Veganism Reconsidered | Earthling Ed and CosmicSkeptic
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 มิ.ย. 2024
- To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
To purchase Cosmic Skeptic merchandise: cosmicskeptic.teemill.com/
-------------------------VIDEO NOTES-------------------------
Ed Winters ("Earthling Ed") is a vegan educator, best-selling author, public speaker and content creator, widely known for his viral debates, speeches, and video essays.
Ed was on the Cosmic Skeptic Podcast in 2019, making him the first guest to appear for a second time. He and Alex discuss the definition and nature of veganism, the limits of "practicability", the ethics of unnecessary vegan food, and much more.
-------------------------------LINKS--------------------------------
Buy "This Is Vegan Propoganda" by Ed Winters: amzn.to/3rEJYPS
Ed's first appearance on the Cosmic Skeptic Podcast: • Earthling Ed - The Int...
Ed's video on crop deaths: • There is one argument ...
Ed's video on hunting: • Joe Rogan, We Need to ...
Ed's mentioned video discussing halal meat: • Student confronts vega...
Vegan Camp Out UK: www.vegancampout.co.uk/
Vegan Camp Out Australia: vegancampout.com.au/
------------------------TIMESTAMPS--------------------------
0:00 Introduction
2:00 When is it permissible to eat animals?
10:22 Can everybody be vegan?
16:05 Is nonessential vegan food ethical?
18:38 Is it sometimes more vegan to eat an animal?
32:36 Reducing suffering vs animal rights
36:29 Do animals have a right to life?
45:50 Do animals feel less pain than us?
51:01 Utilitarianism and the experience of suffering
58:18 Most "moral" debate is not about morality
1:01:52 Ed's favourite conversation
1:04:41 Which vegan stereotype does Ed most dislike?
1:11:03 Ed's book and outro
---------------------SPECIAL THANKS-----------------------
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
Faraz Harsini
John Early
Sveline
Teymour Beydoun
Adam Gray
Nolan Kent
Seth Balodi
Citizens of Civilization
James Davis
g8speedy
----------------------------CONNECT-----------------------------
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Cosmic Skeptic Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
---------------------------CONTACT------------------------------
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I really like how Ed accepts that he doesn't know all the answers, it feels very honest to me.
Tbh that should be expected but unfortunately most people are not like that.
Yes, it's what makes this podcast so interesting for non-vegans like myself.
Alex should invite ex vegans in his channel.
I don't believe there is such a thing as ex vegans
@@joolzvega7298haha .welcome to real world them. You can believe whatever you want to believe. It won't change the truth of the matter.
th-cam.com/video/8MprLRv-IHs/w-d-xo.html
It’s so nice to see Ed discussing with an intellectual equal rather than him having to counter the same ridiculous arguments over and over again
Seeing him stumped on things is so rare and such a treat. Enthralling discussion here. Definitely has the ability to change some minds about things, including mine.
Intellectual equal?? 😂clearly didn't watch like 5 minutes of this, alex is significantly beyond Ed, he just doesn't want to make Ed look dumb, so he doesn't fully pressure him that's all
@@snowforest6487 Any evidence for this or are you just talking out your ass?
@@snowforest6487 Yeah Alex is far beyond Ed. Ed is just incredible in terms of arguments for veganism which doesn't require the depth that Alex always brings
I bet Ed has debated actual intellectuals, BUT not everyone has considered veganism as thoroughly as Ed or Alex.
Alex’s ‘Meat eaters case for veganism’ was the thing I needed to start on the path of veganism 3 years ago. Earthing Ed, has inspired a well informed but compassionate approach to vegan advocacy. Two amazing people.
I am about 3 months in to being more plant based. I have had some meat less than a pound in that time, where it was all that was there and going to be thrown out later regardless. I have reduced eggs and cheese considerably. I am still on the fence about honey though.
Same here! Went vegetarian within a month of watching that video three years ago. Took me another year to understand the suffering in connection with dairy and egg production, but as soon as that sank in I went fully vegan.
@@Epsylon21 Just in case you haven't, please watch Ed's vid called something like 'Why vegans don't eat honey'.
@@thomassinikangas had almost the same journey. Went vegetarian (wasn't hard since I grew up with a vegetarian mother) in August 2019 after Alex's video had been fully internalised, became a vegan in February 2020 and haven't looked back.
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Looks like someone has to go and rewatch their own video.
Aye exactly
The seeds were sown in the first question, weren't they?
@@hanumaniam Nah, it was a good question. The commonly used definition for being vegan has that ambiguous part about practicality which is a fair thing to ask about.
@@MapacheOculto I was referring to how you can see him testing the waters for leaving veganism behind him. Obviously less than a year later he stopped being vegan and it's fascinating watching this interview with Ed which Alex was clearly using to help him find an out because of that questionable definition from the Vegan Society.
@@hanumaniam Absolutely. I came to the comments here to say the same.
For the record: most pasta in Italy (apart from the north), will not contain any eggs. If it does contain eggs it will be mentioned on the menu. But almost every dried pasta dish will only be made from water and durum wheat flour.
I thought that scenario seemed a bit far fetched.
He mentionned "fresh pasta" though, isn't that by definition NOT dried pasta? Can you make fresh pasta without eggs, is it popular in Italy to make fresh pasta without eggs? Is fresh pasta not even "a thing" in Italy, or do they exist but they're insanely less popular than dried pasta? I'm just super confused, I have no idea if you simply didn't hear "fresh" pasta or if you're saying fresh pasta is rare, or that no one ever sells only fresh pasta. Haha
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Sicilian here, retired chef. For clarification:
Fresh pasta IS egg and flour, with water and salt. Without the egg, you don't get the gluten buildup. Without the eggs, there's no rich flavor. Some use yolks, some use whites, some the whole egg. But i's the egg that makes it "fresh."
Dry pasta, what factories make, is just flour and water. That's why it's so flavorless and never tender. It's papier mache. No chef in italy worth his salt makes egg free pasta, just the chain places, the cost cutters, and the vegans.
Pour flour, make a well, add egs (with a little water and olive oil), mix by hand. Form a dough, let it rest, press and cut. It's among the oldest recipes in Europe, right there with barbequed meat.
@@MrProy33 Appreciate the information but disagree with the implication that eggs are needed for flavour. I love dried pasta and even if you don't I'm sure you're smart enough and resourceful enough to either come up with a way to do it vegan or lookup how vegans have done it already. But even if that came up dry it'd never be an excuse to rape someone and kill their children, which of course is what we do to steal eggs.
seriously fascinating discussion, you two. i’ve never heard anyone delve so far into the minutiae of veganism
Completely agree… Connor asking the toughest questions that I’ve ever heard as a vegan before. Makes me start questioning what it means to have “rights”.
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
_Fresh_ pasta _with eggs_ in Rome? We finally found something that Alex is not very well read about! First, fresh pasta with eggs is mostly from the Italian north east, Emilia in particular. Second, all traditional Roman dishes, like Amatriciana, Carbonara, Gricia, really anything other than Cacio e Pepe, would _never_ be done with fresh egg pasta in Rome! Dried water-and-semolina pasta is the king in Rome.
It will be much more difficult to find something that does not have Pecorino on it!
this is the most important part of the conversation lmao
Where did you get this information from? Are you sure it's true? For instance, I know that a popular type of pasta in Rome is "tonnarelli", which is made with eggs. But I don't live there, so I might be wrong.
@@allezy7434 I was born in Rome (actually I lived just in front of the Vatican, that's why the example from Alex was quite funny).
