A Confused Libertarian Thinks Killing Dogs is Fine (Earthling Ed Vegan Debate) | Part 1
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 кві 2022
- Part 1 of my reaction to "Libertarian REFUSES to have his freedom denied by vegan | Stanford University" by Earthling Ed.
Part 2: • If It's Legal, It's Mo...
Earthling Ed's video
• Libertarian REFUSES to...
Wild animal suffering
longtermrisk.org/the-importan...
www.animal-ethics.org/wild-an...
animalcharityevaluators.org/b...
80000hours.org/podcast/episod...
Support an Effective Animal Charity
animalcharityevaluators.org/
Support the Channel
Patreon: / unnaturalvegan
Amazon Store Page: www.amazon.com/shop/unnatural...
Shirts: teespring.com/stores/unnatura...
Socials (that I rarely use)
Twitter: / unnaturalvegan
Instagram: / unnaturalvegan
I've always wondered about wild suffering and really don't know much about it (in spite of being vegan for 10 years). If you made a more detailed video about it, that would be really interesting; I don't think I've seen anyone else I watch talk about it before.
Humane Hancock talks a fair amount about wild animal suffering - they even talked with Peter Singer about it I believe. Check them out!
The large majority of animals live out their full natural lifespan in the wild. Prey animals are faster with more endurance than carnivores so predators can really only catch old, sick, injured or unborn (eggs) prey. It's people that know very little about nature that think otherwise.
@@rasputozen source? i would like to read more about this
@@rasputozen do you have a source to share? Seems like an extraordinary claim
@@pitoububble They do it since forever. Ignore them.
Ed visited my school two days ago and he was so kind. It was so cool to meet him and Hudson Tarlow.
Lucky! I would love to meet him
Who is Hudson
@@MdoubleHBxx You're really coming off as desperate when you're commenting this under other people's comments. Seriously stop.
@@ThisIsNuckingFuts He's another vegan activist. He has been going with Ed and filming his debates in some university campuses
@@ThisIsNuckingFuts Hudson Tarlow is another animal rights activist and he is on tour with ed now
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Roberts.
@NoExitLoveNow
Is that why they called Margaret Thatcher "The ‹Ayn› Lady"?
I'll get my coat.
🌷
LOVED IT!!!! 🤣👍👍
Ayn Rand must be right. Otherwise, you wouldn't see so many non-arguments against her.
It's still not clear which is which. Atlas Shrugged has some of the worst orcs.
I’m libertarian vegan and this is basically every conversation I ever had with other libertarians. It first goes into animals aren’t human and can’t consent or participate, when you point out there’s mentally or physically challenged people who also cannot participate in political process they change argument to “but they are still human” which is just essentialism of human race. But from my point of view is that veganism is most compatible with the main idea of libertarianism that is non aggression or “leave everybody alone” principle, idea that you don’t have any right to commit aggression against any individual no matter what is your goal unless they are directly attacking you by force. Sad reality is that many libertarianism don’t want to extend this same principle to non human animals but hell we have Libertarians who support Putin today...
i'm mostly familiar with left-libertarian discourse and i find i found that guys arguments deeply bizarre. arguing from "might makes right" or the fictitious "social contract" is so contrary to anything i know as libertarianism…
@SpiderS
There is, I'm certain, an Ayn Rand quote about how if a "prerogative" infringes on the rights of someone else it ceases to be a prerogative and becomes an intrusion.
I'm not explaining as well I ought to, but I'm sure you get the upshot.
😌
thank you! so glad to read another libertarian minded vegan with same thought process as me. I am also really puzzled why most libertarians don't extend the aggression principle to non-human animals and even more puzzled by surprising number of "libertarians" that seem to be on the side on Putin rather than on the side of freedom and self-determinism
My god, really?! Supporters of Putin outside the military? It is sad to see war so easily accepted by the competitive humans of today. There is healthy competition, but war is where a line should be drawn. The term war-crime invokes ideas of just wars, where no crimes are committed. The reality is that war is a crime in itself and should be punishable by International Law. Sadly, many join the military for money to feed their impoverished families, a sign of the desperation economic doctrine of today leads many to.
They are still human is the difference. They are our own species, that's the difference.
There's no vegans in my friend group really (I have friends who've started eating less meat or went vegetarian and my boyfriend is basically vegan when he's not at his parents) but still there's basically no one I can go to to just talk about veganism and ethics, so sometimes I just fulfill that urge by binging a bunch of your videos and I was doing that right when I got a notification for this video lol.
Anyways I've found your channel like 5 and a half years ago when I first became vegan, through the only collab I've seen of you, and I think you've definitely helped keep me sane, so thanks for the videos is what I'm saying I guess
You're not alone! ❤
@@MdoubleHBxx no thanks
The meat and dairy industries require tax subsidies to survive. Libertarians should be against this to be logically consistent.
Bullshit. The only subsidies go to commodity crops, not to meat and dairy.
Definitely. I’m libertarian and vegan and this is among the most frustrating things. People are susceptible to arguing against veganism regardless of their political affiliation, but I really wish more libertarians were against meat and animal products just bc of consistency toward things like subsides and the non-aggression principle.
This man asks what is LEGAL which means he is NOT libertarian at all but he just wants to go along with what the most powerful entity (big government) says. So basically for him MIGHT IS RIGHT.
What else could we base "what is right" on?
@@plantatheist5883 Morality. Are you prepared to argue chattel slavery was morally right while it was legal in the US?
@@IMatchoNation
From the stand point of the white slave traders buying slaves legally from the African slave traders in Africa. Sure. They engaged in a lawful business transaction within a system that was set up by Africans before colonials ever set foot in Africa.
Most peoples have been enslaved by another throughout history. The mongols were slavers, the Romans were slavers, the feudal Japanese were slavers, African tribes went to war, took slaves and founded a slave trade in Africa, the Egyptians were slavers, the Mayans, Aztecs, Crow, Blackfoot, Sioux, Hopi, the Swedes, took British slaves, The Germanic took Swedish slaves, The slavs of Europe were named Slav for how frequently they were take as slave, the Muslim Caliphates traded 150 million white men and women as slaves.
