@@joolzvega7298haha .welcome to real world them. You can believe whatever you want to believe. It won't change the truth of the matter. ua-cam.com/video/8MprLRv-IHs/v-deo.html
Seeing him stumped on things is so rare and such a treat. Enthralling discussion here. Definitely has the ability to change some minds about things, including mine.
Intellectual equal?? 😂clearly didn't watch like 5 minutes of this, alex is significantly beyond Ed, he just doesn't want to make Ed look dumb, so he doesn't fully pressure him that's all
@@snowforest6487 Yeah Alex is far beyond Ed. Ed is just incredible in terms of arguments for veganism which doesn't require the depth that Alex always brings
Alex’s ‘Meat eaters case for veganism’ was the thing I needed to start on the path of veganism 3 years ago. Earthing Ed, has inspired a well informed but compassionate approach to vegan advocacy. Two amazing people.
I am about 3 months in to being more plant based. I have had some meat less than a pound in that time, where it was all that was there and going to be thrown out later regardless. I have reduced eggs and cheese considerably. I am still on the fence about honey though.
Same here! Went vegetarian within a month of watching that video three years ago. Took me another year to understand the suffering in connection with dairy and egg production, but as soon as that sank in I went fully vegan.
@@thomassinikangas had almost the same journey. Went vegetarian (wasn't hard since I grew up with a vegetarian mother) in August 2019 after Alex's video had been fully internalised, became a vegan in February 2020 and haven't looked back.
For the record: most pasta in Italy (apart from the north), will not contain any eggs. If it does contain eggs it will be mentioned on the menu. But almost every dried pasta dish will only be made from water and durum wheat flour.
He mentionned "fresh pasta" though, isn't that by definition NOT dried pasta? Can you make fresh pasta without eggs, is it popular in Italy to make fresh pasta without eggs? Is fresh pasta not even "a thing" in Italy, or do they exist but they're insanely less popular than dried pasta? I'm just super confused, I have no idea if you simply didn't hear "fresh" pasta or if you're saying fresh pasta is rare, or that no one ever sells only fresh pasta. Haha
Sicilian here, retired chef. For clarification: Fresh pasta IS egg and flour, with water and salt. Without the egg, you don't get the gluten buildup. Without the eggs, there's no rich flavor. Some use yolks, some use whites, some the whole egg. But i's the egg that makes it "fresh." Dry pasta, what factories make, is just flour and water. That's why it's so flavorless and never tender. It's papier mache. No chef in italy worth his salt makes egg free pasta, just the chain places, the cost cutters, and the vegans. Pour flour, make a well, add egs (with a little water and olive oil), mix by hand. Form a dough, let it rest, press and cut. It's among the oldest recipes in Europe, right there with barbequed meat.
@@MrProy33 Appreciate the information but disagree with the implication that eggs are needed for flavour. I love dried pasta and even if you don't I'm sure you're smart enough and resourceful enough to either come up with a way to do it vegan or lookup how vegans have done it already. But even if that came up dry it'd never be an excuse to rape someone and kill their children, which of course is what we do to steal eggs.
@@hanumaniam Nah, it was a good question. The commonly used definition for being vegan has that ambiguous part about practicality which is a fair thing to ask about.
@@MapacheOculto I was referring to how you can see him testing the waters for leaving veganism behind him. Obviously less than a year later he stopped being vegan and it's fascinating watching this interview with Ed which Alex was clearly using to help him find an out because of that questionable definition from the Vegan Society.
Completely agree… Connor asking the toughest questions that I’ve ever heard as a vegan before. Makes me start questioning what it means to have “rights”.
_Fresh_ pasta _with eggs_ in Rome? We finally found something that Alex is not very well read about! First, fresh pasta with eggs is mostly from the Italian north east, Emilia in particular. Second, all traditional Roman dishes, like Amatriciana, Carbonara, Gricia, really anything other than Cacio e Pepe, would _never_ be done with fresh egg pasta in Rome! Dried water-and-semolina pasta is the king in Rome. It will be much more difficult to find something that does not have Pecorino on it!
Where did you get this information from? Are you sure it's true? For instance, I know that a popular type of pasta in Rome is "tonnarelli", which is made with eggs. But I don't live there, so I might be wrong.
@@allezy7434 I was born in Rome (actually I lived just in front of the Vatican, that's why the example from Alex was quite funny). But you are right: tonnarelli is indeed a fresh pasta with eggs relatively common in Rome. Still, it is quite marginal in the cuisine, mostly used with Cacio e Pepe. It is more commonly eaten in Abruzzo, with some form of ragù (what an American would call Bolognese). In Rome to find a restaurant with only egg pasta is really difficult, I cannot think of any. It would be instead _quite_ common (almost sure) in Bologna or Parma. There is btw a nice video by Alex the French Guy about carbonara, discovering exactly this: he made carbonara with fresh pasta, was unsatisfied and he flew to Rome to discover the rich dry pasta tradition.
@@bobon123 I see, thank you for correcting me. I'd heard from a few people that they were really good for cacio e pepe, so I just assumed they were widely used in Lazio as well. I'm from Veneto, never been to Rome, and it clearly shows lol
1:10:02 “If you’re confused about what action to take or how to go about it, or the legitimacy of the moral position, just place yourself in the mindset of the victim involved.” This statement remains truer than ever. So sorry you’re confused about your moral position and I hope your (and Joey’s) past advice can bring you some clarity. The animals need you to regain it.