But you are right: tonnarelli is indeed a fresh pasta with eggs relatively common in Rome. Still, it is quite marginal in the cuisine, mostly used with Cacio e Pepe. It is more commonly eaten in Abruzzo, with some form of ragù (what an American would call Bolognese). In Rome to find a restaurant with only egg pasta is really difficult, I cannot think of any. It would be instead _quite_ common (almost sure) in Bologna or Parma.
There is btw a nice video by Alex the French Guy about carbonara, discovering exactly this: he made carbonara with fresh pasta, was unsatisfied and he flew to Rome to discover the rich dry pasta tradition.
@@bobon123 I see, thank you for correcting me. I'd heard from a few people that they were really good for cacio e pepe, so I just assumed they were widely used in Lazio as well. I'm from Veneto, never been to Rome, and it clearly shows lol
I genuinely was worried about visiting Italy because of the egg in pasta this has put my mind at ease thank you
It's so refreshing to see an intelligent discussion between two compassionate beings... I swear watching Ed debate college students kills my brain cells.
Isn't Alex a college student? lol
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
@@JM-us3fr He has already graduated. And regardless, even when he was a university student, Alex was way more intelligent than the vast majority of his peers from other universities.
LOLLLLLL🤣
One of, if not thee, most intelligent vegan discussion I've ever seen. Thank you both.
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Guess again
Super duper interesting conversation. Thank you much gentlemen.
Also "But I Could Never Go Vegan!" is actually the title of a cookbook.
EDIT: To clarify, it's a vegan cookbook. There is a sequel "But My Family Could Never Go Vegan!" (I have them both in my personal cookbook collection).
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Ah man I love this interview! I wish there were more videos discussing these aspects of veganism, these conversations seem to be few and far between
Oh hey!! I would love to hear you talk about it actually, if you ever wanted to
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Ok now I’m listening to this whole discussion again, and it sounds like he is literally confessing his exact experiences! Scary!
He's a Catholic, doing confession to Vegan Jesus.
@@FixdalOK 😂
Yeah looking back on it now, he really was just trying to find every little loophole. Yikes. I wonder if it woulda been different if he ever did a vigil or actually saw a farm or slaughterhouse. It seems like it was never more than just a philosophical exercise in his head. He never actually connected to the victims.
@@GhostCorvid20 Why do you use animal products needlessly for entertainment while pretending to be against it?
@@janieswanson2549 evidence?
This was intellectually stimulating and addressed the deeper thoughts I’ve had since becoming vegan 🌱
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Do you ever think about the fact that veganism for everyone means domestic farm animals will cease to exist? That you’re effectively denying life to billions of creatures in the future by being vegan? Farm animals do get enjoyment from life. A vegans inability to deal with the eventuality of death would take all that enjoyment and life away.
The two people that inspired me to go vegan going over some of the questions I've been asking myself for a while, love it
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Are you going back to eating meat now that Cosmic skeptic quit the diet?
@@cyberfunk3793 Certainly not, but I am curious for his reasoning as to why he quit.
@@mihaimarcu4435 Probably got health problems because of it and got bored of eating rice and beans every day.
@@cyberfunk3793 ah, for a second I thought you were asking out of genuine curiosity/in good faith, you just wanted a gotcha moment, have at it.
Hope we get a followup video with Ed to discuss veganism again.
That would definitely be worth something.
I don't know what the hell happened with Alex but the most frustrating part is that I have not see him debunk any of his own argument that brought him to veganism and now he just refuses to cover the subject.
I found him via looking up stuff about veganism, it made me really understand why we ought to be vegan and I he has been my entrance point to properly dive into ethics and understand it.
...and he just gave up on it based on arguments he thoroughly debunked himself before.
As a type 1 diabetic and vegan I've never been in a situation where I felt it justified to eat animal products. In fact I find the idea of eating animal products repulsive. I've always been prepared wherever I go because I assume there won't be vegan options. If there is options then I'm pleasantly surprised. Or before a trip I will Google where my family can get vegan food. I don't give myself any excuse for eating animal products. FYI I've been vegan since 2009 and type 1 diabetic since 2015.
Amazing! Thanks for sharing!
What about eggs? Chickens lay eggs no matter what? Why is it bad to eat them, if they have to be laid, regardless of fertilisation.
Do you suspect your diabetes was caused by your diet?
@@davidregi7571 No. Diet doesn't cause Type 1 Diabetes.
@@PBMS123 because as soon as you start viewing animal excretions as food products, you start the cycle of exploitation. when you sell these products, it creates a demand that farmers then need to supply and will inevitably involve cruelty so they can make the most profit, for example male chick's being killed at birth because they aren't profitable for the farmer
1:10:02 “If you’re confused about what action to take or how to go about it, or the legitimacy of the moral position, just place yourself in the mindset of the victim involved.” This statement remains truer than ever. So sorry you’re confused about your moral position and I hope your (and Joey’s) past advice can bring you some clarity. The animals need you to regain it.
He is not confused about his moral position. He addressed issues with IBS in a recent video, which he had prior to adopting veganism. He also stressed that this has nothing to do with the health aspects of a vegan diet. There are studies on how IBS is exacerbated in people with a restrictive diet (eg veganism / vegetarianism). If you don't have his health issues, you are privileged.
I think it isn't the confusion about the moral position, but check the section from 3:43
Ed explains that the primary reason why veganism is a moral position today is due to the applicability and practicability of veganism today compared to the rest of human existence. Being vegan is possible to do today, and it is practical to do today, therefore it becomes somewhat of a duty to be vegan today.
3:51 Alex agrees, and emphasises the operative word "practicability", and asks about the bounds of it.
In retrospect, 4:59 is when he describes his own experience. Around the 6 minutes mark, Ed responds with his own experience.
Given Alex's health situation, Ed's response to moral justification of non-veganism kinda covers him too, don't you think?
"He is not vegan any more? He must be morally confused! There is clearly no other alternative!"
Actually, neither you nor Alex has any idea what the mindset of a cow is (i.e., what it is like to be a cow). Or a chick. Or a pig. Or a bat. To presume otherwise is at best species-centrist, and at worst, wildly ego-centric and arrogant. Yes, cows - like humans - experience pain. But they do not think like humans do, and so they do not suffer like humans do. For suffering - as far as humans are concerned - differs from pain, inasmuch as it is languaged, entails self-awareness, memories of the past, conjecture about possible futures, an ability to interpret events, and beliefs or judgements about how things ought to be.
This is not to say animals _don't_ suffer (I don't know whether they do or don't) - only to say that if they do, so far there is no evidence that they do so in the way that humans suffer.
The question that arises for me when you assert your position so confidently is: are you concerned about the impact of monocultures on animal habitat? Do you abstain from eating food that isn't shipped to your local community? If your advocacy for veganism is a moral one, are the many communities world wide who don't have airable land on which to grow food sources for humans immoral?
I feel that when I speak to someone who's on my same moral level regarding the way we treat animals I can just talk more freely about anything and have deeper and more serious discussions, that seems to be the case between you two here and I love it
0:00: 💭 The podcast discusses the definition of veganism and the practicality of being vegan in different situations.
0:00: Veganism is living in a way that excludes the exploitation and use of animals.
2:11: The definition includes eliminating meat, dairy, eggs, and animal-derived clothing and cosmetics.
3:47: The practicability of veganism depends on individual circumstances.
5:03: Situations where it may be impractical include limited food options during travel.