It was an arm of business. You want a great big temple built, but you don't want to pay for it? Slaves.
People argue that wage slavery is a form of slavery. Is modern capitalism immoral? Sure. Is it unjustifiably immoral?
No. It is the most efficient system available to do the most good for most people while still retaining competition and progress.
Slavery can easily be justified from a utilitarian standpoint.
@@plantatheist5883 Hold up. Just because it was acceptable in the past doesn't make it moral. So if your government determined that road construction was too costly so they're making slavery legal to do some necessary repairs, you would say that's moral? I don't understand this line of thinking at all.
You're missing the link between ethics and legality. When a society finds something unethical, it tends to become illegal.
Legality is a good way to measure the ethics of a society.
I don't think the biggest issue with housing "is there isn't enough of it." I'm pretty sure the biggest issue with housing is their prices have risen so high so fast (mainly due to people/companies buying up excess houses and inflating the prices) that the average house price is completely disconnected from the average household income.
For some inexplicable reason Swayze continues to be stuck on neoliberalism as her socio-economic framework. This sadly means she has a lot of trouble understanding how the world actually works outside of veganism and consumerism. You're correct of course, and the US rules on single-family zoning are a direct legacy of racism (keeping black people out of white neighborhoods); but of course 'less government' sounds better to neoliberals than 'less racist government'.
She is right that single family housing is a problem. Single family homes cause sprawl which means all the infrastructure is also spread out, everyone has to drive to get around, and you can't house as many people. They basically are a burden on a city. Check out strong towns or not just bikes.
@@IMatchoNation a policy can both be racist in origin and responsible for other issues (though arguably it is an continuation of the original).
> but of course 'less government' sounds better to neoliberals than 'less racist government'.
are you implying she wants the government to be racist? also "less government" does imply "less racist government", unless you believe the government isn't racist at all…
> mainly due to people/companies buying up excess houses and inflating the prices
you think those companies might have an interest in less houses getting built? perhaps it would be in their interest to maintain single family zoning, to keep up prices of the houses they own. have you considered that the state perhaps creates privilege for the rich and protects them from competition?
yep. And also many rich folks own many houses, condos, apartments, that they keep empty on market speculation, and many places don't have any reprecussions for keeping units vacant too. Its shit.
What's stopping you whiny people from getting rich and afluent and sexy and getting any house you want? Homeless? Just work and buy a house, duh. Losers.
Ed: So, how would you react, if an alien race were to arrive on Earth and exploit us, the way we exploit livestock animals?
Jed: I for one, as a libertarian, would welcome our new alien overlords.
(I'll get my coat.)
😸
Lmao 😂
@@ThisIsNuckingFuts
Oh thank you.
Thank you so much. 🥰
(Just don't tell Kent Brockman. 😁)
Alien species you mean
Then I hope Jed will be a tasty lunch for them.
Completely agree on the multi-family housing point. Although, it does raise a sort of 'blind-spot' for libertarianism - community-level organisation and NIMBYism. However minimalist the state is, people will still organise locally, sometimes in ways that detract from the common good/market forces.
Not to mention the anti-black racism that caused legislators to introduce the policy in the first place.
No matter what your ideology, sometimes you have to realize no ideology is perfect
Have you watched Bad Vegan on Netflix yet? It’s not really about veganism but I think your thoughts on it would be interesting to hear.
Re: Wild Suffering, I certainly don't enjoy it, but I'm not going to go out of my way to mess with a predator going after prey in a wild scenario. We had a rabbit nest in our yard and it was important we kept our dog from messing with it, but I wasn't going to go crazy trying to keep wild predators out too.
Predators are just as valuable to the ecosystem as prey animals. This is what some vegans do not seem to understand. Some animals are ferocious killing machines, some a soft and cuddly. As a vegan you have to protect all of them.
Of course. Your dog has food already. Wild predators are doing what they must do to survive.
awesome video. i love being able to hear both you and ed give these arguments and the thought processes behind them. im really glad you mentioned "wild suffering" because i totally agree, it sucks to see any suffering, "natural" or otherwise. ive never given it much thought before though other than knowing i disagree with it, so im really excited to dive into the resources youve shared. thanks so much!!
I choose to believe that the use of the word “dogmatic” was intentional.
I like that you mentioned wild animal suffering, i would be interested in seeing more videos about that topic.
Check out Humane Hancock
If an alien comes to earth and wants to eat us because we're a "lower species", do they get to eat us ?
No. If I were part of the alien species? Yes.
Yup, I love these videos! Ed is super well spoken, but I love hearing your thoughts on the debate and how both sides are doing. 🙂
Great video, I appreciate you (and Ed) parsing these issues rationally. Also, nice desk, very cool.
I am what you would call a "dogmatic" or deontological libertarian/anarchist - as in, I view the non-aggression principle as a moral imperative for any and all construction of government. HOWEVER I am also vegan, because I believe that the non-aggression principle (do not enact or threaten force against someone or their property unless in self-defense) applies to animals too. I think the two philosophies go hand in hand for me, as I am against violence and aggression against sentient beings, whether human or otherwise. Also, I know that you Swayze are more pragmatic/utilitarian in your way of looking at moral philosophies, while I am much more deontological in my views - and I appreciate hearing your opinions! This video was super interesting to me, even though I disagree with you on that front.
Ive never heard or even thought about wild animal suffering. I would love a video about it.
Check out Humane Hancock, he has a few videos talking about it. Intiresting stuff.
I really prefer this kind of content over dissing Freelee's diet etc. Initially thought this was not a channel pushing veganism as a health, cure all diet but as an ethical diet. So I'm glad you're finally back to discussing these issues and not what raw vegan influencers are eating.