He is not confused about his moral position. He addressed issues with IBS in a recent video, which he had prior to adopting veganism. He also stressed that this has nothing to do with the health aspects of a vegan diet. There are studies on how IBS is exacerbated in people with a restrictive diet (eg veganism / vegetarianism). If you don't have his health issues, you are privileged.
I think it isn't the confusion about the moral position, but check the section from 3:43 Ed explains that the primary reason why veganism is a moral position today is due to the applicability and practicability of veganism today compared to the rest of human existence. Being vegan is possible to do today, and it is practical to do today, therefore it becomes somewhat of a duty to be vegan today. 3:51 Alex agrees, and emphasises the operative word "practicability", and asks about the bounds of it. In retrospect, 4:59 is when he describes his own experience. Around the 6 minutes mark, Ed responds with his own experience. Given Alex's health situation, Ed's response to moral justification of non-veganism kinda covers him too, don't you think?
Actually, neither you nor Alex has any idea what the mindset of a cow is (i.e., what it is like to be a cow). Or a chick. Or a pig. Or a bat. To presume otherwise is at best species-centrist, and at worst, wildly ego-centric and arrogant. Yes, cows - like humans - experience pain. But they do not think like humans do, and so they do not suffer like humans do. For suffering - as far as humans are concerned - differs from pain, inasmuch as it is languaged, entails self-awareness, memories of the past, conjecture about possible futures, an ability to interpret events, and beliefs or judgements about how things ought to be. This is not to say animals _don't_ suffer (I don't know whether they do or don't) - only to say that if they do, so far there is no evidence that they do so in the way that humans suffer.
The question that arises for me when you assert your position so confidently is: are you concerned about the impact of monocultures on animal habitat? Do you abstain from eating food that isn't shipped to your local community? If your advocacy for veganism is a moral one, are the many communities world wide who don't have airable land on which to grow food sources for humans immoral?
As a type 1 diabetic and vegan I've never been in a situation where I felt it justified to eat animal products. In fact I find the idea of eating animal products repulsive. I've always been prepared wherever I go because I assume there won't be vegan options. If there is options then I'm pleasantly surprised. Or before a trip I will Google where my family can get vegan food. I don't give myself any excuse for eating animal products. FYI I've been vegan since 2009 and type 1 diabetic since 2015.
@@PBMS123 because as soon as you start viewing animal excretions as food products, you start the cycle of exploitation. when you sell these products, it creates a demand that farmers then need to supply and will inevitably involve cruelty so they can make the most profit, for example male chick's being killed at birth because they aren't profitable for the farmer
I feel that when I speak to someone who's on my same moral level regarding the way we treat animals I can just talk more freely about anything and have deeper and more serious discussions, that seems to be the case between you two here and I love it
Super duper interesting conversation. Thank you much gentlemen. Also "But I Could Never Go Vegan!" is actually the title of a cookbook. EDIT: To clarify, it's a vegan cookbook. There is a sequel "But My Family Could Never Go Vegan!" (I have them both in my personal cookbook collection).
It's so refreshing to see an intelligent discussion between two compassionate beings... I swear watching Ed debate college students kills my brain cells.
@@JM-us3fr He has already graduated. And regardless, even when he was a university student, Alex was way more intelligent than the vast majority of his peers from other universities.
Veganism lead me to antinatalism which lead me to negative utilitarianism and now I'm struggling with this. Man... philosophy is such a mind fuck it hurts my brain figuring out what I agree with when pushed to hypothetical extremes.
Two reasons can cause difficulty in taking a stance on something: 1) repression or 2) lacking a clear enough understanding of the thing to make a judgement. If 2 then the solution is to take your time learning more about the thing until you understand it enough to take a solid stance.
Well, why not regular utilitarianism? It has the same advantages because suffering is horrible and it should be counted a lot more than it is usually though, but you have less bonkers conclusions
Man, this was refreshing. So reasonable and well articulated. I’m a longtime vegan and have got a bit rusty with articulating my views so this was helpful. Doing God’s work fellas. Appreciate you both 💛
Do you ever think about the fact that veganism for everyone means domestic farm animals will cease to exist? That you’re effectively denying life to billions of creatures in the future by being vegan? Farm animals do get enjoyment from life. A vegans inability to deal with the eventuality of death would take all that enjoyment and life away.
Gary Francione says "if we all went vegan because we cared morally about nonhumans, that would necessarily translate into methods of crop production that would be more mindful of incidental and unintended deaths."
Idk if in that quote Gary denied this, but for animal production we need to farm like an insane amount of crops to feed the animal, and if we just ate the crops we gave to the animals we would farm wayy less crops.
That's sweet and all, but even as a vegan who's worked on small farms with minimal crop deaths, the "farmers are killing animals because they're not vegans" arguments slightly feeds into the "vegans have never been on a farm cliché". Like, it may be possible, but it's easy to sit there and claim "we could fix this if we were the ones plowing the field", while not actually having any concrete proposals. Though as I said, I've worked on small farms with very little "direct" crop deaths - the trick is to ensure you have some useful predators around, like birds that eat certain insects that would normally eat the plant. But is that really more ethical than insecticides ? Eh. Though question. Though there would then be even more insect lives and deaths if it were wild land instead of farming ground.
