BattleWalrus I answered your question. Feel free to challange that answer, but talking about "these people" will always lead to strawmaning, there ist no reason for us to take this discussion out of proportion.
You know that PhilosophyTube video where, at the end, the guy (detective-bouncer Ellys) says "You're making me think about myself. I don't want to think about myself, d'you understand? I want to get through my shift, and go home, and on the weekend, I want to get drunk and watch celtic beat the rangers. D'you hear me? I. don't. want. to think."? That's this guy. He straight-up just doesn't want to think about his morals. AMAZING.
Hey I normally listen to your content on my bike ride home from work and i just wanna say thanks. Great content friend, sorry I cant watch it live but mad support.
Animals eat other animals. Humans are animals. Smart animals kill dumber animals (chimps eat insects, bald eagles eat fish etc) does this argument hold any weight?
This is great content. I think Devin was understandably frustrated but had a pretty good attitude and would be interesting in seeing more of this sort of thing.
kakibackup2 Koujo how was he dumb or incoherent he was being bombarded with questions on a view/position he obviously hadn’t thought much about he even admitted he was inconsistent the constant yelling from avi was obnoxious I don’t see you commenting about that
PhantomXVII I say anybody who's going to come into a place feeling like they can defend their position is asking for it. Don't come knocking if you ain't ready to throw down .
L Holliday my main point was avi is obnoxious with his constant yelling and constant entrapment he try’s to bait devin into saying something so he can pin him as an idiot
I really liked that you didn’t gloat or ridiculed him but tried to guide him through to his processes (even if he resisted 😅) Hopefully he’s going to think about it and come to the conclusion ❤️ Well done guys!
What would be the counterpoint to the following argument for permitting meat-eating? > Humans are the most powerful and intelligent species on the planet > Therefore humans get to arbitrarily assign value or roles to other species > Some species are valued more arbitrarily due to their cuteness (which we happen to connect with more emotionally.) Some species are valued more for their worth as food because they are delicious and we don't connect or empathize with them as much. > If all-powerful aliens come to earth, becoming the new dominant species, and deem us to be "food" because they find us delicious then so be it.
Put simply eating meat is speciesist. I use a thought experiment for this. A mad man has captured a small human child, and a dog. The mad man has them each standing on a trap door leading to a spiked pit. He requests that you choose the dog, or the child to be dropped into the spiked pit. Which do you choose? Is the choice inconsistent? How this thought experiment might apply to reality is debatable, but it does show how human choice about species is inherently speciesist. You can put whatever on the trap doors. You can put a handicapped person on one side, and a giraffe on the other. There's a lot of intuitional measurements made in moral decisions. In the future we might have worthy meat substitutes, but in the meantime the current system is too established to change. It's built on an bunch of intuitions of speciesism. Also tu quoque is not a good way to argue. Hypocrisy is not a compelling argument. If a smoker says smoking is unhealthy their hypocrisy doesn't make them wrong, nor make all health advice wrong by extension.
"Also tu quoque is not a good way to argue. Hypocrisy is not a compelling argument. If a smoker says smoking is unhealthy their hypocrisy doesn't make them wrong, nor make all health advice wrong by extension." Then you don't understand what is going on under the hood when someone is testing for consistency. If you're starting to give analogous examples to see if the logic holds true, you've tacitly admitted that their argument is both sound and valid. Fallacies only address whether arguments are sound or valid; a tu quoque would be relevant if you're still addressing their argument directly, but testing for consistency has moved past that. You're looking at the extensions you can draw from the values a person holds and their logic and seeing if they remain comfortable, which they can easily accept if they want to. The reason you see this so much in ethical discussions is because so much is based in unjustified axioms that anyone can generate to make an argument for something. I could come up with an argument right now to kill all black people and it would be sound and valid, but unless I'm basically suicidal I couldn't be consistent on it. Basically, "you say you value a, and you used b logic to get to c, but can you really be comfortable with a and b if they also get you to d?" No where in here did the person directly attack a -> b -> c because it's really hard when a is unjustified and b is valid, but d is possibly a problem and the arguer has to deal with the fallout.
The hypocrisy was used to validity the accusation of inconsistency. Valid consistency is about logical consistency. There's no need to use the word hypocrisy if what you're critical of is logical inconsistency. All accusations of hypocrisy are used to show inconsistency so saying you're doing that is not novel. > "You're looking at the extensions you can draw from the values a person holds and their logic and seeing if they remain comfortable" That's a valid method of testing a person's isolated beliefs, but you can't apply that consistently because a given person can feel uncomfortable about something you wouldn't, or feel uncomfortable for a different reason than you would assume. That's another reason why citing hypocrisy is an invalid method of argument. At best you've shown a psychological event which only shows the event, and alone isn't evidence for your argument. > "The reason you see this so much in ethical discussions is because so much is based in unjustified axioms" But you'd have to justify yours as well before challenging others unless you still don't think appealing to hypocrisy is bad. > " I could come up with an argument right now to kill all black people and it would be sound and valid, but unless I'm basically suicidal I couldn't be consistent on it" You could also be consistent, and still be wrong. Perhaps your mind breaks, and you just want to kill everything that's alive. At that point you have nothing to compare in order to reference hypocrisy. The logical conclusion of your hypothetical is that hypocrisy doesn't matter. You're trying to smuggle in an equivocation of consistency with hypocrisy. There are people who go to war that call war hell. Those people can be advocates of defense, but not advocates of war. What you're doing is like saying advocates of defense are also advocates of war. The externalities are alien to you which is why here you've implied hypocrisy is the main argument against what you deem immoral acts. I"m willing to bet that the average person the majority of the time doesn't make moral decisions based on hypocrisy. If presented with a button that kills all black people instantly their first thought isn't going to be "Is it hypocritical of me to push this?". They'll be thinking something more like "These people are human just like me. There's no good reason for me to push this button.". To me it just seems like you're implying "It feels bad for you to think about so you should think it's bad". That's just subjectivism. Nothing wrong with that, but then you might have you're work cut out for you if you don't hold to subjectivism as your belief. > "Basically, "you say you value a, and you used b logic to get to c, but can you really be comfortable with a and b if they also get you to d?"" Comfort isn't accurate enough to determine much morally. It can start a hypothesis, but isn't a conclusion to anything. See my thought experiment to understand. Choose to drop the small child, or the dog, and either way a given person might feel uncomfortable. We are only somewhat consistently uncomfortable because our experiences are often isolated, and not dependent on a hard choice.
It's so simple to see that by being hypocritical, you can't, in good faith, ask others not to be, and by extending this thought, no matter the moral issue, you can't dissuade people from being hypocritical on any particular moral subject. I personally see "life coaches" as a joke of misplaced confidence and of egotistical projection existing only to assuage the insecurities of the average idiot; they really rustle my jimmies.
It sounded to me like the argument was more defense of being a life coach and being good on the balance. Which is where I agree with you, life coaches are of dubious value, so saying that murder is made up for by making some people a little fitter was not very satisfying, to say the least.
Cj, that seems to be another issue altogether. The color of the pot and kettle are factual claims, whereas the hypocrisy being discussed here are normative or moral claims, which Devin admits to being wrong about. It's more like the pot saying, "I know I'm black, but we both should be righteous copper."
But the vegan is hypocritical as well. To believe in minimizing suffering as much as possible he must also hold the belief that all life should end as quickly and swiftly as possible to prevent future suffering, and certainly that no future beings should be brought into the world. You can throw this autistic black and white reasoning right back at the vegan.
I don't think anyone made such a specific utilitarian claim, and I know Destiny specifically is not a utilitarian, and on top of that your specific objection is commonly discussed and has many resolutions. I think you uncharitably mischaracterize the argument by calling it "autistic black and white reasoning".