6:09: While it may not be possible for everyone to go vegan, it is important to acknowledge the limitations.
6:39: 😕 The discussion explores the concept of practicality and justifiability of consuming animal products in certain situations.
6:39: People sometimes use the argument of practicality to detract from their own personal responsibility.
7:08: Inconvenience does not justify buying animal products when alternatives could have been prepared or stocked up earlier.
8:37: Skipping one meal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the average person's health.
9:08: Medical requirements can justify consuming animal products for health reasons.
10:02: The definition of health and its impact on justifiability of consuming animal products is subjective and debatable.
11:19: The speaker ponders on the hypothetical scenario where being vegan is unhealthy and explores the limits of justifiability.
12:49: 💭 The discussion revolves around the definition and practicability of veganism, as well as the ethics of consuming non-essential vegan food.
12:49: The definition of veganism involves minimizing suffering and exploitation to the highest extent practicable.
13:24: There may be situations where it is morally justified to not be vegan, even if it is not in line with the definition.
13:53: There is a potential contradiction in defining veganism as minimizing suffering and death to the highest extent practicable, but not considering someone who meets that criteria as a vegan.
14:58: The risk of diluting the meaning of veganism should be considered when discussing its definition.
16:11: The question of eating non-essential vegan food raises concerns about unnecessary contribution to animal suffering and death.
17:16: Overconsumption is a broader issue in society, and responsible consumption should be encouraged.
17:31: Determining what is essential can be subjective and dependent on individual needs.
17:58: Overconsumption of food and other resources should be addressed to mitigate health and societal problems.
18:39: 🦌 The video discusses the moral implications of choosing between eating animal products or plant-based alternatives, and the argument of hunting as a solution.
18:39: Supporting plant-based agriculture can lead to advancements in more efficient and ethical production systems.
20:12: The paper suggests that it should be possible to produce plants without killing any animals in the future.
21:48: Hunting cannot be a food system due to ecological damage and inability to feed the masses.
23:22: The moral argument for hunting based on population control is flawed as hunters often target healthy animals.
24:09: Hunting disrupts natural selection and can lead to genetic changes in wild animals.
25:00: Hunting is an unnatural process that goes against the principles of natural selection.
25:40: 🥦 The discussion explores whether there are situations where a vegan action could result in more animal suffering than a non-vegan action.
25:40: The speaker hesitates to make a definitive statement but acknowledges that theoretically, there could be situations where a non-vegan action causes less animal suffering.
26:13: The speaker mentions hunting as an example where killing one animal could potentially result in less overall animal suffering compared to being a vegan.
27:36: The speaker acknowledges that such situations are unlikely to exist in reality and believes that being vegan generally reduces animal suffering.
29:21: They emphasize that the philosophy of reducing suffering should be more important than strictly adhering to a generic definition of veganism.
30:03: The speaker suggests that considering the caloric and nutritional density of plant foods could help make more ethical choices.
30:38: They propose that differentiating plant foods based on the scale of suffering they cause in production could be a future consideration.
30:54: The speaker highlights the importance of transparency in food production and making informed decisions to reduce overall suffering.
31:14: They mention that foods grown on trees may be morally preferable due to causing less harm during production.
31:37: In a hypothetical scenario without animal agriculture, the equivalent of veganism might involve raising awareness about animal deaths in crop production.
31:47: 🤔 The discussion revolves around the debate between consequentialists and deontologists in terms of reducing suffering and animal rights.
31:47: The author aligns more with the principle of reducing suffering rather than categorical rights.
32:36: There are logical inconsistencies with both consequentialism and deontological approaches.
34:17: The author does not advocate for eugenics or antenatalism.
35:03: In the human context, the author believes in intrinsic rights and value.
37:27: The author questions whether non-human animals have a right to life in the same way as humans.
37:39: The author highlights the dilemma of veganism involving animal death for survival.
38:07: 🐔 The video discusses the concept of animal rights and the moral implications of killing animals for food.
38:07: Animals having a right to life raises the question of whether it is morally wrong to kill them for food.
38:22: If humans have a right to life, it would be inconsistent to deny animals the same right.
39:13: The distinction between preserving one's own life and killing another for food may affect the moral implications.
40:51: The concept of rights is subjective and may be based on human ego rather than objective principles.
41:26: Some rights theorists argue that rights can be overridden or violated, while others propose specificationism.
42:22: The issue arises when determining why it is wrong to kill certain individuals, such as a homeless person or a pig.
43:09: The speaker believes that rights are not god-given but based on the characteristics and capacities of individuals.
43:21: The level of sentience in animals may determine the rights they should have.
43:37: The speaker suggests that the increased sentience of humans gives them more moral worth or right to life compared to animals.
44:06: 😕 The speaker discusses the moral assessment of different animals based on their levels of sentience and the capacity for pain, highlighting the potential for non-human animals to experience pain more intensely than humans.
44:06: The speaker believes that the capacity for feeling pain and the consequences of death extend beyond the individual, making the suffering caused by the death of a human more far-reaching.
46:05: The speaker raises concerns about the confidence in determining relative levels of sentience and questions if animals with heightened sensory experiences, such as dogs with their sense of smell, may actually experience pain more intensely than humans.
47:39: The speaker acknowledges that humans may have the capacity to experience pain less due to cognitive abilities that allow psychological distancing and awareness of pain's end.
48:49: The speaker suggests that non-human animals may experience pain more intensely due to their lack of awareness of death and inability to distance themselves psychologically from the experience.
49:35: The speaker recognizes the potential devaluation of non-human animals in discussing hierarchy of sentience and expresses a conflict about inadvertently placing humans on a pedestal.
50:51: 😕 The discussion explores the question of whether animals have the same right to life as humans, considering the hierarchy of worth of life and the distinction between humans and animals based on pleasure and pain experiences.
50:51: The differentiation of the hierarchy is less about where humans come to the animals we consume but more about where humans come to the animals we kill in the production of crops.
52:47: The relative weight of intellectual pleasures compared to physical pleasures and the view that intellectual pleasures are worth more than physical pleasures may seem arrogant.
53:18: The speaker is not entirely sure about their own view on whether animals have a right to life and is interested in hearing other perspectives.
54:13: If suffering is what matters, then animals that can suffer more would have more moral worth.
55:43: The difficulty lies in characterizing some atrocities as worse than others based on the scale of suffering inflicted.
56:03: The experience of suffering is subjective and cannot be fully understood by others.
56:14: An analogy is made between the difficulty of high school physics and PhD level physics to highlight the subjective nature of suffering.
56:56: 🗣 The video discusses the nature of ethical debates and how most conversations about veganism focus on drawing out people's inconsistencies rather than debating the ethics.
56:56: Ethical debates often focus on factual claims rather than moral principles.
58:04: The speaker argues for veganism based on descriptive consistency rather than moral arguments.
1:00:26: Most conversations about veganism revolve around surface-level arguments and inconsistencies.
1:01:35: The speaker suggests probing deeper into people's moral intuitions to explore the differences between humans and animals.
1:02:08: The conversation with a lady at UT Dallas is highlighted as a favorite, where the speaker felt their points made the other person uncomfortable.
1:03:08: 🗣 The speaker discusses a conversation with someone who interrupted their discussion to debate veganism, highlighting the stereotype of vegans being pushy and the importance of challenging preconceptions.
1:03:08: The speaker had a conversation with someone who interrupted their discussion to debate veganism.
1:03:19: The person seemed confident in their beliefs but lacked knowledge about halal slaughter.