Yeah looking back on it now, he really was just trying to find every little loophole. Yikes. I wonder if it woulda been different if he ever did a vigil or actually saw a farm or slaughterhouse. It seems like it was never more than just a philosophical exercise in his head. He never actually connected to the victims.
Regarding suffering, my current standing on the subject is that suffering is not the presence of pain or the absence of pleasure, those are just indicators. You can disprove the notion quite easily. For pain, there are plenty of instances where mentally stable and healthy humans actively seek it (spicy food, intense physical activity, certain adult activities, etc). You would not say people indulging in these painful experiences were suffering. Pleasure is less obvious, but if you told someone who was grieving the death of a loved one that you could make them happy and forget about their loss, most people would decline the offer. Therefore the lack of happiness in this situation isn't the suffering, it's actually something else Suffering, in my mind, is actually the disparity between a sentient being's desires and the reality of the world. What is important isn't that you don't cause pain, it's that you don't put a sentient being in a situation it strongly desires (or will desire) not to be in. Likewise, it is an ethical good to create a situation that a sentient being desires (even if that situation involves their pain). This is why you can't kill humanely. Even if you kill the animal completely by surprise and without pain, it being dead would have been something it desired not to be (we know this because animals show desperation when they realize they are in a dangerous situation). There are, of course, a lot of subtleties to this. If an action will slightly align the world with a being's desire in the present, but greatly misalign it in the future, then that needs to be taken into consideration. For example, letting a child run in the road may seem like fun to the child right now, but that is because they don't understand the risk of death or serious injury, therefore it is justifiable to prevent them from doing so
@Negan The Vegan I agree those practices are horrific, and I wasn't saying spicy food is the same level. It was merely an example of where pain does not equate to suffering. People also intentionally whip themselves, suffocate themselves, even tear chunks of their own flesh out because they enjoy it. It hurts, but they want the pain. That means they aren't suffering. The difference for animals is that they don't want that pain. Even if it was a small amount of pain it is immoral, but of course humans inflict a large amount of pain on them. My point wasn't that that is okay. Quite the contrary, it was that there is more to suffering than merely experiencing pain
I loved this conversation! Got me to reflect on a lot. I have one small criticism at 24:18, when you started talking about "reverse natural selection." Natural selection is a process of change, not improvement, so it's wrong that the deer are becoming "evolutionarily worse" because they're being hunted. The deer that survive are, as always, the ones most well-adapted to their environment. Calling it "the opposite of natural," as you did, is incorrect.
That irked me a little too. I think Alex makes a distinction between natural selection and human selection here, where, arguably, no distinction functionally exists.
I think it's purely a wording issue because it's the opposite of what would happen if humans didn't interfere. That's what they mean I think, they just used a poor term to describe it
@@bobthellama6988 I largely agree, with the caveat that I don't think humans are unique in causing this direction of evolution. Alex's argument is that humans are causing 'reverse natural selection' by picking off the strongest, with the biggest horns. Well, the same is true for any predator. If a predator starts to choose the most colourful prey to eat, then the prey animal would potentially become less colourful over time to compensate, even if being colourful provided some other benefit. That's not 'reverse natural selection', it's just natural selection at work. We define 'fittest' as 'fastest' 'largest' 'strongest' (etc) in our framework, but 'fittest' from an evolutionary perspective only really means "best able to survive and reproduce". An animal could be the 'fittest' but be slow, small and weak, depending on the environment, flora, fauna etc. The weaker deer with smaller horns (etc) are fitter than the larger deer in an environment where humans hunt.
@@ryangibson7126 you raise a good point. But consider this: Before humans started hunting the animals with the largest horns were best-adapted to survival. Let's call this percentage of survival x. Naturally, the smaller the horn, the smaller the chance of survival. So creatures with smaller horns have a chance of survival < x. Let's call this value y. Humans have now targeted the animals with large horns, meaning the animals have a smaller chance of survival with larger horns than smaller horns. This new chance of survival with large horns is z. So z < y < x. So because humans have hunted, the combination of genes that give the best possible chance of survival (now y) is less than the chance of survival the best combination of genes could give if humans had stayed out of it (x). Does this mean that human evolution is independent of natural evolution? No. But it does mean that humans are making animals comparatively weaker when it comes to their chance of survival.
@@bobthellama6988 What I find interesting is that given enough time, and with consistent enough environmental pressures, the smaller horns may even *gain* some functionality since having bigger horns is making them less fit for survival. Imagine a Buck with razor sharp daggers on their heads!
That would definitely be worth something. I don't know what the hell happened with Alex but the most frustrating part is that I have not see him debunk any of his own argument that brought him to veganism and now he just refuses to cover the subject. I found him via looking up stuff about veganism, it made me really understand why we ought to be vegan and I he has been my entrance point to properly dive into ethics and understand it. ...and he just gave up on it based on arguments he thoroughly debunked himself before.
I love how alex understands the right to life arguments. It shows a level of good faith to understand something you don't believe or don't feel strongly about.