Please put the references about wild suffering somewhere 🙂
Done! :)
my dad took in a stray cat recently and he loved the car lol. he got out of his carrier bc my dad left it slightly open and was jumping around exploring everywhere (i know its bad we will not be letting him do this again but it was his first time and he didn’t want to freak him out either by shoving him back in, plus my dad was alone)
I disagree so much but I love listening to your videos and learning about opposing viewpoints! I also remember taking my "Intro to Ethics" class in uni and becoming infatuated with each theory in turn -- "I'm a social contract theorist! No wait... utilitarianism is the answer! ooooh what about altruism tho?!" and this guy sounds like he's riding the just-learned-about-it-stoked-on-libertarianism train 🙃
Swayze, your conceptualization of 'objective' and 'subjective' morality is so bizarre to me. Clearly, a typical person who believes morality is subjective doesn't just accept moral differences between people; morals are prescriptive. A typical person who opposes misogyny wouldn't defend misogyny in a neighboring country, or even in people around them. Clearly, the distinction is about whether or not morality is coded into the universe (the way chlorophyll exists), or if it's something we make up. Clearly, it's the latter.
I subjectively believe that needless killing of humans is morally wrong. I argue for that belief because I believe it is right for others to adopt it. I do not claim--nor need to--that this moral rule is somehow encoded into the fabric of reality. I think the distinction you're making is about moral relativism and absolutism. I'm an absolutist moral subjectivist. The weird guy from the video is a relativist moral subjectivist (or claims to be, anyway).
"objective" and "subjective" aren't properties of facts, but of perceptions. some observations are more viewpoint-dependent than others. i tend to think that it's a matter of degrees, but that's beside the point.
moral realism is not a the claim to possess a particularly objective view of morality, but that morality is part of reality and can be discovered, rather than fictitious. what makes things a fact is not being "coded into the universe", it's just what turns out to be true.
what other "subjective beliefs" do you have? can i have a subjective belief about the mass of the sun? i don't think so, a belief can be accurate or inaccurate, not subjective or objective. or i can create fiction about the mass of the sun, the accuracy is irrelevant because it's not a belief of mine.
if you viewed morality as fiction then you wouldn't really have beliefs about it. you don't _learn_ that Picard is the captain of the Enterprise. you don't expect to _convince_ someone when you tell them what Gandalf did in The Hobbit. you're telling a story. do you think the wrongness of killing people is like that?
values, much like beliefs, can be refined, changed by evidence, destabilized by internal contradiction, generalized and integrated within a larger framework. some beliefs are extremely reliable, such as math and physics. we would expect sufficiently intelligent aliens to independently come to the same reliable beliefs. moral realists think that values can be reliable and independently discoverable as well. in that view, sufficiently intelligent minds of other cultures, species or planets will converge on those same values, if those values are correct. this is also called "instrumental convergence".
@@sofia.eris.bauhaus Your description of moral realism is analogous to what I said: you're claiming there can be an objectively correct answer to what is right or wrong; as if it's encoded into the fabric of reality. Just own it, it's fine.
I believe many flowers are beautiful, I believe I am actually interacting with an existing outside world. These are subjective beliefs, there's no need to be obtuse about any of this.
I'm sorry you have trouble understanding how I can have strong feelings about a social construct. Picard is only the captain of the Enterprise because we believe him to be: it's a social fact ie something that comes about subjectively; or in this case intersubjectively. If we cease to believe Picard is the captain, he no longer is. Your last analogy is incoherent so I can't address it.
"Some beliefs are extremely reliable" is an interesting way to frame that a lot of people may end up subjectively believing some similar things. Is truth a popularity contest to you? Many people believing something is right makes it right? Many people on this planet believe homosexuality is immoral... Clearly you don't believe this, yet you appeal to it. You're making the fascist Stephan Molyneux's Universally Preferred Behavior (UPB) argument, which does not demonstrate moral realism. I believe it's likely that there are moral rules that align better and worse with humanity's general preferences, and that we can come to agree on those rules over time; this is probably a good thing. But consensus on what rules we like does not make it objective, but just a consensus.
My argument is that morality is something we make up, you argue that morality is something we discover. The benefit of my argument is that I'm not making an unsubstantiated positive claim about moral rules (ie socially established rules dictating how we *ought* and *ought not* behave) somehow existing in nature, waiting for us to find them.
@@MdoubleHBxx Ugh, you're still around spamming this channel, all these years later? You must know Swayze's blocked you and your insane ramblings, so you're disingenuously signaling to Swayze when you're actually trying to reach her audience. I have bad news for you: this kind of behavior helps *her* because no sane person would want to associate themselves with you.
@@IMatchoNation can you imagine why i gave up here? i guess the most obvious example is that you spend half a paragraph on attacking the stupidest fucking strawman, instead of thinking for 3 seconds on whether there could be a difference between the reliability and the popularity of a belief.
you are clearly unwilling give serious consideration the other perspectives. which btw is also a flaw of Stephan Molyneux. so there is your guilt by association.
there is just so many baseless assumptions in your comment, i'm sure you'd find many yourself if you tried.
this 'discussion' was brought back to my attention because i saw an upvote on my comment, btw. but your comment got one more, so obviously it's more true. :P
I really like when you talk about ethics as they relate to veganism, and I just think ethics are generally fascinating. Are you familiar with Stephen Woodford/Rationality Rules? I think you might really like his conversations with Alex O’Connor.
At around 19:40 she talked about having cats in a car and how awful it is, but I found something that seemed to help my cat, if I go onto UA-cam a play of video of a cat purring she calmed down and seemed less stressed, idk if it works with all cats, but I think it’s worth a try!
Our cat loves going by car. He's weird. ❤
@@goranbreskic4304 lol
Haha I love your video, glad I discovered you accidentally on Instagram! Your reaction when he suddenly brought up teeth was priceless lol! I love being vegan (I'm late to the game, but it's so much easier than when I tried earlier...and I'm always trying to keep it healthy, not "just vegan" lol. Between the science for the health of plant based eating and eliminating suffering for all beings I am solidly pro vegan and don't feel I'm missing out on anything. So it's okay to eat things that aren't human??? This thinking that we are superior and can use animals is hideous, "suffering is suffering".
If you make a video on wild life suffering please make sure your talking points include sources on ecosystem impact, the food chain, and impact on evolution. You cannot ignore these topics when discussing manipulating ecology, and I am extremely skeptical about this topic. I would be interested to know if any renowned Ecologists have talked about this - to me it sounds dangerous to mess with natural order
This is where I don’t understand certain vegan arguments. Wild suffering sucks, but it seems like that’s the only way these ecosystems can continue. I don’t think humans can ever be intelligent enough to be able to manage the whole of Earth without some pretty wild consequences.