1:03:35: The speaker found it strange that the person interrupted the conversation and then admitted to not knowing about halal slaughter.
1:04:30: The speaker believes that passionate opposing views create a platform for understanding different perspectives on ethical issues.
1:05:06: The speaker wishes to see the stereotype of vegans being pushy disappear.
1:06:03: The speaker finds it hypocritical when people criticize vegans for being pushy while being pushy themselves about other ethical issues.
1:06:36: The speaker believes that dispelling the pushy vegan stereotype can soften people's perception of veganism.
1:06:56: The speaker also mentions the stereotype of vegans being weak or unhealthy.
1:09:01: The speaker acknowledges the need to be pushy in advocating for change, but emphasizes the importance of being vocal without fulfilling the pushy stereotype.
1:09:31: 📚 The podcast discusses the importance of being loud and vocal about veganism and animal rights, and the need to understand the suffering of animals in the meat industry.
1:09:31: Being vocal about veganism and animal rights is justified, considering the suffering animals endure in the meat industry.
1:09:58: Putting oneself in the mindset of the victim can provide clarity on the moral position.
1:11:09: Engaging in discussions, writing books, and spreading vegan propaganda can help raise awareness.
1:11:57: The book 'This Is Vegan Propaganda' provides information on UK farming and animal treatment.
1:13:16: The book challenges the notion of vegan propaganda and invites readers to make their own judgments.
1:13:33: The book has been successful and is on the bestseller list.
1:13:46: The speakers will be appearing at the Vegan Camp Out Australia and UK events.
1:14:44: The Vegan Camp Out is a global event worth attending.
Recap by Tammy AI
Thank you. You are a fantastic interviewer. This conversation has given my a lot to think about and provided interesting perspectives on topics I wrestle with.
Man, this was refreshing. So reasonable and well articulated. I’m a longtime vegan and have got a bit rusty with articulating my views so this was helpful. Doing God’s work fellas. Appreciate you both 💛
Interesting to congratulate two atheists for doing God's work :) (Just an observation!)
gods doin nothin@@dezso199
Finally thank you for updating the podcast! I love hearing your conversations in the car!
This was a sorely needed episode. Been struggling with these questions for a while (even if they are occasionally hypothetical), and glad to see others are struggling too.
Gary Francione says "if we all went vegan because we cared morally about nonhumans, that would necessarily translate into methods of crop production that would be more mindful of incidental and unintended deaths."
Humans' moral worth trumps animals'.
Idk if in that quote Gary denied this, but for animal production we need to farm like an insane amount of crops to feed the animal, and if we just ate the crops we gave to the animals we would farm wayy less crops.
That's sweet and all, but even as a vegan who's worked on small farms with minimal crop deaths, the "farmers are killing animals because they're not vegans" arguments slightly feeds into the "vegans have never been on a farm cliché". Like, it may be possible, but it's easy to sit there and claim "we could fix this if we were the ones plowing the field", while not actually having any concrete proposals. Though as I said, I've worked on small farms with very little "direct" crop deaths - the trick is to ensure you have some useful predators around, like birds that eat certain insects that would normally eat the plant. But is that really more ethical than insecticides ? Eh. Though question. Though there would then be even more insect lives and deaths if it were wild land instead of farming ground.
It's great to hear these concepts around veganism get seriously challenged. I feel like it's easy for us to get too comfortable in our thoughts on veganism sometimes and it's good to remember that behind it all, we're still human and are still trying to figure it all out.
You guys are doing such important work, please keep it up! 🧡🌿
The gratitude I have for the pair of you is immeasurable. Oh behalf of the animals you saved from me, thank you.
Thank you Alex for asking far betters questions than most do on this subject. Great discussion.
Come back and watch this video Alex. You can still change back (perhaps with some better nutrition knowledge).
Alex is not denying plants are nutritious. But when you are allergic or have allergic-type symptoms to proteins such as lectin found commonly in plants, what do you propose Alex to do? Eat supplements and refined carbs every day? Plants are not benign to people who have zero sensitivities either, at high enough concentrations they can become poisonous, as demonstrated famously by Walter White with every day beans. Remember plants evolved defense mechanisms to discourage animals eating them so they could reproduce and multiply, and some people are more sensitive to those mechanisms than others.
@@amuthanshan that is the biggest load of BS I've read in a while. Plant defense chemicals? You mean the things that are in plants that are healthy for humans, phytochemicals? Where are you getting your information from, Carnivore MD?
So happy to have this podcast. Alex putting forth the challenging questions in good faith, and Ed with great responses! Thanks yall :)
What an amazing talk! Thanks both of you. You made me feel accompanied, since many questions are not made within my activism group, and I thought maybe I was taking it too far.
This was such a refreshing video. It felt like it was over as soon as it started and I was hanging on every word. I wish more content creators could have more videos that address issues beyond the surface level, tired rigamarole that carnists' "debates" entail. Thank you for your commitment and thank you for the video.
I loved this conversation! Got me to reflect on a lot.
I have one small criticism at 24:18, when you started talking about "reverse natural selection." Natural selection is a process of change, not improvement, so it's wrong that the deer are becoming "evolutionarily worse" because they're being hunted. The deer that survive are, as always, the ones most well-adapted to their environment. Calling it "the opposite of natural," as you did, is incorrect.
That irked me a little too. I think Alex makes a distinction between natural selection and human selection here, where, arguably, no distinction functionally exists.
I think it's purely a wording issue because it's the opposite of what would happen if humans didn't interfere. That's what they mean I think, they just used a poor term to describe it
@@bobthellama6988 I largely agree, with the caveat that I don't think humans are unique in causing this direction of evolution. Alex's argument is that humans are causing 'reverse natural selection' by picking off the strongest, with the biggest horns.
Well, the same is true for any predator. If a predator starts to choose the most colourful prey to eat, then the prey animal would potentially become less colourful over time to compensate, even if being colourful provided some other benefit. That's not 'reverse natural selection', it's just natural selection at work.
We define 'fittest' as 'fastest' 'largest' 'strongest' (etc) in our framework, but 'fittest' from an evolutionary perspective only really means "best able to survive and reproduce". An animal could be the 'fittest' but be slow, small and weak, depending on the environment, flora, fauna etc. The weaker deer with smaller horns (etc) are fitter than the larger deer in an environment where humans hunt.
@@ryangibson7126 you raise a good point. But consider this:
Before humans started hunting the animals with the largest horns were best-adapted to survival. Let's call this percentage of survival x.
Naturally, the smaller the horn, the smaller the chance of survival. So creatures with smaller horns have a chance of survival < x. Let's call this value y.
Humans have now targeted the animals with large horns, meaning the animals have a smaller chance of survival with larger horns than smaller horns. This new chance of survival with large horns is z. So z < y < x.
So because humans have hunted, the combination of genes that give the best possible chance of survival (now y) is less than the chance of survival the best combination of genes could give if humans had stayed out of it (x).
Does this mean that human evolution is independent of natural evolution? No. But it does mean that humans are making animals comparatively weaker when it comes to their chance of survival.
@@bobthellama6988
What I find interesting is that given enough time, and with consistent enough environmental pressures, the smaller horns may even *gain* some functionality since having bigger horns is making them less fit for survival. Imagine a Buck with razor sharp daggers on their heads!
I just love listening to Alex talk. Whether about veganism or religion. He is a force to be reckoned with. Thank you both for the information.