I’m a type 1 diabetic vegan, I would rather skip a meal than eat non-plant based food, we dose for meals so skipping meals isn’t a problem. If I was having a hypo and had no treatments with me and no plant based sweets or sugary drinks were around then I would be ok breaking vegan for that moment
I think there are case you can eat meat. For example, you have diabetic, and u in a situation you has to eat meat or skip 3 meal or 3 days of meal. I think it is okay to eat meat in that case. I dont have health issues, but skip meal drive me crazy
@@SenEmChannel I wouldn’t eat meat as that wouldn’t help with diabetes, I would eat sweets with gelatine, egg or milk if I had to, but meat isn’t food anymore. I think diabetes was a bad example, to treat a hypo you’re best off with a full sugar drink and you’ll probs fancy a big plate of chips which are readily available and plant based
@@bigcookielittlecookie i mean with health issue in general, not diabetes alone. Sure i will it suger, soda, or something like that. But assume life put you hard and you can not perfectly repare for every situation. Then, someday we can have a case that we need to eat right now, whatever reason ( hungry, diabete, blood pressure, ect) and if we dont eat in that situation we can end up in hospital for months. but so bad, all food around is meat, egg or milk( no candy, no surgar)Now i that case i think it ok for you to eat. I think im not vegan, im half vegan. That mean i dont eat meat, milk, egg when i can. But if life push me, i will eat anyway. I do belive vegan is good ethical treat. I just dont belive anyone can do it as good as it say. i want to be full vegan, reason i dont become full vegan because it too hard for me. someday, sometime we may be eat meat, kill animal for food if life push us hard enough. But in normal day situation, im think vegan is good choice
@@bigcookielittlecookie Dr. Cyrus Khambatta and Robby Barbaro MASTERING DIABETES - they are both type 1 (and vegan) and have a very well researched book. Hope it can help maybe!
Thank you. You are a fantastic interviewer. This conversation has given my a lot to think about and provided interesting perspectives on topics I wrestle with.
18:38 well you still have to name the trait. You wouldnt say that eating a huge bodybuilder per year is a good thing to do just bcs it causes less deaths.
Alex is not denying plants are nutritious. But when you are allergic or have allergic-type symptoms to proteins such as lectin found commonly in plants, what do you propose Alex to do? Eat supplements and refined carbs every day? Plants are not benign to people who have zero sensitivities either, at high enough concentrations they can become poisonous, as demonstrated famously by Walter White with every day beans. Remember plants evolved defense mechanisms to discourage animals eating them so they could reproduce and multiply, and some people are more sensitive to those mechanisms than others.
@@amuthanshan that is the biggest load of BS I've read in a while. Plant defense chemicals? You mean the things that are in plants that are healthy for humans, phytochemicals? Where are you getting your information from, Carnivore MD?
37:30 the part about it being strange to say animals have a right to life like humans do, because we violate animals right to life even by being vegan through crop deaths and such -- well we also violate human rights just by living our daily life too like paying for electronics, housing, employment, coffee produced by child slavery, etc... probably everything we pay for or do somewhere down the line violates or prevents some 'human' right.. so how is this a problem exclusive to veganism and animal rights? so now what must we do? we cant say humans have rights now either? we just need to sit in a blank room and stare at a wall or else we're contradicting our values? Its a problem for any conception of rights not just animals.
Its not a problem exclusively for veganism, but if vegans want to claim that animals have the same consideration to life that humans do they have to concede that they are also justified in killing humans for self-preservation. At which point you’ll have to contemplate how many lives are you justified in taking just so you can exist? If you had to kill hundreds of humans to survive, would it not be more moral to sacrifice yourself in the interest of those humans?
It's more about being consistent, and whether we can be. If we can't be consistent with how we morally treat animals compared to humans, it brings into question the fundamental compatibility of veganism with human society.
Perspective philosophy did a great response to Alex on why this "animals might not have rights" actually isn't very well reasoned out. I admire Alex, but on this one he is way off. "Rights" has to do with our obligation to respect others interests - when we can do so. When we can't respect someone elses interest, because our own are more pressing, we enter out of morality. We CAN'T act differently, and ought implies can, so even if the other has a right we actually respect, we literally cannot uphold it. Doesn't mean right suddenly evaporate as a rational way to think about ethics. Say every child has an interest to have their body and life respected. We ground this on rational reasons through recognizing and identifying the childs interests as similar to our own etc. We then call our obligation to respect an interest "their right". But then suddenly a terrible scenario happens, and you have to disrespect their bodily autonomy to save their or someone elses life or something. That doesn't mean rights are meaningless because violating them is possible or inevitable. It means rights violations must be justified. "A right" is a demand for sufficient justification for being harmed.
@@fromeveryting29 ok but “a terrible scenario” in your example, can’t just translate to human society. Sure, if it’s some extraneous event, but if that “terrible scenario” is general human society.. then that is a problem for the ethical framework. Which could well be the case with veganism.