"Yeah I can dismiss a hypothetical LOL." "What do you mean that it's a fallacy?" "Yes I'm literally too stupid to make a proper logical argument why this hypothetical is bad and I just can be fucked to think for a bit" Literally natural law in a fucking nutshell.
I think you could make a very good attempt at getting a vegan to admit that they participate in other immoral systems, e.g. exploitation of poor people around the globe when they by products from large multinationals, which basically thrusts them into the same position as Devin of being hypocritical in their moral positions. Which I think is the position he takes. Unfortunately in this discussion he very quickly cedes the ground that the vegan is morally consistent.
You won't get vegans on this one. Most of them are for boycotting exploitive companies as much as possible. You can't just go into it assuming they'll be a hypocrite, that would work with any moral position. You could do the same thing to someone arguing in favour of buying sex slaves.
Devin's response of "I don't care about that" is perfect to summarize the relevance of hypothetically murdering a cat just because you can versus slaughtering cows food. He should said, though: "Your question is a non-sequitur" as the topic and the question are not intrinsically relevant to each other. Being okay with torturing and killing a cat isn't the same thing as being okay with farming animals for consumption. Yes there are practices which equate to torturing pigs, cows and chickens (et cetera), but your problem there isn't slaughtering the animals to be butchered; it's the manner in which you raise and later slaughter the livestock. Maybe instead of telling people they should stop eating meat, we should be spending our energy on ending practices which harm the animal (perhaps to the point of slaughtering animals via lethal injection, i,e, with a chemical agent that prevents oxygen from bonding with hemoglobin, and therefore the animal suffocates without ever feeling short of breath). The point is, he's asking a question which presupposes a lot of prior prejudices, which aren't always accurate if the two situations were meticulously compared.
In a purely logic-based moral system with no axioms, every possible action is moraly neutral. Axioms are therefore chosen subjectively, based on the personality of the person choosing. Hence, every moral system, that produces outcomes different from moraly neutral is rooted in subjectivity. As a society, something like a weighted average over all people's moral systems, seems to be a sufficent solution.
Devin, recognizing that answering your opponents question honestly is gonna make you lose the debate is not a counter-argument! At that point it's time to rethink your position. Also after Devin said he does "enough good" to justify eating meat why didn't he just take the argument to the extreme? If Devin complains about scale why not use this example: A man lives in a cave, just walks around and helps people, never buys anything, lives of the fruits of the forest, is a vegan, never drives cars etc. the best person who ever lived. But once a year this person goes into the city and stabs a dude. Just for fun. Asked about this the man says "Yeah it's bad but I think I did enough good to justify it" What would be the respone to that? You can't complain about scale, it's one live a year in exchange for all the good. The only reply imo would be that the murders are in no way connected to the good he is doing. He could keep doing good and just not stab the person and he probably should. Same goes for Devin and meat.
I think Devin held up well insofar as he admitted where his rhetorical weaknesses were and where he was working from emotion, not reason. Still, I would love to see him come back with some stronger arguments, since I found the ones he presented lacking. I was on his side at first for refusing to answer the cat-torture question, but when the conversation got going his arguments showed some crippling flaws, or at least unconsidered inconsistencies. But that's what discussion and debate are for! Looking forward to part 2.
I continue to respect him after this, but it definitely didn't increase my respect any LUL He got completely triggered and didn't seem capable of grappling with the moral arguments being thrown at him - his defense was him saying "Fine I'm a terrible person then BUT actually I'm not because I do good in other ways."
Yeah, it's a little sad because there actually are perfectly reasonable belief systems and values consistent with eating animals, but to completely reason with yourself the specifics of that requires a deep understanding of philosophy and a lot of thought about the issue. Which most people aren't equipped for/can be arsed to do. It's kind of an entirely different ethical situation of "should people be forced to hold 'common man beliefs' because of the low bar to entry", because everyone can understand it, but only people that actually do philosophy can hold other beliefs, even if those other beliefs are 100% valid. (Having watched how it happened, I honestly feel like the way that destiny got convinced that veganism had some overwhelming moral superiority was some philosophical sleight-of-hand, and then the situation snowballing from there.)
I think you can resolve most of the glaring contradictions of eating meat and caring about the well-being of animals, especially pets, by taking the stance that killing animals in a relatively humane way is ok (e.g. captive bolt gun to the head or a well placed gunshot but not skinning alive), a big part of the value of a pet is the happiness it brings its owner, and you don't distinguish between which animals are ok to eat.
I ordered soy coffee today and I think it had cow milk in it. I didn’t notice until like half way because I had caramel syrup in it because I like sweet stuff and that overpowered a lot of the flavour. Once I noticed the taste I realised I didn’t like it but overall the coffee was alright. So my question is, if the reason why I’m vegan is to lessen my contribution to animal farming by not buying certain products but the product has been purchased is it morally wrong to continue drinking the coffee? (I have a limited budget and I don’t like wasting things)
No, for the same reason it's not morally wrong to eat food out of the trash. If you've already contributed the money (And you can't refund it) whether you drink it or not will have no affect on if animals are harmed. So might as well.
Hannah Smith I would say that not financially supporting these industries is just one, even though very important, aspect to vegan ethics. Another, I think, is deciding not to ingest food knowing that unjustifiable practices went into it. If you went half way through eating a veggie burger and then found out that human remains were in it, you would most likely not continue eating just to save money. But I admire that at least you are putting thought into what you are consuming. If you are on a limited budget and don't have other options then I don't anyone could begrudge you for consuming animal products. Niggas gotta eat.
fred fuchs that also makes sense, I have some thinking to do. So far I have come to the idea of lessening negative impact on world e.g. walking, riding and taking public transport, recycling, using reusable cups for take away and buying vegan products. I’m still in the thinking process when it comes to taking it further and how much obligation I have to future generations.
hes basically a league streamer living in korea. the keyboard meme comes from his spamming of tab and f keys, what is actually really useful in LoL. some dumb silvers started memeing about it cuz they dont understand the game.
Kid in Bed So this is LS or what? The second part of my comment were just for the trolls. I have watched LS alot, This guy sounds alot like him alot of the time though there are moments his voice changes
Something which should have been suggested is that vegans can still pay indirectly for industries which kill animals. What if you pay for a plane ticket at an airport which involved the destruction of animal habitats, or use biofuels which were produced by destruction of forests? Is it possible to avoid indirectly funding the killing of animals? I say this while slowly going vegan(slowly because it's hard).
I think Devin's main argument was "opportunity costs". The time and energy and will and ressources he has to invest in completely quitting meat is too much for him. He prefers to invest that into something where he can have a bigger impact. No issue ever exists in a vacuum, that's why it's ridiculous to debate it as if it would. He seems to have made the argument that every human should create as much good as possible. Like a karma point system. Some do it by not eating meat, others invest in very different areas. Handicapped people were mentioned multiple times. Well, we already treat them like sub-humans, put them in homes and don't include them into society. Why not invest spare time and ressources you save from eating animals into actually bettering the life of handicapped people? It's more about building up the karma-score than demanding that someone gains points solely through eating vegan. I'd add the argument that we only eat animals that are specifically created to be eaten by us. Therefore eating meat creates life. Short, often tortured life, but nonetheless life. Going vegan is anti-life. You can counter that by pointing at climate change. The effects of the meat industry might kill more life through green house gases than through slaughter. And it was only hinted at that not every life is equal. Even vegans shower and therefore kill bacteria, mass-murders happen all the time by simply walking on grass... So you have to define what kind of life is worth defending first. Assuming that one bacteria is worth one human looks flawed. This was a purely theoretical debate. The problem with those is, that you can rationalize absolutely everything, when you leave the real world behind. That's what alt-right trolls do. Devin seems to have tried to implement pragmatic approaches in a real world scenario and that's why he got overwhelmed. Both had fundamentally different debates in mind - one theoretical, one pragmatic. There are too many factors as to simply state that someone is a horrible human being for eating meat - society, upbringing, our human DNA, preferences,... What if someone cuts back 90% of one's meat consumption and becomes a spokesperson for cutting back? For environmental reasons, health reasons, moral reasons,... By not taking the radical position and not calling everyone a horrible person, that spokesperson might reach thousands of people and therefore save millions of animal lives (or not, since they never get bred) - way more than going vegan and reaching no one by attacking them in bad faith. - Some offense.
