of this song and dance they have going here.

Well consider me initiated

It’s sort of the same thing with internet atheism. The online versions are always a cartoon villain version of the real deal.

This is absolutely true. I personally realised, that online discussions about veganism are useless. Every single time it ends in a shit show. In real life you can have very good and meaningful discussion and even if you may disagree with them in some parts, you can at least learn why they think the way it is.

Actually it’s the most effective way.

I read a great biography of William Lloyd Garrison (the American abolitionist) a couple of years ago and it made it clear how he, and other radicals, dramatically changed the course of history through their constant focus and activism on how slavery was wrong. Their radicalism shifted the middle. That’s what “extreme” views do, they make it easier for people in the middle to move towards embracing justice.

We (most of us) don’t remember all the people who said “Yeah, slavery is wrong but we have to be practical,” or “I would like to end slavery but we have to compensate owners,” or “But what will we do with all the black people?” These were real positions within the anti-slavery movement. When Garrison began his career, they were the dominant positions and he spent much of his career being vilified by gradualists who thought he was too extreme.

They wanted to end slavery “someday.” And they didn’t want those who claimed to own other humans to be too uncomfortable. We don’t remember gradualists today. We remember the men and women with the courage and ethical wisdom to look at slavery and say “This is wrong. It needs to stop.” And their “extremism” is part of why it did stop, because the moral pressure they exerted made the South conclude it was inevitable that slavery would end unless they broke free of the Union.

I think we have to be careful in drawing parallels between veganism and past social justice movements, but there is a valuable lesson for us here. We can serve animals by not being in the middle because by being extreme, we can change what the middle even is. Today it is becoming mainstream to critique things like gestation crates or foie gras. We did that. We changed the middle. (This “we,” obviously, is broad).

&

• Baby-steps are shown to undermine support for more effective measures

Number one reason I don’t want to be called a vegan. Especially online ones are particularly cringe and rude. It’s ridiculous. They’re like the American Protestants of diets

Except that this post is an anti-vegan strawman. Nobody is hoping that people starve, and nobody is starving because eggs are slightly more expensive.

I belive access to healthy, ethical food is a human right. Why should I be expected to advocate for food that I believe is unethical, especially when it’s unnecessary?

affect