@@deuceup4280 Not sure I agree there, but thanks for the challange. I think it perfectly translates to human society. To be forced into a situation (by nature, society or whatever) where you have to violate an animals body and life is a tragedy, because that animal has interests to live and be happy, just like us. It's terrible for the animal, maybe even for you, if you recognize your shared identity with the animal. Maybe you have to do it to survive, or to save someone else. That is a terrible scenario. Nature is a terrible scenario. Society is the endevour to organize rationally in order to try to respect each others interests, and mediate the tragedy of nature. We do this quite sucessfully. We can live in protection from unjustified harm. It's not perfect, but it is improving through ethical discourse expressed through veganism, workers rights, feminism and so on. This way we say "yo, if we are rational, we see that these individuals also have interests, so we must respect them, too. And that means harm done to them unjustified - is an injustice. So, are we justified in the harm we inflict on them?" It's impossible not to harm others, yes, but it IS possible to construct a society that RESPECTS others. My diet harms crop animals, but I still respect them, and advocate for a society that respects them, which is entirely possible to exist. Our society doesn't respect other animals, which is the issue veganism raises. We treat them irrationally, we treat them as if interests suddenly don't matter if the ones that hold them are a little different to us. Like we used to do other races. Remember that most crop deaths happen exactly because most crop farmers do not respect those animals. If we lived in a society where farmers did, we would be working on not being forced to violate those non-human individuals interest to live. If we are forced to, we are forced to, and the violation would be justified on the grounds that ought implies can. A respect for others means we respect them when we possibly CAN do so. That is what having a right means. I REEALLY recommend perspective philosophys video "cosmic skeptic is wrong about animal rights" or some similar title. This might sound bad, but Alex is very shaky and new to meta-ethics and ethics as a whole, as he himself admitted in this video, and it shows. Alex is very confident in his presentation, which I think sways people a lot, even though he is just beginning to explore issues he is completely new to. If you want to take your thinking about ethics to a new level, perspective philosophy is a goldmine. The two have also had conversations. Great guys, both of them. Cheers.
I watched something a while ago that showed Inuits catching fish, whales and seals for food. Now I know there are quite probably some incredibly remote and small Inuit tribes who have very little or no access to any modern civilisation, but although these people (in the documentary) are still classified as Inuits, they weren't a small tribe, they had cars and houses and snow mobiles and motor boats and smart phones and TV's and internet etc. All the trappings of modern society. Yet it was still pointed out that they 'have' to live off animal products because they are Inuits. It seems to me that if you can ship in all the trappings of modern society, some of which are quite difficult to obtain and transport, then you can quite easily ship in vegan food, and storing food in that climate is so much easier and less expensive too. Just a thought.... I know it's not as simple as that, as a lot of their income is from selling many of the animal products from their hunting, and it wouldn't be easy for them to find other methods of income.... I guess my point is that it's not always as clear cut as it might at first appear....
@@Flobb1t He wasnt having a go at them at all, he was just trying to point out that even in extreme cases where eating animal products is traditional it could be still possible to be a vegan albeit with some difficulty.
Those communities are already usually struggling deeply with poverty, relying entirely on importation of food would at the least be extremely politically unpopular and therefore unachievable, and that's assuming said food is subsidized somehow. If it isn't, I imagine many of the more modern tools like snowmobiles would no longer be affordable...
@@Flobb1t I think he was talking about those who aren't in "survival" situation. I think very few people (fewer even than previously supposed) are actually in need to kill other animals to survive.
People conflate indigenous people (or of indigenous heritage) living in the modern world, and those indigenous people living in more of a naturalistic setting or in very deprived areas in the modern world (i.e reservations). It's pretty ridiculous. There's no excuse.
This was a sorely needed episode. Been struggling with these questions for a while (even if they are occasionally hypothetical), and glad to see others are struggling too.
Ed doesn't go here often, because it's not important or useful to his advocacy....but I LOVE that you did here!! He's used to Socratically asking questions, not answering tough ones.
I think this is a great conversation that identifies the problem of describing veganism as a reduction of harm. Whilst that is an important component, it does not describe the full ideology. To describe veganism to its broadest extent we must include the ethical position that rejects the notion of viewing animals in a commodity or resource status. In the same way we wouldn't say that causing harm to one innocent human is justified if it were to result in less harm to others. The individual's right not to be harmed or used as a means to another's end is unjust, even if it were to lead to a larger harm reduction overall.
But we do think harm to humans is justified to preventable worse. We just experiened this frist hand thanks to covid. Locking people up against their will is a form of harm. (It's also the foundation of our criminal justice system)
I know we usually focus on reducing suffering when trying to improve the world, but when people forget to give pleasure a factor in the moral equation, we end up philosophically in positions like anti-natalism or trying to destroy the earth. I'm curious if anyone thinks they have a consistent vegan philosophy that includes a being's pleasure alongside suffering reduction?
I'd say that most advocates and animal ethicists do not think that only suffering matters, although it seems to be a common view that suffering - specially extreme suffering - has a relatively greater weight and should take priority over other values such as pleasure/happiness, justice, knowledge, virtue and so on. It isn't a popular stance to claim that an hour of horrendous suffering can be compensated by creating and hour or even 100 hours of great pleasure or bliss (or by bringing into existence a certain amount of happy beings). Most would agree that we should prevent the extreme suffering. A suffering-focused ethic can take many forms and admit of different axiological views. This is why many consider the future positive experiences that other beings can have, a reason not to kill them prematurely. I recommend checking out Magnus Vinding's great book called "Suffering-Focused Ethics: Defense and Implications" or just take a look at the entries on his website: magnusvinding.com/2020/05/31/suffering-focused-ethics-defense-and-implications/ Also check organizations such as the Center For Reducing Suffering or the Center on Long Term Risk. Regarding the world destruction argument against negative-utilitarianism, I recommend this paper by Simon Knuttson: www.simonknutsson.com/the-world-destruction-argument/ Or David Pearce's "The Pinprick Argument" against negative-utilitarianism: www.utilitarianism.com/pinprick-argument.html
The utilitarian concept of pleasure or happiness as a factor to be balanced against pain and suffering is a falacy. The will to live is what should really be considered. Many sentient beings, both human and non-human, suffer relentlessly but still wish to continue to live - and that wish should be their right. The almost universal will to live is therefore the metric which should take priority in the moral argument. This is nearly always overlooked.