What is your moral system? It is an abstraction you hold over yourself to follow, you split your identity and have this internal outside you want to identify with. You can incorrectly follow your moral system, but by acknowledging there is one, you make it exist as a position. You then can be a hypocrite and a terrible person, but only in the view of the moral system, which exists as a position different than your current condition which identifies by it. Other people may see you as a terrible person, but they can acknowledge the validity of the system itself. You are not taking people by purely their actions, but you look at what moral systems they are tending to and identifying with. You may be a different person, different identity, but you keep the moral system intact as it is pure in its abstract form, and so you can find truth in it and follow it.
You guys realize that saying a person cannot compelle another person away from torturing a kitten if he isn't vegan, that's an insane argument to make you guys know right?
Anyone can feel free to respond, and I'm asking because I'm curious and not trolling...but how can you argue that killing animals is similar to raping women and then have no problem in doing so? I don't get how you can live or would want anyone to live in a society with standards like that. I mean, how could you ever justify that position to anyone?
I think the moral relevancy is if the being is loved by another human. I wouldn't harm a disabled person because they are loved by their parents, family etc. I wouldn't harm a dog cause (assuming its not a stray) they are loved by their owner. I would probably try a dog in china but since i would have an emotional connection to my own dogs, i would feel like im harming a being that is loved by the same being of my pet. I don't have an emotional connection to cows and since the farmers dont care about them on an individual level, I know they won't be missed by a being that is of my or any animal that i have an emotional connection with species. I dont care if bugs die because there's no emotional connection. I care more about canadians dying than americans dying because i have an emotional connection to canadians. Do i want americans to die? Of course not, but there's not going to be this feeling of loss if a random american dies compared to if a random canadian died. If i cared about every single being that dies i our world then id probably hang myself out of misery.
comes down to why meat eaters value humans more than animals, no? humans have episodic memory, can animals even have happiness or experience suffering without episodic memory?, human emotions( more than just the shit animals feel), language and culture, ability to be ethical, compassion empathy? theory of mind? am i retarded?
Personally I do not care, animals are not capable of reciprocating any rights, or benefits we would provide for them, hence there is no benefit in doing that to my species or myself. I regard animals solely in regards to utility to my species or myself. Which is ironically why I am against factory farming cause in the end that is having a negative effect on my species. And yes, I killed animals myself, gutted them and skinned them and I see nothing wrong with that. Neither do I consider killing humans given the right circumstances. A robber enters my home, an enemy soldier etc etc. Do I consider myself a good person? I don't waste time to regard subjective things much unless there is a benefit to me, hence the answer is, I do not care.
Cloud Of Time In what context? In the context of my claim it would be beneficial to not care. I personally do not see value in caring for that in general.
His justification for killing animals previously was that they experienced a less complex form of consciousness, therefore it is justifiable to kill them but mentally handicapped people with an IQ of 20-40 or something has a comparable state of consciousness to that of an animal.
This guy was a real smoothbrain, like he realises the logic of why eating meat is unethical, but he still thinks of it as some minor felony morally speaking and expects that vegans will see it the same way. The cognitive dissonance is real.
The example at the end where a random guy decides he wants to kill Devin proves Devin's point in the difference between people and animals since an animal would not be able to object to being murdered in that situation (cognitive ability). Also that example was pretty bad at proving Avi's (spelling?) point since the murder in that situation does not provide any benefit.
How is an animal unable to object two being murdered? Because they can't talk or write? I think you might want to rethink that position. Also, the murder would provide benefit if it provides happiness or nutrition or a nice leather couch or whatever. Does that now justify the murder according to you?
Partially yes. They cannot object because they cannot speak (also "to" not "two"), but also they don't have the cognitive ability to understand their situation. Using the same example, if a random murderer is in a room with a gun talking to a cow vs. talking to Devin, then Devin will be able to object to his murder after assessing the situation while the cow would continue on with being a cow. As for the benefit part, that is exactly what I am talking about. A murder against an animal that provides benefit is better than a murder for pleasure, or in the example, for no reason at all. In the example given, the murderer gains nothing from murdering Devin, but if he was given a sum of money (any other benefit, etc.) it would edge towards a gray area.
@@peyton32617 is it ok to murder a blind dumb (unable to speak) person? Is it ok to murder a person in a come? Is it ok to murder the specific mentally disabled people that wouldn't be able to object to bring murdered in a way that is better than how a cow could?
So wait how is destiny learning about philosophy? Is he reading articles and having people teach him or is he encountering philosophy head on by reading works themselves?
He often talks about reading Wikipedia, and I've read them, too. They're pretty good. Granted, I did take some philosophy classes in college, but just a couple, so take that as you will.
Hmmmm, it's okay at getting the simple tl;dr of ideas. But it's better to encounter shit more up front. You'll never pick up the nuances of Kant's Deontology or another moral system if you never read the texts tbh. But thats just my opinion from reading this stuff in my free time. /lecture mode
Sunny Day but if you apply the same logic to purchasing goods from company’s that perpetuate the suffering of people around the world you are also morally inconsistent as you are contributing economically to suffering.
Here is a valid reason for the different treatment of non-human animals and human There is a trait that is absent in an animal but not in humans and that trait is having a rational nature which is defined as “the ends/telos of a being when fully developed will become a conscious,rational creature”.This trait effectively includes all humans even the mentally disabled and exclude all non-human animals that we currently know of. Prima facia wrongness of killing humans will come from the human having a telos of being a rational creature and if we as humans were to kill another human or any other beings with such telos/ends without good reason,it would show the vice of not respecting the source of our will which we have taken as valuable as a thing in itself to make our judgement.This reasoning doesn’t really apply to other non-human animals that we currently know of. (There are also other good reason not the kill humans that only apply to humans and not animal). Even if you say the trait is sentient you are still excluding comatose patients,rare mentally disabled and sleeping humans.The name the trait is really just a weaker version of the argument from marginal cases.The argument above doesn’t really get you what you want.Since exploitation of something doesn’t necessarily really whether or not the thing/being/it has a trait or not.
NUFCIvan The problem here is your mistaking rationality for IQ which they are just different things and can’t be compared in the first place. It’s also quite arrogant of you to assume I don’t value the telos of it. How the hell can you make that statement for me.I even gave a reason why we should value the telos as a thing-in-of-itself.
NUFCIvan Rational nature -“the ends of a being when fully developed will become a conscious and rational creature” Rational creature -“beings with the ability to used practical reason, instrumental rationality and rational deliberation” Practical reason - “capacity for resolving, through reflection, the question of what one is to do. Deliberation of this kind is practical in at least two senses. First, it is practical in its subject matter, insofar as it is concerned with action. But it is also practical in its consequences or its issue, insofar as reflection about action itself directly moves people to act.” Instrumental rationality - “being able to adopt suitable means to he/her/it’s ends. Rational deliberation - “when ones acts in accordance with willing one’s values when deliberation is sensitive to one's own judgments concerning what is best in the circumstances to there own ends, whether or not one acts upon such a judgment. It is not related to IQ.Since IQ is just representing on how well they do it.But even then I think IQ is Bullshit a concept in the first place.