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Thank you , this is one of the deepest and most honest discussions of the ethics of veganism i have heard. Sometimes the arguments for ethical veganism aren’t as clear cut as we might like, as there are so many desired outcomes that sometimes conflict. I especially appreciated a discussion of the levels of sentience. You don’t hear about that too often, yet it’s something we all take into account whether we want to admit it or not.
so cool to see a conversation where they are able to move on from the basic points about veganism to some really in depth thoughts and discussions, great to hear form both of you I hope there's more content together in the future! (I will definitely attend vegan camp out aus if I can)
I’m a type 1 diabetic vegan, I would rather skip a meal than eat non-plant based food, we dose for meals so skipping meals isn’t a problem. If I was having a hypo and had no treatments with me and no plant based sweets or sugary drinks were around then I would be ok breaking vegan for that moment
Breaking Vegan sounds like a bad porno lmao
I think there are case you can eat meat.
For example, you have diabetic, and u in a situation you has to eat meat or skip 3 meal or 3 days of meal. I think it is okay to eat meat in that case. I dont have health issues, but skip meal drive me crazy
@@SenEmChannel I wouldn’t eat meat as that wouldn’t help with diabetes, I would eat sweets with gelatine, egg or milk if I had to, but meat isn’t food anymore. I think diabetes was a bad example, to treat a hypo you’re best off with a full sugar drink and you’ll probs fancy a big plate of chips which are readily available and plant based
@@epicstopmotionracing5365 i mean with health issue in general, not diabetes alone. Sure i will it suger, soda, or something like that. But assume life put you hard and you can not perfectly repare for every situation. Then, someday we can have a case that we need to eat right now, whatever reason ( hungry, diabete, blood pressure, ect) and if we dont eat in that situation we can end up in hospital for months. but so bad, all food around is meat, egg or milk( no candy, no surgar)Now i that case i think it ok for you to eat.
I think im not vegan, im half vegan. That mean i dont eat meat, milk, egg when i can. But if life push me, i will eat anyway. I do belive vegan is good ethical treat. I just dont belive anyone can do it as good as it say. i want to be full vegan, reason i dont become full vegan because it too hard for me. someday, sometime we may be eat meat, kill animal for food if life push us hard enough. But in normal day situation, im think vegan is good choice
@@epicstopmotionracing5365 Dr. Cyrus Khambatta and Robby Barbaro MASTERING DIABETES - they are both type 1 (and vegan) and have a very well researched book. Hope it can help maybe!
I love how alex understands the right to life arguments. It shows a level of good faith to understand something you don't believe or don't feel strongly about.
Regarding suffering, my current standing on the subject is that suffering is not the presence of pain or the absence of pleasure, those are just indicators. You can disprove the notion quite easily. For pain, there are plenty of instances where mentally stable and healthy humans actively seek it (spicy food, intense physical activity, certain adult activities, etc). You would not say people indulging in these painful experiences were suffering. Pleasure is less obvious, but if you told someone who was grieving the death of a loved one that you could make them happy and forget about their loss, most people would decline the offer. Therefore the lack of happiness in this situation isn't the suffering, it's actually something else
Suffering, in my mind, is actually the disparity between a sentient being's desires and the reality of the world. What is important isn't that you don't cause pain, it's that you don't put a sentient being in a situation it strongly desires (or will desire) not to be in. Likewise, it is an ethical good to create a situation that a sentient being desires (even if that situation involves their pain). This is why you can't kill humanely. Even if you kill the animal completely by surprise and without pain, it being dead would have been something it desired not to be (we know this because animals show desperation when they realize they are in a dangerous situation).
There are, of course, a lot of subtleties to this. If an action will slightly align the world with a being's desire in the present, but greatly misalign it in the future, then that needs to be taken into consideration. For example, letting a child run in the road may seem like fun to the child right now, but that is because they don't understand the risk of death or serious injury, therefore it is justifiable to prevent them from doing so
Thank you so much for typing this out!! Immediate addition to my moral arguments haha
@Negan The Vegan I agree those practices are horrific, and I wasn't saying spicy food is the same level. It was merely an example of where pain does not equate to suffering. People also intentionally whip themselves, suffocate themselves, even tear chunks of their own flesh out because they enjoy it. It hurts, but they want the pain. That means they aren't suffering. The difference for animals is that they don't want that pain. Even if it was a small amount of pain it is immoral, but of course humans inflict a large amount of pain on them. My point wasn't that that is okay. Quite the contrary, it was that there is more to suffering than merely experiencing pain
Veganism lead me to antinatalism which lead me to negative utilitarianism and now I'm struggling with this. Man... philosophy is such a mind fuck it hurts my brain figuring out what I agree with when pushed to hypothetical extremes.
Two reasons can cause difficulty in taking a stance on something: 1) repression or 2) lacking a clear enough understanding of the thing to make a judgement. If 2 then the solution is to take your time learning more about the thing until you understand it enough to take a solid stance.
@@zeebpc that makes sense. Ill check out the site, thanks man.
Well, why not regular utilitarianism? It has the same advantages because suffering is horrible and it should be counted a lot more than it is usually though, but you have less bonkers conclusions
Let's say you could have the best day you could possibly imagine just by stubbing your toe against a table, would you?
@@matt-st9ox For example? Regular utilitarianism does entail antinatalism
Damn, what a great discussion. I was convinced of the moral necessity of veganism after watching Alex's appearances on Modern Day Debate when I watched them last December, and in that time my understanding of veganism has grown and continues to develop more nuance. I watched his original discussion with Ed a couple of months ago, and I feel like that was the perfect primer for me since Alex was still relatively new at the time. Now that I've had some time to sit on it, it feels fitting that now I get to watch Alex go at it again with Ed with a much more complex understanding of veganism. The amount of times I thought to myself "WOW that's a great question to ask, it has been in the back of my head and now I get to hear it be addressed" was overwhelming. And I think it shows how far Alex has come that he even stumped Ed at several different points; they are really into the weeds of the philosophy of the position.
Love hearing both of these guys talk, and I wish that I was as great of a communicator as either of them are.
Ed doesn't go here often, because it's not important or useful to his advocacy....but I LOVE that you did here!! He's used to Socratically asking questions, not answering tough ones.
Alex FINALLY touched on the Agricultural Aspect I always ask about....I appreciate the honesty and discussions....And yes, I heard it on Rogan
Best podcast i’ve seen Ed in, this should habe been 3 times longer! Thanks
it's awesome to see the 2 people who convinced me to go vegan interacting again
Huge fan of you both for years. So happy to see this collaboration!
Really great discussion. Two great minds. Thanks for the upload
Two brilliant fellows talking. Many ideas brought up I never thought about. Great talk!
Here it is -- the last vegan video Alex ever shot.
Wrong. He did one on Zouma.. now removed
Every chapter in the video had a moment or moments that made me wide-eyed with amazement that the discussion was so thoughtful. 10/10
Regarding the bit on pain, I'm on board with Ed's argument that "less" sentient creatures can arguably feel more pain. Even among humans, as children, physical stimulus hurts more than it does as adults, and it largely boils down to knowledge, experience, and perspective gained throughout one's life. The more painful moments as adults tend to be psychological, even driving people to die by suicide, which happens more frequently because of psychological pain and less frequently because of physical pain.
I also agree that pain is probably not the right axis of analysis for gauging inherent worth. A sentience hierarchy is subtler but more representative, because the opportunity cost of losing a high-sentience creature is greater than the same cost of losing a lower sentience creature, at least in a utilitarian framework.