@@davidpalk5010 Interesting perspective I hadn't thought about! Are you a utilitarian of any sort? As for me, I would normally group "fulfilling the will to live" in with other pleasures, as in "It pleases me that I continue to live". If you're utilitarian, I'm curious what you think when people place their own will to live below other preferences, e.g. "I would rather die in place of my child", or "I would rather die than see my house bulldozed". It seems that there are cases where sentient beings do sometimes balance their will to live against happiness, pain, and suffering, and find their will to live to be weaker. It's a sad tradeoff to be forced to make, but the fact that sentient beings sometimes choose it feeds my intuition that there can be pleasure or suffering so great that it outweighs will to live in a utilitarian moral argument.
Goodness, I've struggled with a lot of these ethicist questions since I became vegan. In my internal debates, I have often hit moral roadblocks and would assign it to what I personally refer to as 'the nuisance of ego vs sentience'. I find comfort in them acknowledging that nobody can completely defend themselves morally and prima facie consistency is likely all that we can achieve in absolute terms.
Interesting. As far as I know Ed's method in streer interviews relies on the socratic method finding roadblocks or inconsistencies in 'opposing' views. Those views needn't be either. They just cannot be (much) worse than roadblocks and inconsistencies in Ed's own vegan views.
2 роки тому+105
I went vegan 9 years ago, in a third world country where nobody even knew what veganism was. I was going to a school where the cafeteria didn't have any vegan options and they didn't let me take my own food. I have traveled around my country, in rural areas, where people still dont know what veganism is. I have traveled to so many different countries where I didn't even speak the language and where it was definitely hard to even communicate the simplest things. Things have gotten a lot easier, and never in a million years I thought that veganism would explode like it has around the world, but even then when it was so hard, I never once doubted my decision. The costs of not being vegan are too high for me. It never ceases to amaze me how many excuses people are willing to make to not take responsibility for their actions. Same thing with fast fashion and most cruel industries.
The issue I think is the fact the diet itself isn't tenable in food deserts which is often ignored. Secondly, solutions are rather easy to attain if we used lab grown meats which would nearly overnight kill the cruel industries.
What an amazing talk! Thanks both of you. You made me feel accompanied, since many questions are not made within my activism group, and I thought maybe I was taking it too far.
On the decision between eating a plant based food or hunting a single animal; I would wager that the amount of animals that are killed during crop harvesting are less than the amount of meals that same area can be harvested for. So the amount of animals killed per meals-worth harvested is likely less than 1, and so it would still be more moral to eat the plant based food rather than hunt an animal, if we are strictly talking numbers. And on the idea of humans having a greater right to life than animals based on our sentience and the affect our deaths would have on others; wouldn't by this logic it mean if given the choice between killing a family dog, or killing a man with no social ties who has less sentient capacity than the dog (through disability, or a coma ect), wouldn't that justify killing the human over the dog? Because in this instance the dog has more sentience and more suffering caused by its death than the human. I believe we should treat animals the same way we would a human that has an equal degree of sentience to them.
Keep in mind, if you go this route, you have to fairly account for the fact that the animal being killed may easily provide more than one meal. An elk would offer quite a few meals for instance. I feel that the best argument against hunting is how it's not sustainable for everyone to go out hunting. If there is some sort of moral excuse for it, you would have to accept that you have no more right to be the hunter than anyone else does, and, as Ed mentioned, that doing anything other than targeting the weak animals would be less moral.
Speaking of humans in a coma, I believe they are vegetables for all intents and purposes if their brain has died. So in actual fact they are already dead and should be taken off life support
Ya lost me for the second paragraph. It's extremely logical that we consider ourselves above other animals that have nowhere near our intelligence. I don't agree with that, but that's just how our brains are wired, and acting perplexed by it is being intellectually dishonest at best.
@@animalsarebeautifulpeople3094 Most comas aren't permanent. And tbh that is just being nitpicky and missing the point. If there is a human with less intellectual capacity and less emotional ties than a dog does the dog by this metric have more rights to life? I was merely giving a coma to give a direct example rather than keeping it abstract.
@@cdogthehedgehog6923 No I feel I am being intellectually honest by acknowledging that the only reason humans consider intelligence as the main measure of worth is entirely illogical, and simply based on the fact it is the only easily identifiable advantage we have. There is no justifiable logic to say that degree of intelligence is how we should measure worth, and even if there was, very few humans abide by it WITHIN the species. Most parents value the life of their dumb child over an intelligent stranger, and many would even value the life of their pet dog over a stranger. The point at which intelligence has been measured to be worthy of the right to life just so happens to be when it crosses into the threshold of human capacity, almost as if intelligence was a post-hoc justification to continue to treat animals as inferior. Intelligent is only worth anything to us because we are intelligent, not because we sat down and had a deep philosophical debate and concluded it was objectively the true measure of the right to life. In fact given that the expansion of intelligence has led us into potential extinction would suggest that its worth is entirely contextual and not absolute. A dog may not be able to write an opera or unlock the mechanisms of the universe but it also cannot commit genocide or cleverly work out ways to fake scientific findings to present an unsafe practice as safe, or able to drain the worlds limited resources and generate untold suffering. Intelligence may get us out of it but it is just as if not more likely that it won't, and human intelligence will continue to be used to manipulate those less intelligent. It's almost as if valuing intelligence as the right to life and accepting arbitrary boundaries might lead to some of the most intelligence minds who lack compassion to temper their imaginings, to see less intelligent humans as having less of a right to life than them for the same reason everyone else applies this to animals. All they are doing is moving that arbitrary boundary.