Well, I'm at least one vegan who doesn't even think summing up moments of "suffering" is ultimately a coherent way to measure the quality of lives, human or non-human. It's the macro-experiences, which we refer to with words like "slavery", "torture", "commodification", "confusion", "grief", that distinguish the great evil of current animal agriculture from predation in the wild. A wild zebra may experience a lot of suffering from periods of hunger, and end its life with intense suffering from lions, but it's lived a life in a world that it understands, having a measure of control over its own fate. The difference between that and a breeding sow is much more than a different "suffering" total on a balance sheet. It's the macro-experiences of freedom versus slavery.
@@indef2def I mean, everything that you just said makes sense to me. I guess I just don’t see the pragmatic reasons to worry abt “wild suffering” when there’s nothing for us to do about it
I understand your thinking but I think you should have more faith in human technological advancement. It may not be a thing that seems plausible right now or even in your lifetime but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen in the distant future. This possibility is why we should push the conversation now rather than later- to speed up the process.
@@aunt_jozzy push human technology to do what, exactly?
@@KsandrPann reduce wildlife suffering while also sustaining ecosystems
Thought: “subjective” vs “objective” in this instance may be referring to whether morality happens within the subject or within the object.
I think his later discovered confusion was pretty evident in hindsight after he said "as a libertarian" and then later on in the sentence said something about canines. Great vid.
you're just jealous that libertarians have both kinds of teeth. ;)
I'd like to see you do these kind of interviews as well. Mind you, I understand not everyone has Ed's patience and you might end up strangling some of these people.
Ideals are often impossible to achieve, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't aim at achieving them.
Does anyone have any tips for the switch from vegetarian to vegan? I've been vegetarian for almost 3 years now and I've wanted to go vegan for a long time but it's just hard considering I still live with my parents.
just tell them that u don't want to consume animal products, explain to them why. And simply just cook ur own food. Just google recipe, get creative it's not that hard. I just throw any ingredient and spices until it taste good enough.
It's difficult making big lifestyle changes, especially when you live with others. I'd say, every time you shop, try to substitute a non-vegan staple for a vegan one, and have a vegan recipe that you're shopping for. Make it a slow transition, you're more likely to stay vegan for longer. Focus on protein (beans, lentils, tofu, vegan protein powder for shakes, peanut powder, chia seeds, chickpeas, etc). There are so many recipes from around the world for flavorful vegan proteins. My knowledge is limited, but at least South Asian, Middle Eastern, African, Mediterranean, and many other regions have traditional recipes that are vegan or easily converted to vegan. Good luck!
i was vegetarian for over ten years, and i went full vegan 2018. honestly, the best advice i can give you is do your transition slowly, like just kind of stop buying your dairy type stuff and swap it with the alternative options. idk if you buy your food or your parents do but maybe see if you guys can come to a compromise grocery wise. more importantly though, research, research, research! I would youtube what i eat in a days which helped a lot with meal planning and ideas of what to eat in general. watch the documentaries (maybe have your parents watch with you?) that focus on the ethics of it all. earthlings, cowspiracy, etc. it’ll break your heart but leave you feeling motivated to switch and stay vegan. after you stomach and cry through those, watch game changers and what the health, which show the health benefits of the lifestyle. You can do this! 🌱✌🏽💞
I recommend Unnatural Vegan on yt. She follows the evidence on the nutrition you need so that you can be vegan, satiated, and healthy! One of the main reasons people can't stick to a vegan diet is they can't stick to an overly restrictive diet (like raw, or "no processed food"). She also does a great job reviewing media that concerns veganism through a science-based lens. Good luck!
@@cherrybearylemondrop Yeah, I'm Literally on her channel.
Morality is definitely objective, according to it's definition:
Definition of Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour
Definition of good: to be desired, or approved of
Therefore, an action that is morally good, is an action that is the most desired, or approved of, by the greatest amount of beings.
Hello! When you mentioned the housing situation where you live it reminds me of a book I am reading called the Color of Law. It talks about racial discrimination and inequalities that have led to our housing disparities since WWII. You might want to check it out if that is something you’re interested in
The way you compare subjective morality with taste preferences is pretty weird. Morality pertains to one's views about the way the whole world should be, so a "live and live" type of mentality doesn't make sense there. Taste preference, by contrast, are basically just observations of what physical sensations pump dopamine into your brain. Imposing those on other people would be nonsensical because the sensations that dump dopamine into my brain won't always dump dopamine into your brain.
IDK about you, but my morality is based on empathy, and empathy is a subjective experience itself. I don't really know how we could establish an objective measure of this feeling in our brains. You could say "total amount of suffering," but very few people would hold to that in cases like the Utility Monster.
I love you reacting to earthling ed videos! ❤
Love these series with Earthling Ed
I feel like going into “well a chicken is preferable over a serial killer” would be leaning into what aboutism. But you’re absolutely right, things are more nuanced and morality isn’t a straight up X is good, Y is bad, Z can be either. 🤷🏼♀️
Also, I don’t think this man is a libertarian. I believe he’s just self-serving and cherry picks lmao
I think there is a lot of room in what counts as "subjective." One way of looking at it is that it's that which exists in the subject, rather than the object. That would mean something like mathematics would be subjective, because it doesn't exist in the world itself, but rather in the minds of people.
We wouldn't need to build that much more housing if we didn't let so much sit empty to make the market more profitable for large renters/companies.
Yep, I definitely was disappointed with Swayze's take on housing.
The wild animal suffering is a very interesting one. I have given this a lot of thought throughout the years and heard some vegans talk about it here on youtube and elsewhere. Although I do think some suffering can be avoided without negative imact, I think most of it is very likely to only cause more problems and suffering than it solves. For a lot of the suffering to be avoided / cut short we will probably have to intervene in ways that will distrupt nature and cause more suffering in the process.
Another point is, in many situations where there is suffering, it is hard to say that you have the right to take that away from the animal, however bad it seems. Maybe a mercy kill can be justified, but other than that, it is quite hard to make a good case for it. Some animals suffer enormously for a while and get back up to live for months or even years. Who are we to intervene?