How do we know how has more sentience and who has less? There is not way we can know how other species experience the world. I did not like how Ed went on and on about superior human sentience. He sounded like a human supremacist.
@@barbaraibiel I think cognitive ability is at least a quintessential component of sentience, if it isn't the entire picture. I don't think making the observation that humans are more sentient than other creatures is a "supremacist" position; it is merely descriptive. The prescriptive part is what I said, that sentience is a valuable and desirable trait, and bias is likely a large component of my opinion.
If other species disagree, I welcome them to challenge me in a debate... too bad that's not happening any time soon.
I absolutely love the tough questions Alex asks. Asking those tough and possibly uncomfortable questions is so essential to testing your beliefs.
I didnt think in a million years I'd get my 2 favorite TH-camrs to have a conversation like this 😍
Goodness, I've struggled with a lot of these ethicist questions since I became vegan. In my internal debates, I have often hit moral roadblocks and would assign it to what I personally refer to as 'the nuisance of ego vs sentience'. I find comfort in them acknowledging that nobody can completely defend themselves morally and prima facie consistency is likely all that we can achieve in absolute terms.
Interesting. As far as I know Ed's method in streer interviews relies on the socratic method finding roadblocks or inconsistencies in 'opposing' views.
Those views needn't be either. They just cannot be (much) worse than roadblocks and inconsistencies in Ed's own vegan views.
I watched something a while ago that showed Inuits catching fish, whales and seals for food.
Now I know there are quite probably some incredibly remote and small Inuit tribes who have very little or no access to any modern civilisation, but although these people (in the documentary) are still classified as Inuits, they weren't a small tribe, they had cars and houses and snow mobiles and motor boats and smart phones and TV's and internet etc. All the trappings of modern society.
Yet it was still pointed out that they 'have' to live off animal products because they are Inuits.
It seems to me that if you can ship in all the trappings of modern society, some of which are quite difficult to obtain and transport, then you can quite easily ship in vegan food, and storing food in that climate is so much easier and less expensive too.
Just a thought....
I know it's not as simple as that, as a lot of their income is from selling many of the animal products from their hunting, and it wouldn't be easy for them to find other methods of income....
I guess my point is that it's not always as clear cut as it might at first appear....
Concern yourself more about the majority in the West before having a go at indigenous minorities.
@@Flobb1t
He wasnt having a go at them at all, he was just trying to point out that even in extreme cases where eating animal products is traditional it could be still possible to be a vegan albeit with some difficulty.
Those communities are already usually struggling deeply with poverty, relying entirely on importation of food would at the least be extremely politically unpopular and therefore unachievable, and that's assuming said food is subsidized somehow. If it isn't, I imagine many of the more modern tools like snowmobiles would no longer be affordable...
@@Flobb1t I think he was talking about those who aren't in "survival" situation. I think very few people (fewer even than previously supposed) are actually in need to kill other animals to survive.
People conflate indigenous people (or of indigenous heritage) living in the modern world, and those indigenous people living in more of a naturalistic setting or in very deprived areas in the modern world (i.e reservations). It's pretty ridiculous. There's no excuse.
Some great questions and challenges from Alex
Thank you SO much for having Ed back… I’ve been ‘cursed’ by the compelling arguments for veganism ever since your first podcast. I’ve become a conflicted pescatarian/flexatarian ever since, and easily spend an hour a day thinking about this stuff.
I can’t wait to listen to this.
Especially the question you ask at 18:00. I’ve been driven mad thinking about this
Interesting conversation guys, keep fighting the good fight as best you can.🧠🌱💚🌍
Really enjoyed that! Some fascinating questions I hadn’t considered before and thoughtful answers.
If I could add to the question on rights (as a lawyer interested in these things), I think that referring to “rights which can never be violated” is where it gets a little murky. This point was made by Alex but I thought I’d just add to it!
There are “absolute” and “non-absolute” rights. While some rights like the right to freedom from torture are absolute and may never be infringed (not that this happens in reality, but that’s the law at least), most aren't, such as the right to liberty which of course is limited by lawful imprisonment. Alex makes a great point about how most rights are simply shorthand for a much lengthier proposition filled with exceptions to the rule. That is the legal position in a nutshell.
Relatedly, I think it’s fair to say that, in a legal sense, the reduction of suffering and the concept of rights actually go hand in glove. What I mean is that the basic and general test to determine if a right has been unlawfully infringed is (i) has there been an infringement? (ii) if so, was it infringed in pursuit of a legitimate aim? (iii) if so, was the infringement proportionate to that aim (was it the least amount of infringement necessary)? Most legal cases turn on the third question, which is referred to as the “proportionality test”. Although it isn’t expressly referred to as such, it seems to me that the general reduction of suffering always factors heavily in that equation. For example, where someone’s mental state has reached a point where a court would consider the person a danger to themselves and to others, an application might be brought in court to take that individual into the care of the state which, depending on the jurisdiction, can result in that person losing all sorts of rights in terms of decision-making and so on. However, a court may make that order if the result is proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved; i.e. protecting that person and others from likely harm.
One of the more fundamental disagreements in legal theory is between natural law (that rights inhere in every person just by virtue of existing, resulting from things like your intrinsic dignity as a human being) and positive law (that rights only exist because we as societies have set them out). For positivists, the reason animals don’t have a right to life in the same way that humans do is because societies have not chosen to develop the law in that direction. For naturalists, the reasons animal don’t have that right is because they don’t fall into the same category as human beings. Being a vegan, of course I have a problem with this (as Ed says, it comes from ego more than anything more objective) and would extend towards animals more rights than they currently are afforded, including a right to life.
If you were to take that view, the problem then becomes when is it proportionate to deprive an animal of their right to life? For humans, states have a negative obligation not to infringe an individual’s right to life (subject to exceptions like necessity in certain circumstances), but not a positive obligation to go around actively saving lives. I wonder if this concept could be (somewhat crudely) applied here. Humans are obliged not to actively kill animals (refrain from farming them), but can do so where necessary (incidental deaths through farming crops). Obviously, this would have the consequence of placing a higher value on the lives of humans. Depending on your perspective, animals would then (i) have a right to life in principle in the “same way that humans do” in that it can be infringed where necessary, or (ii) they would not have such a right because the playing field would always be skewed in favour of humans surviving over animals due to something like sentience levels.
It's certainly a difficult one to figure out! But I thought I'd add my 2c for anyone interested enough to read this essay!!
What about intentional deads during farming (pesticides, mice control, rabbit control, etc) ? How does the right to life applies there ?
You misunderstand the meaning of "absolute" in philosophy.
@@dipanjan_roy I'm definitely no philosopher, I can only speak on its legal meaning.
@@Blackkorso If you were to take the view outlined above, I think you'd have to say it's an unfortunate consequence of humans abiding by their negative obligation not to actively harm animals.
@@SB_9_ I really liked reading what you had to say.
Great video! I've never heard of Ed before but he seems really smart and I loved the points he brought up. Very interesting discussion.
Thank you both, that was excellent.
The two most well spoken advocates for our cause (in my opinion) are at it again. 🤍❤️
Calling it a cause just makes it sound even more culty than it is. It's just food. No need to pretend it's more than that..
Gary Yourofsky is God along this two ;)
@@SuperiorityQomplex It's not just about food, it's about refusing to exploit or be cruel to animals for any reason when it is unnecessary. It's also about what we wear for example.
@@WeedyZA growing crops kills animals en masse too. Taking down trees and forests to get fertile land, poisons and insecticides to prevent animals from eating them. Crushing animals in the machinery as one harvests the fields, etc. I'm against factory farming, but let's not pretend veganism is innocent of killing animals. To believe so is lying to yourself. And again, cult thought..