NUFCIvan why does it matter if someone can use it better than another?I never made that claim in the first place. You can remove telos of a human?That like saying that a audio speaker doesn’t have a function to play sound,but of course you can say that you can break the speaker and it will never make a sound again but that doesn’t change the fact of the matter that a speakers function is to play sound and the same is of a human which always have a function to become a conscious and rational creature.The medically impaired humans are always wrong in some way which you guys use to compared it to other animals but that just a ad hoc conditions that you add without good reason for the comparison in the first place.the argument I gave only say that we should not kill such beings with a rational nature without good reason. I never said that animals aren’t morally relevant your that one who came to that conclusion on your own.Even than you have no justification for saying why sentient is of any moral value.
To think that you can judge animals or eating them with the same moral categories like you judge humens or even „Handicap“ humens is realy the stupidest thing i ve ever heared.
destiny i hope you were having more fun and enjoyment than anything you could possibly could have been doing when you were talking to devin because if you weren't i guess you have to stop being friends with him lmao
I am so confused, why they assumed that an animal life is equal to a human life since the start of the disscusion without saying it? I think animal lifes are worthless for the exeption of the flesh and human bonds. The same way humans are worthless for the exeption of social construction, human potential and human bond So anyone that will be watching this disscusion and thinks more or less like my first point just dont watch this shit, so dissapointed they assumed it without talking.
Dunno how I feel about this one. Isn't this just like arguing with a religious guy and telling him he can't make any moral arguments because his world view is inconsistent? Guess I have to read more about the principle of explosion.
You don't need to be morally consistent for your position to have validity. I could have a moral principle of acting nice to everyone except those who would try to fuck me over or other people. This is an exception - a moral inconsistency. Does this invalidate my good treatment of other people aside from those who don't deserve it? No. Does this mean I cannot compel people to coordinate themselves within a moral manner? No. Exceptions show you're human, and being a robot isn't practical. It's not effective in real application. It does more harm than good in some cases of religiously applying an unbending dogma. Life has nuances that demand the application of an exception of 'moral inconsistency.' You don't need to extrapolate the acceptance of killing other animals to killing mentally handicapped beings when we have been desensitized to the notion of killing and eating animals due to tradition. Far as I'm concerned, things should be taken as a case-by-case basis, and not misrepresented by extrapolating contextualised beliefs to situations where it would not apply. Context matters.
Unless you're prepared to argue all levels and instances of hypocracy are equal the idea that you can't convince people to not be hypocrites if you are one yourself is an extremely dumb position to adopt. Granted that all people are some level of hypocritical, then no one should be able to convince anyone of anything. I could just as well say vegans can't convince me to care about animal suffering because vegans are hypocrates who live in a human ecosystem that is built upon the destruction of the natural habitats of animals and by extension the deaths and suffering of countless animals. Most vegans would argue this is a nirvana fallacy, which it might very well be, so which one is it? Scale of hypocracy is important. I might not be able to argue or advocate total consistency from someone failing to do the same myself, but I could argue and advocate that people should uphold the same level of consistency I attempt to uphold with the caveat I'll be okay with similar levels of hypocracy I myself exhibit, but not beyond. The assertion that the hypocracy of meat eaters in selectively not eating humans or being against killing humans is comporable to the hypocracy of a person killing people while arguing murder is wrong being comporable is never fielded in this debate, and so can be rejected by default. In either case - The would you be okay with "eating braindead humans" argument is disingenuous as fuck. When a vegan decides it's okay to eat plants, the moral standard for that decission, at least as far as cognizance is concerned, equally commits them to be okay with the consumption of braindead humans, or animals for that sake. It's a meaningless emotional appeal. Also, a very big difference between handicapped humans and lower cognition animals - Handicapped humans are related to non handicapped humans who don't suffer reduced cognition, and not all handicapped humans are born handicapped or will remain at reduced capacity until death. I.E handicapped humans are not representative of the natural and mean average state of humans. A cat or cow is not and never will be cognitive on par with a natural human representative, hence we are clearly not equal - hence we are clearly not warranted in thinking of the two as equivalent.
If I need to kill the animal to eat I won't do that but If already there to eat and its good why I'm not going to eat? I'm 1 person between 7billion. My impact is just relevant because most people eat meat. If its not from a human why would you care? (I'm not native english)
"I can handle it" famous last words if I ever heard it
Stumped by the first question.
LOL spot on
All these debates ever prove is that we need to give philosophy classes to kids as early as possible
True that
Prytherch that will only make is worse
Prytherch yes please
Prytherch fuck no
100% agree!
Intro: How did it all go wrong so fast?
Me: nice clickbait
Me 2 minutes later: that WAS fast
Destiny brings on Destiny to debate Devin
I know it doesn't look like this on the surface, but the truth is I really love Steven and Devin because they are both buddy my dudes.
Avi are you ok with being vegan and kill Spiders/bugs? Eksdee
What's up buddy
BattleWalrus yes. Someone killing a person to save another person is less of a moral wrong than someone killing another person for fun.
BattleWalrus I answered your question. Feel free to challange that answer, but talking about "these people" will always lead to strawmaning, there ist no reason for us to take this discussion out of proportion.
herpderpmonkey that's an appeal to tradition, which, when discussing how things should be, holds no value
I'm still waiting for Destiny to falsify the Christian God tbh
SIR SIR SIR
Girrafe Man You mean a defeater?
He never justified his axiomatic beliefs. He said that God doesn't exist because of "I don't know"
Please stop
Destiny is the one true god!
the first 2 minutes is the best devin content of all time
Do you think it’s wrong to kill a cat? “I don’t care about this shit” 😂😂😂😂
"yea i dont care about that" laughed so hard
Oh my god, I think destiny moderating somebody elses debate might be my new favorite thing holy shit
13:17 "I AM a terrible person! *doo doo doo doo doo DOOO!"
Devin lasted 10 seconds in this debate.
Devin was dropping some heavyweight memes in this debate
You know that PhilosophyTube video where, at the end, the guy (detective-bouncer Ellys) says "You're making me think about myself. I don't want to think about myself, d'you understand? I want to get through my shift, and go home, and on the weekend, I want to get drunk and watch celtic beat the rangers. D'you hear me? I. don't. want. to think."? That's this guy. He straight-up just doesn't want to think about his morals. AMAZING.
In my opinion at the end of the day Devin answered correctly by saying he is just emotional but that is where the problem lies.
Seems like Destiny cloned himself twice and the smarter clone debated the other no so smart one.
This was hilarious and educational. Good shit
something something got destroyed in this argument
Barnabas no he didnt!!
HONESTLY these arguments are convincing me to go vegan so I won’t have to defend my moral inconsistencies. 😣
NayshunNinja Vegans aren’t morally inconsistent lmao. Meat eaters are. And I’m a meat eater
Just say that you're vegan, and tell people that it's a special case when they point out when you consume animal products.
I'm a vegan except for raw game
Hey I normally listen to your content on my bike ride home from work and i just wanna say thanks. Great content friend, sorry I cant watch it live but mad support.
DO YOU STILL WATCH ?
@@lopolo5361 yeye, hes not hyper debate bro anymore but still solid content
Animals eat other animals. Humans are animals. Smart animals kill dumber animals (chimps eat insects, bald eagles eat fish etc) does this argument hold any weight?
This is great content. I think Devin was understandably frustrated but had a pretty good attitude and would be interesting in seeing more of this sort of thing.