It's great to hear these concepts around veganism get seriously challenged. I feel like it's easy for us to get too comfortable in our thoughts on veganism sometimes and it's good to remember that behind it all, we're still human and are still trying to figure it all out. You guys are doing such important work, please keep it up! 🧡🌿
Every chapter in the video had a moment or moments that made me wide-eyed with amazement that the discussion was so thoughtful. 10/10 Regarding the bit on pain, I'm on board with Ed's argument that "less" sentient creatures can arguably feel more pain. Even among humans, as children, physical stimulus hurts more than it does as adults, and it largely boils down to knowledge, experience, and perspective gained throughout one's life. The more painful moments as adults tend to be psychological, even driving people to die by suicide, which happens more frequently because of psychological pain and less frequently because of physical pain. I also agree that pain is probably not the right axis of analysis for gauging inherent worth. A sentience hierarchy is subtler but more representative, because the opportunity cost of losing a high-sentience creature is greater than the same cost of losing a lower sentience creature, at least in a utilitarian framework.
How do we know how has more sentience and who has less? There is not way we can know how other species experience the world. I did not like how Ed went on and on about superior human sentience. He sounded like a human supremacist.
@@barbaraibiel I think cognitive ability is at least a quintessential component of sentience, if it isn't the entire picture. I don't think making the observation that humans are more sentient than other creatures is a "supremacist" position; it is merely descriptive. The prescriptive part is what I said, that sentience is a valuable and desirable trait, and bias is likely a large component of my opinion. If other species disagree, I welcome them to challenge me in a debate... too bad that's not happening any time soon.
Original Italian pasta has no eggs in it. The majority of noodles and pasta sold in super markets in Austria (where I live) is now egg free too. In Vienna we even have vegan super markets and a lot of restaurants serve vegan meals.
Interesting discussion around hunting! One aspect that was not mentioned is that sometimes the reason there are “too many” deer is because humans have destroyed ecosystems so there are fewer deer predators. The opposite situation also exists. In Canada, human activity (cutting down forests) has given wolves such an advantage in hunting caribou that the caribou are endangered. Instead of addressing the human-caused problem, there is a wolf cull going on. The idea that we have to kill these animals to save other animals is not only horrific but short-sighted.
This was such a refreshing video. It felt like it was over as soon as it started and I was hanging on every word. I wish more content creators could have more videos that address issues beyond the surface level, tired rigamarole that carnists' "debates" entail. Thank you for your commitment and thank you for the video.
Thank you SO much for having Ed back… I’ve been ‘cursed’ by the compelling arguments for veganism ever since your first podcast. I’ve become a conflicted pescatarian/flexatarian ever since, and easily spend an hour a day thinking about this stuff. I can’t wait to listen to this. Especially the question you ask at 18:00. I’ve been driven mad thinking about this
baby steps ...ultimately its a process. sure some ppl flip 180 but for most of us it was a "journey". I started by cutting things out gradually. first I dropped beef ...then chicken ...etc. As I was slowly cutting things from my intake I took that time to learn about how to make proper plant based food and also learn about meat and its effects on health, etc. this is where the learning curve is. good luck 👍🏽
I’ve recently cut out dairy (mostly) and it already seems weird to drink milk to me. I would say find something you could do without and cut it out compeltwly
0:00: 💭 The podcast discusses the definition of veganism and the practicality of being vegan in different situations. 0:00: Veganism is living in a way that excludes the exploitation and use of animals. 2:11: The definition includes eliminating meat, dairy, eggs, and animal-derived clothing and cosmetics. 3:47: The practicability of veganism depends on individual circumstances. 5:03: Situations where it may be impractical include limited food options during travel. 6:09: While it may not be possible for everyone to go vegan, it is important to acknowledge the limitations. 6:39: 😕 The discussion explores the concept of practicality and justifiability of consuming animal products in certain situations. 6:39: People sometimes use the argument of practicality to detract from their own personal responsibility. 7:08: Inconvenience does not justify buying animal products when alternatives could have been prepared or stocked up earlier. 8:37: Skipping one meal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the average person's health. 9:08: Medical requirements can justify consuming animal products for health reasons. 10:02: The definition of health and its impact on justifiability of consuming animal products is subjective and debatable. 11:19: The speaker ponders on the hypothetical scenario where being vegan is unhealthy and explores the limits of justifiability. 12:49: 💭 The discussion revolves around the definition and practicability of veganism, as well as the ethics of consuming non-essential vegan food. 12:49: The definition of veganism involves minimizing suffering and exploitation to the highest extent practicable. 13:24: There may be situations where it is morally justified to not be vegan, even if it is not in line with the definition. 13:53: There is a potential contradiction in defining veganism as minimizing suffering and death to the highest extent practicable, but not considering someone who meets that criteria as a vegan. 14:58: The risk of diluting the meaning of veganism should be considered when discussing its definition. 16:11: The question of eating non-essential vegan food raises concerns about unnecessary contribution to animal suffering and death. 17:16: Overconsumption is a broader issue in society, and responsible consumption should be encouraged. 17:31: Determining what is essential can be subjective and dependent on individual needs. 17:58: Overconsumption of food and other resources should be addressed to mitigate health and societal problems. 