@@SuperiorityQomplex Edit: The message I replied to is not visible any longer?-- This what directly addressed in the video. No one is claiming no animals die to support a vegan diet, we are claiming significantly less animals die to support a vegan diet. Farm animals have to eat many times their weight in plant matter. According to the most comprehensive analysis to date on the effects of agriculture on our planet, if the world went vegan we could free up over 75% of our currently used farmland while producing the same amount of food for human consumption. This is because we would only have to grow a fraction of the crops we currently do seeing as though we would no longer need to feed the 80 billion farm animals we breed into existence every year.
Wait I'm confused. Is this from before or after Alex went back to the dark side? 🤔
i think before
I think this is a great conversation that identifies the problem of describing veganism as a reduction of harm. Whilst that is an important component, it does not describe the full ideology. To describe veganism to its broadest extent we must include the ethical position that rejects the notion of viewing animals in a commodity or resource status. In the same way we wouldn't say that causing harm to one innocent human is justified if it were to result in less harm to others. The individual's right not to be harmed or used as a means to another's end is unjust, even if it were to lead to a larger harm reduction overall.
But we do think harm to humans is justified to preventable worse. We just experiened this frist hand thanks to covid. Locking people up against their will is a form of harm. (It's also the foundation of our criminal justice system)
alright kant lol
Very disappointed in the news that Alex has somehow "reasoned" that veganism is no longer viable for him. I really don't have any interest in his pathway to this conclusion. I bet he was offered a life changing sum of money from animal agriculture to publicly come out as not vegan. Either that or he just somehow lost all sense of compassion all of a sudden. I'll just start to ignore him along with the other other people that have done a 180 on this issue. Ciao Alex!
way to not sound like a religious fundamentalist talking about apostates. What a clown
I am pretty sure that Alex was having major health issues. I noticed he was starting to look skinny and gaunt, especially around the eyes, over the past year or so. I think it is possible for him to resolve his health issues without eating animals, but this is not a 100% certainty. Regardless, slaughterhouses remain unjustified until proven justified.
@@Animal_lives_matter You were right about the health issues given his video today.
@@Animal_lives_matter You claim they are unjustified and yet you use animal products from them.
How do you justify using animal products needlessly for entertainment?
@@janieswanson2549
I don't even believe that "I have health issues" entails "therefore I can eat animals".
Similar to "I have health issues, therefore I can take a cut out of your paycheck to fix my health issues"
Can see as early as April 2022, Alex is already looking for excuses to not be vegan. During the section "when is it permissible to eat animals" he is clearly not just putting out hypotheticals but speaking from personal experience.
So what? Why should he starve himself with an unnatural nutritionally deficient man made diet?
@@rl7012 thats the vegan way.. Animals >>>> Health
How did Millennials get to be such a self-righteous lot.
I feel the answer to this statement is made at the beginning of this video.
We live in a time where we actually have the ability to make a choice. And what choice do you make having the ability to make a choice.
Self-righteous is perhaps the wrong term here now today. Maybe self-awareness is more fitting?
Now I could be wrong. But is an open question/ statement.
Millennials are highly confused after the baby boomers taught them to reject Christianity.
I know we usually focus on reducing suffering when trying to improve the world, but when people forget to give pleasure a factor in the moral equation, we end up philosophically in positions like anti-natalism or trying to destroy the earth. I'm curious if anyone thinks they have a consistent vegan philosophy that includes a being's pleasure alongside suffering reduction?
I'd say that most advocates and animal ethicists do not think that only suffering matters, although it seems to be a common view that suffering - specially extreme suffering - has a relatively greater weight and should take priority over other values such as pleasure/happiness, justice, knowledge, virtue and so on. It isn't a popular stance to claim that an hour of horrendous suffering can be compensated by creating and hour or even 100 hours of great pleasure or bliss (or by bringing into existence a certain amount of happy beings). Most would agree that we should prevent the extreme suffering.
A suffering-focused ethic can take many forms and admit of different axiological views. This is why many consider the future positive experiences that other beings can have, a reason not to kill them prematurely. I recommend checking out Magnus Vinding's great book called "Suffering-Focused Ethics: Defense and Implications" or just take a look at the entries on his website: magnusvinding.com/2020/05/31/suffering-focused-ethics-defense-and-implications/
Also check organizations such as the Center For Reducing Suffering or the Center on Long Term Risk.
Regarding the world destruction argument against negative-utilitarianism, I recommend this paper by Simon Knuttson:
www.simonknutsson.com/the-world-destruction-argument/
Or David Pearce's "The Pinprick Argument" against negative-utilitarianism: www.utilitarianism.com/pinprick-argument.html
@@LiberacionIgualdad Thanks! Will take a look
Pleasure is all we go for for us egoistic hedonists. 😎
The utilitarian concept of pleasure or happiness as a factor to be balanced against pain and suffering is a falacy. The will to live is what should really be considered. Many sentient beings, both human and non-human, suffer relentlessly but still wish to continue to live - and that wish should be their right. The almost universal will to live is therefore the metric which should take priority in the moral argument. This is nearly always overlooked.
@@davidpalk5010 Interesting perspective I hadn't thought about! Are you a utilitarian of any sort?
As for me, I would normally group "fulfilling the will to live" in with other pleasures, as in "It pleases me that I continue to live".
If you're utilitarian, I'm curious what you think when people place their own will to live below other preferences, e.g. "I would rather die in place of my child", or "I would rather die than see my house bulldozed". It seems that there are cases where sentient beings do sometimes balance their will to live against happiness, pain, and suffering, and find their will to live to be weaker.
It's a sad tradeoff to be forced to make, but the fact that sentient beings sometimes choose it feeds my intuition that there can be pleasure or suffering so great that it outweighs will to live in a utilitarian moral argument.
Brilliant debate - thank you.
Ed! Come back to UT Dallas soon! I enjoyed your debates and I hope to see more in the future and in person
Original Italian pasta has no eggs in it. The majority of noodles and pasta sold in super markets in Austria (where I live) is now egg free too. In Vienna we even have vegan super markets and a lot of restaurants serve vegan meals.
Veganism has nothing to do with minimizing suffering. It's about violation of bodily autonomy. For example, nuking a poor country or tribe would minimize suffering but violates the bodily autonomy of those individuals .
I honestly hate how utilitarianism has infiltrated vegan discourse.
SO many utilitarian ethical stances don't fit with basic vegan ethics. Just read what Peter Singer has to say about the sexual abuse of animals for an example (spoiler: he supports it under certain circumstances where "enough pleasure is produced for the animal")
I’m pretty sure having your irradiated flesh melt off your bones increases suffering regardless of your economic status…
Why grant autonomy in the first place? There is no logical argument for this position other than "because it makes my subjective moral ego feel good" - in your case.
@Nathan Nitai Das there is no such thing as universal human rights. Rights are an invention by humans, negotiated between humans, for the benefit of humans. Why we should bestow rights on animals is beyond me... sure, it is beneficial to limit unnecessary cruelty towards animals but this can be rationalized with the impact it has on the human mind and by extension the society such a violent human lives in.
Not just bodily autonomy but also life, liberty and self-determination. Minimizing or eliminating suffering is called efilism.