Understandably frustrated? Nope he was just dumb and incoherent
kakibackup2 Koujo how was he dumb or incoherent he was being bombarded with questions on a view/position he obviously hadn’t thought much about he even admitted he was inconsistent the constant yelling from avi was obnoxious I don’t see you commenting about that
PhantomXVII I say anybody who's going to come into a place feeling like they can defend their position is asking for it. Don't come knocking if you ain't ready to throw down .
L Holliday my main point was avi is obnoxious with his constant yelling and constant entrapment he try’s to bait devin into saying something so he can pin him as an idiot
That intro clip took like, 2 minutes to get to in the main video, that was a fun surprise
Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised by "how did this go so wrong so quickly?!" being actually "that fucking quickly".
Im glad Destiny actually has people capable of debating on his stream. We're truly in a new golden age boys!
"I love you, you know you're my favorite" CLASSIC abuser behavior
I really liked that you didn’t gloat or ridiculed him but tried to guide him through to his processes (even if he resisted 😅)
Hopefully he’s going to think about it and come to the conclusion ❤️
Well done guys!
What would be the counterpoint to the following argument for permitting meat-eating?
> Humans are the most powerful and intelligent species on the planet
> Therefore humans get to arbitrarily assign value or roles to other species
> Some species are valued more arbitrarily due to their cuteness (which we happen to connect with more emotionally.) Some species are valued more for their worth as food because they are delicious and we don't connect or empathize with them as much.
> If all-powerful aliens come to earth, becoming the new dominant species, and deem us to be "food" because they find us delicious then so be it.
Thanks for the reply. I see what you mean. Will have to think about this some more.
Put simply eating meat is speciesist. I use a thought experiment for this. A mad man has captured a small human child, and a dog. The mad man has them each standing on a trap door leading to a spiked pit. He requests that you choose the dog, or the child to be dropped into the spiked pit. Which do you choose? Is the choice inconsistent?
How this thought experiment might apply to reality is debatable, but it does show how human choice about species is inherently speciesist. You can put whatever on the trap doors. You can put a handicapped person on one side, and a giraffe on the other. There's a lot of intuitional measurements made in moral decisions.
In the future we might have worthy meat substitutes, but in the meantime the current system is too established to change. It's built on an bunch of intuitions of speciesism.
Also tu quoque is not a good way to argue. Hypocrisy is not a compelling argument. If a smoker says smoking is unhealthy their hypocrisy doesn't make them wrong, nor make all health advice wrong by extension.
"Also tu quoque is not a good way to argue. Hypocrisy is not a compelling argument. If a smoker says smoking is unhealthy their hypocrisy doesn't make them wrong, nor make all health advice wrong by extension."
Then you don't understand what is going on under the hood when someone is testing for consistency. If you're starting to give analogous examples to see if the logic holds true, you've tacitly admitted that their argument is both sound and valid. Fallacies only address whether arguments are sound or valid; a tu quoque would be relevant if you're still addressing their argument directly, but testing for consistency has moved past that. You're looking at the extensions you can draw from the values a person holds and their logic and seeing if they remain comfortable, which they can easily accept if they want to.
The reason you see this so much in ethical discussions is because so much is based in unjustified axioms that anyone can generate to make an argument for something. I could come up with an argument right now to kill all black people and it would be sound and valid, but unless I'm basically suicidal I couldn't be consistent on it. Basically, "you say you value a, and you used b logic to get to c, but can you really be comfortable with a and b if they also get you to d?" No where in here did the person directly attack a -> b -> c because it's really hard when a is unjustified and b is valid, but d is possibly a problem and the arguer has to deal with the fallout.
The hypocrisy was used to validity the accusation of inconsistency. Valid consistency is about logical consistency. There's no need to use the word hypocrisy if what you're critical of is logical inconsistency. All accusations of hypocrisy are used to show inconsistency so saying you're doing that is not novel.
> "You're looking at the extensions you can draw from the values a person holds and their logic and seeing if they remain comfortable"
That's a valid method of testing a person's isolated beliefs, but you can't apply that consistently because a given person can feel uncomfortable about something you wouldn't, or feel uncomfortable for a different reason than you would assume. That's another reason why citing hypocrisy is an invalid method of argument. At best you've shown a psychological event which only shows the event, and alone isn't evidence for your argument.
> "The reason you see this so much in ethical discussions is because so much is based in unjustified axioms"
But you'd have to justify yours as well before challenging others unless you still don't think appealing to hypocrisy is bad.
> " I could come up with an argument right now to kill all black people and it would be sound and valid, but unless I'm basically suicidal I couldn't be consistent on it"
You could also be consistent, and still be wrong. Perhaps your mind breaks, and you just want to kill everything that's alive. At that point you have nothing to compare in order to reference hypocrisy. The logical conclusion of your hypothetical is that hypocrisy doesn't matter.
You're trying to smuggle in an equivocation of consistency with hypocrisy. There are people who go to war that call war hell. Those people can be advocates of defense, but not advocates of war. What you're doing is like saying advocates of defense are also advocates of war. The externalities are alien to you which is why here you've implied hypocrisy is the main argument against what you deem immoral acts.
I"m willing to bet that the average person the majority of the time doesn't make moral decisions based on hypocrisy. If presented with a button that kills all black people instantly their first thought isn't going to be "Is it hypocritical of me to push this?". They'll be thinking something more like "These people are human just like me. There's no good reason for me to push this button.".
To me it just seems like you're implying "It feels bad for you to think about so you should think it's bad". That's just subjectivism. Nothing wrong with that, but then you might have you're work cut out for you if you don't hold to subjectivism as your belief.
> "Basically, "you say you value a, and you used b logic to get to c, but can you really be comfortable with a and b if they also get you to d?""
Comfort isn't accurate enough to determine much morally. It can start a hypothesis, but isn't a conclusion to anything. See my thought experiment to understand. Choose to drop the small child, or the dog, and either way a given person might feel uncomfortable. We are only somewhat consistently uncomfortable because our experiences are often isolated, and not dependent on a hard choice.
It's so simple to see that by being hypocritical, you can't, in good faith, ask others not to be, and by extending this thought, no matter the moral issue, you can't dissuade people from being hypocritical on any particular moral subject.
I personally see "life coaches" as a joke of misplaced confidence and of egotistical projection existing only to assuage the insecurities of the average idiot; they really rustle my jimmies.
It sounded to me like the argument was more defense of being a life coach and being good on the balance. Which is where I agree with you, life coaches are of dubious value, so saying that murder is made up for by making some people a little fitter was not very satisfying, to say the least.
Just cause a pot calls a kettle black doesn't make the pot wrong
Cj, that seems to be another issue altogether. The color of the pot and kettle are factual claims, whereas the hypocrisy being discussed here are normative or moral claims, which Devin admits to being wrong about. It's more like the pot saying, "I know I'm black, but we both should be righteous copper."
But the vegan is hypocritical as well. To believe in minimizing suffering as much as possible he must also hold the belief that all life should end as quickly and swiftly as possible to prevent future suffering, and certainly that no future beings should be brought into the world. You can throw this autistic black and white reasoning right back at the vegan.
I don't think anyone made such a specific utilitarian claim, and I know Destiny specifically is not a utilitarian, and on top of that your specific objection is commonly discussed and has many resolutions. I think you uncharitably mischaracterize the argument by calling it "autistic black and white reasoning".
"Yeah I can dismiss a hypothetical LOL."
"What do you mean that it's a fallacy?"
"Yes I'm literally too stupid to make a proper logical argument why this hypothetical is bad and I just can be fucked to think for a bit"
Literally natural law in a fucking nutshell.