Also, I think suffering in nature is often not as bad as it looks. There have been studies on dying animals where certain hormones release(when a deer is caught by a predator for example) making their last moments almost painless. I remember a story of a lionkeeper in a zoo who was attacked by one of the lions, the lion caught him and bit him in the neck. They managed to get the lion to let him go, I don't remember how exactly, but he later told that initially there was a panic and fear. But as soon as the lion took him by the neck and he knew and felt there was nothing he could do he became super relaxed and at ease in a situation that on the outside looked like a terribly painful situation.
My feeling with all this, is that we have to act on these things very carefully. Nature has been playing this game for billions of years, and it seems very likely that it knows how to deal with suffering and death much better than we are giving it credit for.
I love that you mentioned wild animal suffering, I never hear anyone talking about it.
Personally, I hope that someday we can feed cultivated meat to carnivor animals, both wild animals and pets.
hell yeah more earthling ed
In NYC there are lots of empty apartments but that doesn’t mean rent has become more affordable.
Doesn't get much simpler than William Lloyd Garrison: "That which is not just is not law."
Nice job, interesting observations.
Great video. you've remind me of what someone once said❤️ "The mind is the man, the poor is in it and the rich is it too". This sentence is the secret of most successful investors. I once attended similar and ever since then i been waxing strong financially, and i most tell you the truth...
average human vs. murderer-murdering chicken. You can only save one!
15:02 UV explains subjective morality in the following terms, and I am paraphrasing slightly. Saying that thing X is immoral is the same thing as saying "I don't like thing X."
I disagree with this line of reasoning.
If I say that I do not like potato rolls, that is not the same thing as saying that potato roles are evil. Saying you dislike something means that it is not to your preference and you would rather not part take in it yourself. Calling something evil means that it threatens an innocent person in some way. You may or may not like olives and your decision to eat olives only affects you, know one else. Therefore, it is logical and rational to say “if you don’t like olives, don’t at them.” You have no right to tell other people to eat olives or not. Murder is taking the life of an innocent human being. Rape is forcing sex on a person who did not consent, which has the potential to cause psychological trauma. Therefore, it would be illogical and irrational (in my view) to go around saying, “If you don’t like murder, don’t kill people.” That wouldn’t make sense, as murder affects people who didn’t ask and don’t deserve to be affected. Therefore, it is my right to tell others not to murder.
This does not mean that morality is objective. Morality is about what harms people. Harm is a philosophical concept. What you may consider harm, others may not. Furthermore, even if you can demonstrate that a behavior has the potential to harm others, that still does not mean that there is any objective reason why you shouldn't harm people.
I don't understand, you're basically saying "no it's not the same when what you're talking about is something that can cause harm" and basically saying that it is (objectively?) immoral to cause harm to someone who didn't ask for it and doesn't deserve it?
But then in your last paragraph you go back on that and say that there's no objective reason to not harm someone, suggesting it's subjective, but first that to me sounds like it's contradicting the first paragraph, and second then I don't understand how saying there's no objective morality is different from saying that it's fine to murder in one culture but immoral in another.
Barring exceptional circumstances of necessity, is it ever ok to kill ? Or rape or enslave anything in that vein. Because it sounds like you're saying no, but that sounds like you're saying it's objective to me.
Or maybe I'm missing something.
@@DemyrNox It is not objectively immoral to cause harm to an innocent person, it is merely my opinion.
However, not only do I not harm others, I believe that no one should. If we are talking about a personal choice like eating potato rolls, I feel no need to pass judgement on others, as the decision to eat potato rolls or not is a matter of personal preference. The same cannot be said about sexual assault.
@@julianbigelow2794 So you think it's immoral and you think others may not agree, but don't condone those who would think it's okay, am I understanding correctly?
That still sounds pretty much like saying it's like preference, but with the caveat that some preferences are wrong or worthy of judgement. That would still suggest to me that there is a morality you think is closer to "the truth"
@@DemyrNox Let me ask you this question. Do you believe in objective morality? If so, where does objective morality come from? Do you condemn such murderers as Jeffrey Dahmer and Ted Bundy?
@@julianbigelow2794 I think I believe in it yes. I think it comes from thinking logically about what causes the least amount of harm/the best outcomes. Like Swayze says, we might not know what it is, but that doesn't mean there isn't one course of action that would be best.
So no, I don't condemn the actions of serial murderers because they explicitly go against "causing the least possible harm".
The points you’re making about subjective vs objective morality seem (to me) all over the place. What would objective morals even look like? Something like Plato’s Ideas? Chlorophyl exists whether we know about it or not, so the same is true for the most moral mode of action for every situation? And saying morality is subjective is the same as saying I like ice cream? Wut? Maybe don’t try to cram such massive philosophical questions into a reaction video. Saying morals are objective, to me does imply there is some power or entity outside of ourselves that decided what those morals are, or are you suggesting they are like laws of physics? As you’ve pointed out in this very video, it doesn’t seem like other animals are much concerned with (rigid) moral systems, so how would the fact that humans developed intellectually suddenly give fruit to objective morals? Looking at history (and the present) morals are ever changing. We don’t have to pretend there are beautiful unchanging morals out there for us to try and live our lives by them.
Morals change, but they tend to change toward less harm. I can imagine, after extensive experimentation, it is discovered how much harm living beings experience under various conditions. Consequences, long-term effects, harm can be summed and an action can objectively be calculated to be more or less moral than another.
23.30
"Let me tell you what justice is. Justice is the law, and the law is man's feeble attempt to set down the principles of decency. Decency! And decency is not a deal. It isn't an angle, or a contract, or a hustle! Decency... decency is what your grandmother taught you. It's in your bones! Now you go home. Go home and be decent people. Be decent."
- Justice White (pp. Thomas Wolfe {Bonfire of the Vanities}).
If plants can communicate does that make eating them as morally wrong as eating animals?