I was gonna say surely Rationality Rules was the first person to feature on the podcast twice, but I suppose one of those was on the incredibly long running Cosmic Christian Podcast 🤣
@13:53 That was exactly the question in my head as well when Ed was talking about being permissible to not be vegan vs just being vegan. I love that you guys are highly critical even when discussing positions that you support.
RIP BRUH
Great stuff Alex and Ed !
such an excellent discussion, really loved it!
Very interesting, I've always wanted to ask Ed about many of these things.
I'd love to hear Ed's thoughts on antinatalism and hear Alex revisit it as well
I'd rather not. I think I would be disappointed.
How come? Do you find the argument for antinatalism compelling and you think Ed would be for or against it?
this video is like that "vegans discussing with vegans vs vegans discussing with meat eaters" meme
I have been waiting for one of your videos for two weeks 😂😭
The latter half of this conversation is what engaged me the most.
Interesting discussion around hunting! One aspect that was not mentioned is that sometimes the reason there are “too many” deer is because humans have destroyed ecosystems so there are fewer deer predators. The opposite situation also exists. In Canada, human activity (cutting down forests) has given wolves such an advantage in hunting caribou that the caribou are endangered. Instead of addressing the human-caused problem, there is a wolf cull going on. The idea that we have to kill these animals to save other animals is not only horrific but short-sighted.
On the decision between eating a plant based food or hunting a single animal; I would wager that the amount of animals that are killed during crop harvesting are less than the amount of meals that same area can be harvested for. So the amount of animals killed per meals-worth harvested is likely less than 1, and so it would still be more moral to eat the plant based food rather than hunt an animal, if we are strictly talking numbers.
And on the idea of humans having a greater right to life than animals based on our sentience and the affect our deaths would have on others; wouldn't by this logic it mean if given the choice between killing a family dog, or killing a man with no social ties who has less sentient capacity than the dog (through disability, or a coma ect), wouldn't that justify killing the human over the dog? Because in this instance the dog has more sentience and more suffering caused by its death than the human. I believe we should treat animals the same way we would a human that has an equal degree of sentience to them.
Keep in mind, if you go this route, you have to fairly account for the fact that the animal being killed may easily provide more than one meal. An elk would offer quite a few meals for instance.
I feel that the best argument against hunting is how it's not sustainable for everyone to go out hunting. If there is some sort of moral excuse for it, you would have to accept that you have no more right to be the hunter than anyone else does, and, as Ed mentioned, that doing anything other than targeting the weak animals would be less moral.
Speaking of humans in a coma, I believe they are vegetables for all intents and purposes if their brain has died. So in actual fact they are already dead and should be taken off life support
Ya lost me for the second paragraph. It's extremely logical that we consider ourselves above other animals that have nowhere near our intelligence. I don't agree with that, but that's just how our brains are wired, and acting perplexed by it is being intellectually dishonest at best.
@@animalsarebeautifulpeople3094 Most comas aren't permanent. And tbh that is just being nitpicky and missing the point. If there is a human with less intellectual capacity and less emotional ties than a dog does the dog by this metric have more rights to life? I was merely giving a coma to give a direct example rather than keeping it abstract.
@@cdogthehedgehog6923 No I feel I am being intellectually honest by acknowledging that the only reason humans consider intelligence as the main measure of worth is entirely illogical, and simply based on the fact it is the only easily identifiable advantage we have. There is no justifiable logic to say that degree of intelligence is how we should measure worth, and even if there was, very few humans abide by it WITHIN the species. Most parents value the life of their dumb child over an intelligent stranger, and many would even value the life of their pet dog over a stranger.
The point at which intelligence has been measured to be worthy of the right to life just so happens to be when it crosses into the threshold of human capacity, almost as if intelligence was a post-hoc justification to continue to treat animals as inferior.
Intelligent is only worth anything to us because we are intelligent, not because we sat down and had a deep philosophical debate and concluded it was objectively the true measure of the right to life. In fact given that the expansion of intelligence has led us into potential extinction would suggest that its worth is entirely contextual and not absolute. A dog may not be able to write an opera or unlock the mechanisms of the universe but it also cannot commit genocide or cleverly work out ways to fake scientific findings to present an unsafe practice as safe, or able to drain the worlds limited resources and generate untold suffering. Intelligence may get us out of it but it is just as if not more likely that it won't, and human intelligence will continue to be used to manipulate those less intelligent.
It's almost as if valuing intelligence as the right to life and accepting arbitrary boundaries might lead to some of the most intelligence minds who lack compassion to temper their imaginings, to see less intelligent humans as having less of a right to life than them for the same reason everyone else applies this to animals. All they are doing is moving that arbitrary boundary.
there were some REALLY hard hitting questions!
So far this is the best discussion about veganism i've heard. You really address a lot of the objections that i had. Like the aim to minimize harm. Minimizing means finding the minimum and i haven't seen a single vegan, who does that. After all in the industrial production of plant based products we kill a lot of animals. So if we really wanted to minimize deaths or suffering, then we'd get rid of unnecessary vegan articles as well (no more clothes than needed, no alcohol, no tabacco, no "beauty products", maybe no spices, no food with low nutritional value etc.).
I'm not a vegan by the way. But i absolutely see the need to move towards veganism. Compared to before i'm almost 100 percent vegetarian and probably about 90 percent vegan.
Anyways, best debate so far. You've really addressed a lot and you made the vegan debate a lot more honest.
No clue how you can stop being vegan once you realize animals deserve moral consideration. Makes no sense.
18:38 well you still have to name the trait. You wouldnt say that eating a huge bodybuilder per year is a good thing to do just bcs it causes less deaths.
Great conversation 👏
I love this two gentlemen. What an intelligent and thought provoking discussion.
Great to see you two speak once again - Alex convinced me of veganism and I'm a year and a half (ish) strong at this point.
Keep up the great work, looking forward to seeing what you guys think this time around!
Same! One year strong!
Same! Went vegan in august 2019 Bc of alex :)
Same ☺️
I knew you would stop the vegan thing at some point. Public figures usually do. Not saying you weren’t genuine about it. It’s just hard for me to not assume at this point.
Because they wake up from the indoctrination the vegan cult inflicts.
you have no idea how much i absolutely adore both of you.
Awesome conversation!
So glad to see this. You both have inspired me to immerse myself far further in vegan activism than I would otherwise. Thank you for all that you do!
I think that the reason why it is hard to admit that a suffering panda might have more moral worth in a pleasure/pain framework is because we don't "want" to kill the human. There is a suffering that we incur by having to kill a member of our "in-group" weather that be species or tribe.
I refer to this as the Hummingbird Problem: Would a moral hummingbird decide that a human should be killed over a another hummingbird?
I believe that our sense of morality depends on what feels good for us. Often we feel good about being "moral" in our sense of pleasure and suffering but it's quite hard to consider killing a human due to the visceral reaction we have as well as the social blacklash.
Exactly
Such a wonderfully stimulating conversation! I continuously find that discussions between vegans are an excellent place to look for an in-depth intellectual discussion on topics of morality, while discussions between vegans and non-vegans are enlightening regarding the intricacies of human psychology and cognitive dissonance mechanisms in particular. Listening to both kinds of conversations is crucial for improving vegan advocacy.
Thanks for the podcast Alex
You can't reconsider that now! I went vegan just this week
Nice 💪
Legend!
Veganism reconsidered indeed
I love seeing you together and I learn something new every time I listen to you :-)
Great discussion. I would have liked you both to linger on antinatalism for a bit longer, or the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement perhaps. But I understand why they could be distractions from some of the other topics you did cover in greater detail. Nice work gentlemen.