I think you could make a very good attempt at getting a vegan to admit that they participate in other immoral systems, e.g. exploitation of poor people around the globe when they by products from large multinationals, which basically thrusts them into the same position as Devin of being hypocritical in their moral positions. Which I think is the position he takes. Unfortunately in this discussion he very quickly cedes the ground that the vegan is morally consistent.
Thats smart im stealing this one
You won't get vegans on this one. Most of them are for boycotting exploitive companies as much as possible. You can't just go into it assuming they'll be a hypocrite, that would work with any moral position. You could do the same thing to someone arguing in favour of buying sex slaves.
Devin's response of "I don't care about that" is perfect to summarize the relevance of hypothetically murdering a cat just because you can versus slaughtering cows food. He should said, though: "Your question is a non-sequitur" as the topic and the question are not intrinsically relevant to each other.
Being okay with torturing and killing a cat isn't the same thing as being okay with farming animals for consumption. Yes there are practices which equate to torturing pigs, cows and chickens (et cetera), but your problem there isn't slaughtering the animals to be butchered; it's the manner in which you raise and later slaughter the livestock. Maybe instead of telling people they should stop eating meat, we should be spending our energy on ending practices which harm the animal (perhaps to the point of slaughtering animals via lethal injection, i,e, with a chemical agent that prevents oxygen from bonding with hemoglobin, and therefore the animal suffocates without ever feeling short of breath).
The point is, he's asking a question which presupposes a lot of prior prejudices, which aren't always accurate if the two situations were meticulously compared.
Damn he really took it to heart.
philosophical lightweights
In a purely logic-based moral system with no axioms, every possible action is moraly neutral. Axioms are therefore chosen subjectively, based on the personality of the person choosing. Hence, every moral system, that produces outcomes different from moraly neutral is rooted in subjectivity. As a society, something like a weighted average over all people's moral systems, seems to be a sufficent solution.
Devin, recognizing that answering your opponents question honestly is gonna make you lose the debate is not a counter-argument! At that point it's time to rethink your position.
Also after Devin said he does "enough good" to justify eating meat why didn't he just take the argument to the extreme? If Devin complains about scale why not use this example:
A man lives in a cave, just walks around and helps people, never buys anything, lives of the fruits of the forest, is a vegan, never drives cars etc. the best person who ever lived. But once a year this person goes into the city and stabs a dude. Just for fun. Asked about this the man says "Yeah it's bad but I think I did enough good to justify it"
What would be the respone to that? You can't complain about scale, it's one live a year in exchange for all the good. The only reply imo would be that the murders are in no way connected to the good he is doing. He could keep doing good and just not stab the person and he probably should. Same goes for Devin and meat.
Also being a hypocrite morally doesnt automatically make you a murderer so.. thats a hysterical argumnt.
Using the word 'Slaughter' is emotionally charged language
Will anyone defend plants ?
These kind of conversations are why religion was created.
I actually respect Devin more after this discussion. I thought he held his own very well under the constant barrage.
Nope you are just biased since you incoherent in the same way devin is
He needs to read a some basic philosophy. The guy is completely confused about pretty much every aspect of his argument
I think Devin held up well insofar as he admitted where his rhetorical weaknesses were and where he was working from emotion, not reason. Still, I would love to see him come back with some stronger arguments, since I found the ones he presented lacking. I was on his side at first for refusing to answer the cat-torture question, but when the conversation got going his arguments showed some crippling flaws, or at least unconsidered inconsistencies. But that's what discussion and debate are for! Looking forward to part 2.
I continue to respect him after this, but it definitely didn't increase my respect any LUL He got completely triggered and didn't seem capable of grappling with the moral arguments being thrown at him - his defense was him saying "Fine I'm a terrible person then BUT actually I'm not because I do good in other ways."
Yeah, it's a little sad because there actually are perfectly reasonable belief systems and values consistent with eating animals, but to completely reason with yourself the specifics of that requires a deep understanding of philosophy and a lot of thought about the issue. Which most people aren't equipped for/can be arsed to do.
It's kind of an entirely different ethical situation of "should people be forced to hold 'common man beliefs' because of the low bar to entry", because everyone can understand it, but only people that actually do philosophy can hold other beliefs, even if those other beliefs are 100% valid.
(Having watched how it happened, I honestly feel like the way that destiny got convinced that veganism had some overwhelming moral superiority was some philosophical sleight-of-hand, and then the situation snowballing from there.)
Next week: destiny hosts a debate between two people debating whether or not you have to be consistent in your food preferences or not!!
Who is the person other than Mylixia and Destiny? He seems really interesting and I’d like to hear more of his stuff
I think you can resolve most of the glaring contradictions of eating meat and caring about the well-being of animals, especially pets, by taking the stance that killing animals in a relatively humane way is ok (e.g. captive bolt gun to the head or a well placed gunshot but not skinning alive), a big part of the value of a pet is the happiness it brings its owner, and you don't distinguish between which animals are ok to eat.
The obvious response, given the video, is that of course our mentally handicapped humans are humanely slaughtered with a bolt gun or whatever.
Moments before disaster.
"Good Luck"
Oh god Nebraska Steve feels like a decade ago and it was only 4 years ago?
I ordered soy coffee today and I think it had cow milk in it. I didn’t notice until like half way because I had caramel syrup in it because I like sweet stuff and that overpowered a lot of the flavour. Once I noticed the taste I realised I didn’t like it but overall the coffee was alright.
So my question is, if the reason why I’m vegan is to lessen my contribution to animal farming by not buying certain products but the product has been purchased is it morally wrong to continue drinking the coffee?
(I have a limited budget and I don’t like wasting things)
No, for the same reason it's not morally wrong to eat food out of the trash. If you've already contributed the money (And you can't refund it) whether you drink it or not will have no affect on if animals are harmed. So might as well.
bill ards ok, that makes sense thank you.
Hannah Smith
I would say that not financially supporting these industries is just one, even though very important, aspect to vegan ethics.
Another, I think, is deciding not to ingest food knowing that unjustifiable practices went into it. If you went half way through eating a veggie burger and then found out that human remains were in it, you would most likely not continue eating just to save money.
But I admire that at least you are putting thought into what you are consuming. If you are on a limited budget and don't have other options then I don't anyone could begrudge you for consuming animal products. Niggas gotta eat.
fred fuchs that also makes sense, I have some thinking to do. So far I have come to the idea of lessening negative impact on world e.g. walking, riding and taking public transport, recycling, using reusable cups for take away and buying vegan products. I’m still in the thinking process when it comes to taking it further and how much obligation I have to future generations.
8:13 turn on subtitles
Devin Nash's Position 25:05
This dude sounds low key sounds like LS the guy who presses his keyboard alot and fast
-Fushisu- lmao
Memeing or just clueless?
Kid in Bed No idea who the dude is.
Not into debates hard enough as to look people up.
hes basically a league streamer living in korea. the keyboard meme comes from his spamming of tab and f keys, what is actually really useful in LoL. some dumb silvers started memeing about it cuz they dont understand the game.
Kid in Bed So this is LS or what?
The second part of my comment were just for the trolls.
I have watched LS alot, This guy sounds alot like him alot of the time though there are moments his voice changes
This is such an insane argument, he obviously, like other people, dont see animals and people on the same level.
_"No you don't torture animals or Humans"_
And no! i can have Morals without God!
this guy kinda sounds like brian wecht
Also when will there be "Buddy My Dude" T-Shirts?
The dark Deven rises
Something which should have been suggested is that vegans can still pay indirectly for industries which kill animals. What if you pay for a plane ticket at an airport which involved the destruction of animal habitats, or use biofuels which were produced by destruction of forests? Is it possible to avoid indirectly funding the killing of animals? I say this while slowly going vegan(slowly because it's hard).