Sadly, my twin brother, who lives in a group home, eats the meat served there. I, living with my mom, sadly consume some of the milk, but I avoid eggs. The egg-laying industry is very bloody. The child seperation in the dairy industry could be worse than the death of baby male chickens. I myself have been in a psychiatric hospital for 12 days, and was terrified like the dog in the car for the first few days having misunderstood what I had agreed to, which I only later realized after talking to my mom about it. While in the hospital, I ate Orange Chicken, which I enjoyed very much. My family and I are all vegetarian under normal circumstances, and I aspire to be vegan.
So, if you're talking about less government intervention specifically when it comes to zoning, that's great. Mixed zoning is and has always been shown the be the superior way of planning in all regards. However, if you meant less government intervention in general, you are VERY wrong.
There's a reason why housing is such a huge and detrimental issue in the US, and then a very minimal issue or not an issue at all in most European nations, that have way more government control over such a thing. There is no shortage of housing, there is PLENTY of housing, it's just unoccupied because when the market controls housing, those who profit from it focus mostly on building extremely expensive and luxurious housing so they can charge as much rent as possible, to make the most amount of money; which leaves those who don't make enough money to afford such rent unable to find a decent place to live. Leaving housing, healthcare and education up to the free market is overwhelmingly shown to be the absolute worst idea, and is proven to be so constantly through the data, studies, rankings and performance in those fields in nations that do so, contrasting with those with brains, who don't. Public and state funded housing, especially in western Europe have most often been shown to be amazing and a huge success. At times, people were paying only like 5% of their income for rent, and their immediate areas and infrastructure were generally always good for pedestrians at minimum, due to the government focusing on the wellbeing of citizens and only concerned about paying for the building's maintenance, instead of profit like private enterprise in the US. The thought of ever needing a car was silly. This leads to higher quality housing, life, environment, mental and physical health etc. As opposed to the US, whose systems based on profit incentivize not giving a shit about making housing affordable for those who make less money, and certainly not worrying about infrastructure other than just a concrete jungle of roads that people are forced to own a car to navigate, all of which causes nothing but ill effects for individuals and society at large. The only time private enterprise in the US is incentivised to build affordable housing, is quite literally when the government steps in and gives them grants, tax breaks and other similar boons to do so.
Nearly all the data and literature supports what was said above. If you meant the government needs less intervention in housing overall, and more control by private enterprise, then that's extremely irresponsible to say and the absolute antithesis of what the data says. I'm beyond tired of seeing the homeless of my city walking and begging on the same streets that are lined with unoccupied housing and properties.
Thank you for changing your comment to only being informative. (Yes, I read the first one). Very interesting. I live in Europe, and although we do have problems with housing it is only in conversations with Americans I get to hear about "those three months I had to live in my car" and it's mentioned like it's a normal part of life.
"Humans have rights because they can engage in social contracts."
What about humans that can't engage in social contracts?
"Well they're human, so they still have rights."
He tries to make the concept of rights about objective criteria that humans have, but at the same time tries to make it intrinsic to humans... That is what a dishonest, ad hoc philosophy sounds like.
Bryan Caplan once said, "if you think voluntarism is seriously underrated and the government is seriously overrated, you are a libertarian in my book", so you can define libertarianism broadly like that
I call myself "moderate libertarian" sometimes, by which I basically mean (1) I tend to agree with the consensus of experts on economic questions, against the intuitions of laypeople; (2) when I think something's immoral, it takes me a long, long time thinking through other possible solutions before I ever consider "convince government to make it illegal!" as an option; (3) it's pretty clear that the greatest examples of lasting moral progress have had a foundation in voluntarism.
(I also love Michael Huemer, and would love Caplan if he'd stop defending torture and murder.)
I lean socially libertarian. Let people do what they want as long as everyone is consenting and no one is being harmed. Usually though this is a humanist stance because culturally we haven’t moved to a point where meat eating is seen as problematic.
I believe that morally subjective, in that it's something we've come up with as a result of evolution and adaption and is based on where and when you're from and you're upbringing. I don't know how an intangibile concept could be objective... But I don't think we should be so hung up on concepts of morality, and instead our goal should be reducing harm and suffering, it is the nicest society we can create and it benefits us.
The government building housing issue is only an issue if your government is! The swedish socially democratic government built around a million homes during a housing crisis in the 60s, which helped its people tremendously! And it’s population was about 7.5 million! That’s new housing for 13% of its population!
Point is, taxes can be amazing if the government uses them correctly!
i watched this video on ed’s channel for 5 minutes or less and got so frustrated i stopped lol. will watch it thru your vids so its tolerable 😂
I'm a bit confused about some of your opinions. 1) You're comparing abstract things, like moral choices with things we find in nature. 2) I think you might be misinterpreting the notion of subjective morality. Not speaking for Ed, but I think it might mean that someone is a deontologist, or a utilitarian, or whatever and it might be valid, as long as you're consistent with that. I mean, maybe some moral positions aren't ideal even if you are consistent with them, but I'm not sure that's what you mean.
Most people are hedonistic egoists but won't admit to it.
I can't words either Swayze lol
Such a great video
You really are gorgeous. Intelligence added to the mix and your husband is lucky. I am sure you are too. It is beautiful to see a committed vegan couple, with healthy vegan kids, that is relatable.
I’m a type 1 diabetic and my blood glucose numbers are objectively worse on a diet that avoids most animal products. I’m still following the diet that is not as good for me from a health perspective based on moral considerations. I think this guys question of where exactly you draw the line when it comes to human “suffering” vs the very visceral suffering experienced by animals is totally reasonable. For many people, changing to a vegan diet is going to have negative consequences for that individual. I just don’t feel that the negative consequences I am experiencing would justify changing my diet back to how it was before. Of course, I’m saying this before I begin to experience secondary effects like kidney failure, vision loss, and amputations that may or may not happen in my lifetime. Also, I’m posting before the end of the video so his reasonable comment might go off the rails.
You'll eat for your health when you come to your senses. 99% of the population will eat meat
@@kulata My habits have changed at this point and I wouldn’t have the inclination to eat meat. I don’t think my personal health struggles justify eating meat. Some people might experience benefit from a vegan diet, but even well to do average people can struggle with a diet that fully eliminates animal products. I really like unnatural vegan because she’s very realistic about things. I’m still consuming some animal products (primarily eggs from my pet chickens) and I don’t feel unwelcome watching her channel. She is very supportive of simple reduction of animal product use. It’s nice that she recognizes the challenges. She has really good advice
Hi ! My boyfriend is type 1 diabetic too and eats mostly vegan. Lately her diabetic has been acting out weirdly and doctors doesn’t know what causes it so I was wondering if you know why plant-based products make you glucose number bad ? Of course only if you are okay with sharing that 😊 it may be part of the answer for my bf ✨
@@luciedonze7368 I don’t know how much help I’ll be. For me, it’s mostly the ratio of carbs to protein that causes issues. Things like beans are amazing protein sources, but they are also really high in carbs. Even tofu is pretty high in carbs. When my diet included more animal products including meat, my carb to protein ratio was usually 1:1 or even 1:2 (50% to 30% carbs) and now it’s probably 3:1 or 4:1 (75% to 80% carbs)
Fewer carbs means less error if you misestimate by a little bit. It’s important to keep in mind that everything vegan has carbs. Tofu has a lot of carbs. Mock meats have a lot of carbs. Vegetables are low calorie but almost all of the calories are from carbs and if not accounted those carbs can make a big difference. Charts of “free foods” might apply to type 2 diabetics, but for a type 1 diabetic (unless you are eating an animal muscle), any food will raise your glucose substantially. I try to increase my protein and fat to reduce my carb consumption and to prevent my insulin bolus from outlasting my food.
If it was a sudden change and their diet has been consistent, they might need adjustment of insulin. Needs change over time and even 3 lbs weight gain can cause dramatic changes in insulin needs for me. I usually start by increasing to 8 point (assuming 3 meals) testing during the day and consuming only prepackaged food for a week (usually frozen dinners). The prepackaged foods are just to minimize error from misestimating carbs. I test fasting, pre-prandial, post-prandial, and at bedtime. Ideally eat dinner at least 4 hours before bed so that overnight glucose isn’t affected by dinner. Make modest adjustments targeting levels out of range. I like to keep my basal insulin so that I’m level (no increase or decrease) if I don’t consume anything. That allows me to bolus meals more effectively since I’m not depending on post-prandial hyperglycemia to get me through to the next meal without going low. It’s so helpful to have a pump when you’re dialing things in, but I don’t know what their insurance is like if they don’t have a pump already. When I initially got my pump it was under my parents plan and it was free, but it would be thousands to get a replacement under my current insurance.
Sorry if that’s not helpful. Diabetes is so finicky
When talking about wild animal suffering all I can think of is someone standing between a wolf and a deer, with a spraycan of water and be like "bad dog". Taking out the human from the question, and I imagine a wolf suddenly getting very philosophical, almost a romantic montage of deer passing by.
I'm inclined to think there is both objective and subjective morality. I think some things we just say 'well we don't have a real reason this is ok/ not ok', and some things we say 'well if you look at these numbers and statistics, and most people think this', etc.
My bf, being a christian converted atheist, has far more trouble with this concept. I had nobody telling me things I thought were objectively good or neutral were bad, but he did. I think justifiable laws closely follow what I consider objective.
I think sometimes people aren't being honest as much as they're trying to be consistent. Maybe Jed thinks it is morally wrong to harm a dog, but he doesn't want to change his stance on libertarianism, etc.
This guy is either a monster or he just wanted to do whatever he could to be on the opposite side of Ed. For a Libertarian he sure is okay with the enslavement of certain beings
Unnatural Vegan has advocated for the use of leather so she's a bigger monster
@@BOOFSIDEPINS what vid?
He honestly just sounds like a dude who heard of libertarianism for the first time. I just think he didn’t want to lose the argument. I doubt he would live the principles he espoused here
I honestly really disagree about reducing wild animal suffering. I totally understand where it come from but I think wildlife wise we need to focus on first restore habitats, rivers, wetlands and forest. As we know that human activity is the deadliest factor for wildlife so it would be better to just put the money towards that rather than trying to castrate herbivors and make foods for carnivores as I understood the biggest line of RWAS is.
If you are interested in the logical relation between the existence of a god and that of objective morality, I suggest reading about the Euthyphro Dilemma from Plato's book Euthyphro. This is, I would argue, the only argument you need in that domain...
Seems like this guy read Leviathan for the first time last week
You're right. It's crazy that he identifies as a libertarian
12:17 this is me when I talk to anyone honestly
Yes, I completely agree with you on the objective morality stance! A woman after my own heart! I think you are too smart... I will stop flirting now lol!
Teeth-argument just means, that we have not come up with the idea of eating meat by being mean or greedy, as we can say about some other development of the human race, but that we are created as such that we as a species eat meat. Can eat meat and are meant to eat meat or at least animal products (Vitamin B12). Of course someone can be a difficultier in their lives and avoid all animal products, but by doing so they are not any better of a person that we who eat meat. Not that people would be vegans to be better people than others, but just saying.
video starts at 3:00
Ahh yes just as I stopped thinking about "meat teeth" they bring it TF back 😩😩
What about the argument i always hear in earthling eds videos, the exsistence of objective morality. How do you proof objective moraliry exists? The question about female circumcition, is answered from the western cultural pespective and the relativity of morality is not debunked effectively. If objective morality exsists where does it come from? And who desides if something is immoral and can not be acted upon, is there a kantian categorical imperetive? Humans reproduce there circumstances, so if the circumstances change morality changes wich makes it relative and not objective. I am just intelectually interested in this question. If you dont uberstand the moral option, how do you know wich one to choose and to act upon it, do you need vegans to lead the way? It is wrong to eat meat, you just dont know it? Does objective morality come drom culture? Is subjective morality circumstantial?
It's creepy when you read my mind girl.
Unnatural vegan, have you seen Stefan Molyneux's debates about veganism?
His comment about government laws being a moral mandate is crazy. I’m wondering if he would answer this way right now, when we’re all observing what Russia’s government is mandating.
Pretty sure he's not refering to these barbaric / undemocratic governments but nice strawman
@@BOOFSIDEPINS my intention wasn’t to strawman him or say that he thinks a barbaric government is moral. Just to say that this reasoning doesn’t hold up. But then, who’s to say which government is moral and which isn’t? I think Swayze hinted at this last point. I didn’t mean to misrepresent him.