Morality is just a personal preference we want to enforce on people.
I think Devin's main argument was "opportunity costs". The time and energy and will and ressources he has to invest in completely quitting meat is too much for him. He prefers to invest that into something where he can have a bigger impact. No issue ever exists in a vacuum, that's why it's ridiculous to debate it as if it would.
He seems to have made the argument that every human should create as much good as possible. Like a karma point system. Some do it by not eating meat, others invest in very different areas. Handicapped people were mentioned multiple times. Well, we already treat them like sub-humans, put them in homes and don't include them into society. Why not invest spare time and ressources you save from eating animals into actually bettering the life of handicapped people? It's more about building up the karma-score than demanding that someone gains points solely through eating vegan.
I'd add the argument that we only eat animals that are specifically created to be eaten by us. Therefore eating meat creates life. Short, often tortured life, but nonetheless life. Going vegan is anti-life.
You can counter that by pointing at climate change. The effects of the meat industry might kill more life through green house gases than through slaughter.
And it was only hinted at that not every life is equal. Even vegans shower and therefore kill bacteria, mass-murders happen all the time by simply walking on grass... So you have to define what kind of life is worth defending first. Assuming that one bacteria is worth one human looks flawed.
This was a purely theoretical debate. The problem with those is, that you can rationalize absolutely everything, when you leave the real world behind. That's what alt-right trolls do. Devin seems to have tried to implement pragmatic approaches in a real world scenario and that's why he got overwhelmed. Both had fundamentally different debates in mind - one theoretical, one pragmatic.
There are too many factors as to simply state that someone is a horrible human being for eating meat - society, upbringing, our human DNA, preferences,... What if someone cuts back 90% of one's meat consumption and becomes a spokesperson for cutting back? For environmental reasons, health reasons, moral reasons,... By not taking the radical position and not calling everyone a horrible person, that spokesperson might reach thousands of people and therefore save millions of animal lives (or not, since they never get bred) - way more than going vegan and reaching no one by attacking them in bad faith. - Some offense.
More of these!!!!!
What is your moral system? It is an abstraction you hold over yourself to follow, you split your identity and have this internal outside you want to identify with. You can incorrectly follow your moral system, but by acknowledging there is one, you make it exist as a position. You then can be a hypocrite and a terrible person, but only in the view of the moral system, which exists as a position different than your current condition which identifies by it. Other people may see you as a terrible person, but they can acknowledge the validity of the system itself. You are not taking people by purely their actions, but you look at what moral systems they are tending to and identifying with. You may be a different person, different identity, but you keep the moral system intact as it is pure in its abstract form, and so you can find truth in it and follow it.
P O L Y A X I O M A T I C
You guys realize that saying a person cannot compelle another person away from torturing a kitten if he isn't vegan, that's an insane argument to make you guys know right?
Why are people so afraid of being morally inconsistent. Moral inconsistency - like shit - happens.
Devan got DESTROYED in this debate
i feel for ya my dude Devin, i feel ya.
Did you see my wallet ? I don't know because my moral system is incosistent so i literally know nothing.
11:45
3:08
6:55
why do they value people same as animals? I don't even value strangers as much as my neighbor and I see that guy like once a month.
Devin sounds so much like Ninja Brian from NSP and it is fuckin' freaking me out!
Props to you Devin. Hope you come out the other side. Trying to make the switch to Vegan. Its gonna suck
Depending on where you live it's not that hard. Once you realize the moral issues it's pretty easy to stay consistent.
Anyone can feel free to respond, and I'm asking because I'm curious and not trolling...but how can you argue that killing animals is similar to raping women and then have no problem in doing so? I don't get how you can live or would want anyone to live in a society with standards like that. I mean, how could you ever justify that position to anyone?
Nice video buddy my dude
time of the debate?
I think the moral relevancy is if the being is loved by another human. I wouldn't harm a disabled person because they are loved by their parents, family etc. I wouldn't harm a dog cause (assuming its not a stray) they are loved by their owner. I would probably try a dog in china but since i would have an emotional connection to my own dogs, i would feel like im harming a being that is loved by the same being of my pet. I don't have an emotional connection to cows and since the farmers dont care about them on an individual level, I know they won't be missed by a being that is of my or any animal that i have an emotional connection with species. I dont care if bugs die because there's no emotional connection. I care more about canadians dying than americans dying because i have an emotional connection to canadians. Do i want americans to die? Of course not, but there's not going to be this feeling of loss if a random american dies compared to if a random canadian died. If i cared about every single being that dies i our world then id probably hang myself out of misery.
I think I got lost, I thought this was the gnome friendly content side of youtube Kappa
Devin got microwaved in this debate
It's nice of Destiny to have that special needs Devin guy on to try debating. You have a good heart Destiny.
please debate the skeptics again.
TakTheBandit he needs to debate shoe on head and
What was it that this guy (devin) was defending?
You can have a moral system, technically violate a tenet of that system, and STILL advocate for others to adopt and follow that moral system.
comes down to why meat eaters value humans more than animals, no? humans have episodic memory, can animals even have happiness or experience suffering without episodic memory?, human emotions( more than just the shit animals feel), language and culture, ability to be ethical, compassion empathy? theory of mind? am i retarded?
Personally I do not care, animals are not capable of reciprocating any rights, or benefits we would provide for them, hence there is no benefit in doing that to my species or myself. I regard animals solely in regards to utility to my species or myself. Which is ironically why I am against factory farming cause in the end that is having a negative effect on my species.
And yes, I killed animals myself, gutted them and skinned them and I see nothing wrong with that. Neither do I consider killing humans given the right circumstances. A robber enters my home, an enemy soldier etc etc.
Do I consider myself a good person? I don't waste time to regard subjective things much unless there is a benefit to me, hence the answer is, I do not care.
Cloud Of Time In what context? In the context of my claim it would be beneficial to not care. I personally do not see value in caring for that in general.
Is that argument of someone killing a mentally handicapped really comparable? I can see the similarities but I'm not totally sold
His justification for killing animals previously was that they experienced a less complex form of consciousness, therefore it is justifiable to kill them but mentally handicapped people with an IQ of 20-40 or something has a comparable state of consciousness to that of an animal.
Victor Otene Ah gotcha I didn't catch that part
Destiny reminds me of a softer Edward Norton.
This guy is right.
This guy was a real smoothbrain, like he realises the logic of why eating meat is unethical, but he still thinks of it as some minor felony morally speaking and expects that vegans will see it the same way. The cognitive dissonance is real.
The example at the end where a random guy decides he wants to kill Devin proves Devin's point in the difference between people and animals since an animal would not be able to object to being murdered in that situation (cognitive ability). Also that example was pretty bad at proving Avi's (spelling?) point since the murder in that situation does not provide any benefit.
How is an animal unable to object two being murdered? Because they can't talk or write? I think you might want to rethink that position.
Also, the murder would provide benefit if it provides happiness or nutrition or a nice leather couch or whatever. Does that now justify the murder according to you?
Partially yes. They cannot object because they cannot speak (also "to" not "two"), but also they don't have the cognitive ability to understand their situation. Using the same example, if a random murderer is in a room with a gun talking to a cow vs. talking to Devin, then Devin will be able to object to his murder after assessing the situation while the cow would continue on with being a cow. As for the benefit part, that is exactly what I am talking about. A murder against an animal that provides benefit is better than a murder for pleasure, or in the example, for no reason at all. In the example given, the murderer gains nothing from murdering Devin, but if he was given a sum of money (any other benefit, etc.) it would edge towards a gray area.
@@peyton32617 is it ok to murder a blind dumb (unable to speak) person? Is it ok to murder a person in a come? Is it ok to murder the specific mentally disabled people that wouldn't be able to object to bring murdered in a way that is better than how a cow could?
Can someone explain this to me?
It's not wrong to torture a cat.
So wait how is destiny learning about philosophy? Is he reading articles and having people teach him or is he encountering philosophy head on by reading works themselves?
He often talks about reading Wikipedia, and I've read them, too. They're pretty good. Granted, I did take some philosophy classes in college, but just a couple, so take that as you will.
Hmmmm, it's okay at getting the simple tl;dr of ideas. But it's better to encounter shit more up front. You'll never pick up the nuances of Kant's Deontology or another moral system if you never read the texts tbh. But thats just my opinion from reading this stuff in my free time. /lecture mode
Poor Devin. Although I did turn vegan after reasearching some of this logic when Destiny debated the Vegan Gains dude.
Sunny Day but if you apply the same logic to purchasing goods from company’s that perpetuate the suffering of people around the world you are also morally inconsistent as you are contributing economically to suffering.
Here is a valid reason for the different treatment of non-human animals and human
There is a trait that is absent in an animal but not in humans and that trait is having a rational nature which is defined as “the ends/telos of a being when fully developed will become a conscious,rational creature”.This trait effectively includes all humans even the mentally disabled and exclude all non-human animals that we currently know of.
Prima facia wrongness of killing humans will come from the human having a telos of being a rational creature and if we as humans were to kill another human or any other beings with such telos/ends without good reason,it would show the vice of not respecting the source of our will which we have taken as valuable as a thing in itself to make our judgement.This reasoning doesn’t really apply to other non-human animals that we currently know of. (There are also other good reason not the kill humans that only apply to humans and not animal).
Even if you say the trait is sentient you are still excluding comatose patients,rare mentally disabled and sleeping humans.The name the trait is really just a weaker version of the argument from marginal cases.The argument above doesn’t really get you what you want.Since exploitation of something doesn’t necessarily really whether or not the thing/being/it has a trait or not.
NUFCIvan The problem here is your mistaking rationality for IQ which they are just different things and can’t be compared in the first place.
It’s also quite arrogant of you to assume I don’t value the telos of it. How the hell can you make that statement for me.I even gave a reason why we should value the telos as a thing-in-of-itself.
NUFCIvan Rational nature -“the ends of a being when fully developed will become a conscious and rational creature”
Rational creature -“beings with the ability to used practical reason, instrumental rationality and rational deliberation”
Practical reason - “capacity for resolving, through reflection, the question of what one is to do. Deliberation of this kind is practical in at least two senses. First, it is practical in its subject matter, insofar as it is concerned with action. But it is also practical in its consequences or its issue, insofar as reflection about action itself directly moves people to act.”
Instrumental rationality - “being able to adopt suitable means to he/her/it’s ends.
Rational deliberation - “when ones acts in accordance with willing one’s values when deliberation is sensitive to one's own judgments concerning what is best in the circumstances to there own ends, whether or not one acts upon such a judgment.
It is not related to IQ.Since IQ is just representing on how well they do it.But even then I think IQ is Bullshit a concept in the first place.
NUFCIvan why does it matter if someone can use it better than another?I never made that claim in the first place.
You can remove telos of a human?That like saying that a audio speaker doesn’t have a function to play sound,but of course you can say that you can break the speaker and it will never make a sound again but that doesn’t change the fact of the matter that a speakers function is to play sound and the same is of a human which always have a function to become a conscious and rational creature.The medically impaired humans are always wrong in some way which you guys use to compared it to other animals but that just a ad hoc conditions that you add without good reason for the comparison in the first place.the argument I gave only say that we should not kill such beings with a rational nature without good reason.
I never said that animals aren’t morally relevant your that one who came to that conclusion on your own.Even than you have no justification for saying why sentient is of any moral value.
To think that you can judge animals or eating them with the same moral categories like you judge humens or even „Handicap“ humens is realy the stupidest thing i ve ever heared.
is this old footage?
destiny i hope you were having more fun and enjoyment than anything you could possibly could have been doing when you were talking to devin because if you weren't i guess you have to stop being friends with him lmao
I am so confused, why they assumed that an animal life is equal to a human life since the start of the disscusion without saying it?
I think animal lifes are worthless for the exeption of the flesh and human bonds.
The same way humans are worthless for the exeption of social construction, human potential and human bond
So anyone that will be watching this disscusion and thinks more or less like my first point just dont watch this shit, so dissapointed they assumed it without talking.
Dunno how I feel about this one.
Isn't this just like arguing with a religious guy and telling him he can't make any moral arguments because his world view is inconsistent?
Guess I have to read more about the principle of explosion.
You don't need to be morally consistent for your position to have validity. I could have a moral principle of acting nice to everyone except those who would try to fuck me over or other people. This is an exception - a moral inconsistency. Does this invalidate my good treatment of other people aside from those who don't deserve it? No. Does this mean I cannot compel people to coordinate themselves within a moral manner? No. Exceptions show you're human, and being a robot isn't practical. It's not effective in real application. It does more harm than good in some cases of religiously applying an unbending dogma. Life has nuances that demand the application of an exception of 'moral inconsistency.' You don't need to extrapolate the acceptance of killing other animals to killing mentally handicapped beings when we have been desensitized to the notion of killing and eating animals due to tradition. Far as I'm concerned, things should be taken as a case-by-case basis, and not misrepresented by extrapolating contextualised beliefs to situations where it would not apply. Context matters.
7:00 can't you just vote in favour of banning meat eating while still eating meat that's compelling
Unless you're prepared to argue all levels and instances of hypocracy are equal the idea that you can't convince people to not be hypocrites if you are one yourself is an extremely dumb position to adopt.
Granted that all people are some level of hypocritical, then no one should be able to convince anyone of anything.
I could just as well say vegans can't convince me to care about animal suffering because vegans are hypocrates who live in a human ecosystem that is built upon the destruction of the natural habitats of animals and by extension the deaths and suffering of countless animals.
Most vegans would argue this is a nirvana fallacy, which it might very well be, so which one is it?
Scale of hypocracy is important. I might not be able to argue or advocate total consistency from someone failing to do the same myself, but I could argue and advocate that people should uphold the same level of consistency I attempt to uphold with the caveat I'll be okay with similar levels of hypocracy I myself exhibit, but not beyond.
The assertion that the hypocracy of meat eaters in selectively not eating humans or being against killing humans is comporable to the hypocracy of a person killing people while arguing murder is wrong being comporable is never fielded in this debate, and so can be rejected by default.
In either case -
The would you be okay with "eating braindead humans" argument is disingenuous as fuck. When a vegan decides it's okay to eat plants, the moral standard for that decission, at least as far as cognizance is concerned, equally commits them to be okay with the consumption of braindead humans, or animals for that sake. It's a meaningless emotional appeal.
Also, a very big difference between handicapped humans and lower cognition animals -
Handicapped humans are related to non handicapped humans who don't suffer reduced cognition, and not all handicapped humans are born handicapped or will remain at reduced capacity until death.
I.E handicapped humans are not representative of the natural and mean average state of humans.
A cat or cow is not and never will be cognitive on par with a natural human representative, hence we are clearly not equal - hence we are clearly not warranted in thinking of the two as equivalent.
Destiny got skinned like a cat in this debate.
I don't see why meat eaters are terrible persons, really.
If I need to kill the animal to eat I won't do that but If already there to eat and its good why I'm not going to eat? I'm 1 person between 7billion. My impact is just relevant because most people eat meat. If its not from a human why would you care? (I'm not native english)
what is this debate even about? What started it? What did destiny do lol?