I would actually compare it a “biblical argument”. When someone presents the Bible as a source of morality and then is asked about the slavery. Usually, the answer is “Well, those were different times.”. OK, but then you don’t really take your morals from whatever the Bible says... Most governments in history allowed at least some practices that we’d consider barbaric today.
16:41 wait, you said you're not sure what the point of that question is?? well its to buy time and feel like your arguments are all put together, obviously! lol
Only a sociopath would say “ I don’t operate with any type of morality”. Like, that’s what separates people in society that are good people and people in society that are bad people. You do have to learn the difference between your personal moral code and the societal moral code and then the universal moral code, there’s a lot to learn. But to say absolutely that you don’t live your life with any type of morality or you don’t judge another person‘s morality is definitely psychopath/sociopath energy.
I'm "libertarian" (I would call myself liberal everywhere in the world exept from USA where liberal is just left) and vegan too
Someone in coma is not sentient (cant feel pain) but is it still wrong to kill him.....so obviously the morality of killing goes beyond sentience
We have feet made for pressing a gas pedal therefore we need car-centric suburbs
I disagree with that take on subjective morality. I think killing animals when you don't need to is wrong. I care a lot about animal suffering and really wish more people would come around because, objectively, it would create better experiences for those animals. At the same time, I can recognize that some people REALLY do not seem to care about that on an emotional level. They have their own systems of morality that are different from mine. But, just because they're different, it doesn't mean that they wouldn't hold some beliefs that would be inconsistent with causing unnecessary harm to animals. For example, it seems that most people use the golden rule (at least in the west) as a core tennet of their moral system. Most people (again, in the west) also care about harm caused to cats and dogs. So, regardless of any other beliefs they may have and whether or not we agree on every ethical issue, I can spend time talking to them and trying to get them to investigate if they think their moral system has contradictions or not.
I’m a conservative vegetarian (get eggs from my pet chickens; no dairy or eggs from grocery or restaurants), I think the best description of libertarianism is that it’s like having 9 gallons of the most delicious ice cream mixed in with 1 gallon of dog shit.
For the dog question, “ if I see a dog can I stomp on it if I want to “ that’s a very complicated question if he’s asking if that should be legal or illegal because to vegans, whom most don’t eat honey or eat fish, wouldn’t they say all animals are the same value so killing a dog is just as bad as killing a bee or a fish. Therefore should we make it a crime to kill a bee/fish/& any animal? Or should we make it a crime to kill a dog but not to kill a bee or a fish? Or make killing animals not ever a crime? What is the best solution legally? I have no idea what the best solution is regarding laws of a country.
Why would you think vegans would necessarily assign all animals the same value? The reason I don't eat honey is that whatever probability I'd assign to bees being sentient and suffering is *clearly* larger than the trivial benefit I'd get from using honey over some other sweetener. But I definitely don't think that one bee is morally equivalent to one pig, or even that a whole hive is equal to one pig. (Nor would I feel the same after accidentally eating honey versus accidentally eating pig.)
as a libertarian…yikes
animals deserve rights/liberty too…
one’s rights end where another’s begin, so it’s the purpose of the government to also protect animal rights
Libertarianism actually considers animals as property. Maybe you don't want to identify as libertarian.
The government dictating what animals you can own is actually a topic in libertarianism.
15:33 I think you fail to understand that the job of a cultural anthropologist is to document cultures. It's like the old saying "science tells you what would happen, not what you should do." Historically, societies around the world have done heinous things at the consequence of squeezing opinions and facts together like this. Also it seems like Ed's point here is that morality only makes sense within a certain technological/societal framework, like how veganism only makes sense with modern farming, food processing, vitamin supplements, etc. In this sense, I think he's rejecting the idea that there is a final, all encompassing morality that makes sense to all humans at all time periods. That doesn't mean we can't make meaningful moral judgements today, it just means that we should be honest about the fact that our information is incomplete and that our morality should adapt as time goes on.
He didn't say that he thinks the only objective morality would come from a God. He gave that as an example, but you put those words in his mouth. I think you did that on accident, of course, but I thought I'd point it out
16:03- 16:14
Objective morality is not logically possible.
Objective morality is logically impossible to exist. Morality consists entirely of should statements. Should statements cannot be objective. If someone says to you, why ought X be true? you could furnish an answer, but the other person could reply with the same question ad infinitum. If you say that X ought to be true because of Y, someone could ask you why ought Y be true? If you say that Y ought to be true, because Z, someone could ask you why ought Z be true? Your chain of answers can’t go on forever, sooner or later, you must admit that you are ultimately just expressing an opinion.
From here on out, the term moral objectivist refers to a person who believes in objective morality and a moral relativist refers to a person who believes that all morality is purely opinion based.
Two atheists are in a room just the two of them. One believes that all morality is purely opinion based, while the other believes that morality is objective. As non-believers, they both believe that morality comes from the principle of empathy. If you do not want to die, you should not kill innocent people. If you want your property to be respected, you should not commit vandalism. The atheist who believes in objective morality believes that it is objectively wrong to cause unnecessary harm to your fellow human beings. The atheist who believes that all morality is opinion based holds the opinion that you should not cause unnecessary harm to innocent people, but he is merely expressing an opinion when he does so.
The following hypothetical conversation occurs between the two atheists who disagree on objective morality.
Moral objectivist: Sexual assault is objectively immoral.
Moral relativist: I believe, as a matter of logical principle, that sexual assault is immoral, but that is just my opinion.
Moral Objectivist: No, it is objectively true to say rape is wrong.
Moral Relativist: How do you know?
Moral Objectivist: It causes unnecessary suffering to innocent people.
Moral Relativist: Why shouldn’t we cause unnecessary suffering to innocent people?
I’m uncomfortable with you “suddenly discovering” Ed after so many years of him being extremely prominent in your field, then using his superior content to boost yourself.
I don’t think that he‘s necessarily confused about libertarianism, it’s just that all people are confused about animal rights. Conservatives turn leftist and leftists turn conservative. It’s pretty fascinating.
I... dont think hes a libertarian