18:39: 🦌 The video discusses the moral implications of choosing between eating animal products or plant-based alternatives, and the argument of hunting as a solution. 18:39: Supporting plant-based agriculture can lead to advancements in more efficient and ethical production systems. 20:12: The paper suggests that it should be possible to produce plants without killing any animals in the future. 21:48: Hunting cannot be a food system due to ecological damage and inability to feed the masses. 23:22: The moral argument for hunting based on population control is flawed as hunters often target healthy animals. 24:09: Hunting disrupts natural selection and can lead to genetic changes in wild animals. 25:00: Hunting is an unnatural process that goes against the principles of natural selection. 25:40: 🥦 The discussion explores whether there are situations where a vegan action could result in more animal suffering than a non-vegan action. 25:40: The speaker hesitates to make a definitive statement but acknowledges that theoretically, there could be situations where a non-vegan action causes less animal suffering. 26:13: The speaker mentions hunting as an example where killing one animal could potentially result in less overall animal suffering compared to being a vegan. 27:36: The speaker acknowledges that such situations are unlikely to exist in reality and believes that being vegan generally reduces animal suffering. 29:21: They emphasize that the philosophy of reducing suffering should be more important than strictly adhering to a generic definition of veganism. 30:03: The speaker suggests that considering the caloric and nutritional density of plant foods could help make more ethical choices. 30:38: They propose that differentiating plant foods based on the scale of suffering they cause in production could be a future consideration. 30:54: The speaker highlights the importance of transparency in food production and making informed decisions to reduce overall suffering. 31:14: They mention that foods grown on trees may be morally preferable due to causing less harm during production. 31:37: In a hypothetical scenario without animal agriculture, the equivalent of veganism might involve raising awareness about animal deaths in crop production. 31:47: 🤔 The discussion revolves around the debate between consequentialists and deontologists in terms of reducing suffering and animal rights. 31:47: The author aligns more with the principle of reducing suffering rather than categorical rights. 32:36: There are logical inconsistencies with both consequentialism and deontological approaches. 34:17: The author does not advocate for eugenics or antenatalism. 35:03: In the human context, the author believes in intrinsic rights and value. 37:27: The author questions whether non-human animals have a right to life in the same way as humans. 37:39: The author highlights the dilemma of veganism involving animal death for survival. 38:07: 🐔 The video discusses the concept of animal rights and the moral implications of killing animals for food. 38:07: Animals having a right to life raises the question of whether it is morally wrong to kill them for food. 38:22: If humans have a right to life, it would be inconsistent to deny animals the same right. 39:13: The distinction between preserving one's own life and killing another for food may affect the moral implications. 40:51: The concept of rights is subjective and may be based on human ego rather than objective principles. 41:26: Some rights theorists argue that rights can be overridden or violated, while others propose specificationism. 42:22: The issue arises when determining why it is wrong to kill certain individuals, such as a homeless person or a pig. 43:09: The speaker believes that rights are not god-given but based on the characteristics and capacities of individuals. 43:21: The level of sentience in animals may determine the rights they should have. 43:37: The speaker suggests that the increased sentience of humans gives them more moral worth or right to life compared to animals. 44:06: 😕 The speaker discusses the moral assessment of different animals based on their levels of sentience and the capacity for pain, highlighting the potential for non-human animals to experience pain more intensely than humans. 44:06: The speaker believes that the capacity for feeling pain and the consequences of death extend beyond the individual, making the suffering caused by the death of a human more far-reaching. 46:05: The speaker raises concerns about the confidence in determining relative levels of sentience and questions if animals with heightened sensory experiences, such as dogs with their sense of smell, may actually experience pain more intensely than humans. 47:39: The speaker acknowledges that humans may have the capacity to experience pain less due to cognitive abilities that allow psychological distancing and awareness of pain's end. 48:49: The speaker suggests that non-human animals may experience pain more intensely due to their lack of awareness of death and inability to distance themselves psychologically from the experience.
49:35: The speaker recognizes the potential devaluation of non-human animals in discussing hierarchy of sentience and expresses a conflict about inadvertently placing humans on a pedestal. 50:51: 😕 The discussion explores the question of whether animals have the same right to life as humans, considering the hierarchy of worth of life and the distinction between humans and animals based on pleasure and pain experiences. 50:51: The differentiation of the hierarchy is less about where humans come to the animals we consume but more about where humans come to the animals we kill in the production of crops. 52:47: The relative weight of intellectual pleasures compared to physical pleasures and the view that intellectual pleasures are worth more than physical pleasures may seem arrogant. 53:18: The speaker is not entirely sure about their own view on whether animals have a right to life and is interested in hearing other perspectives. 54:13: If suffering is what matters, then animals that can suffer more would have more moral worth. 55:43: The difficulty lies in characterizing some atrocities as worse than others based on the scale of suffering inflicted. 56:03: The experience of suffering is subjective and cannot be fully understood by others. 56:14: An analogy is made between the difficulty of high school physics and PhD level physics to highlight the subjective nature of suffering. 56:56: 🗣 The video discusses the nature of ethical debates and how most conversations about veganism focus on drawing out people's inconsistencies rather than debating the ethics. 56:56: Ethical debates often focus on factual claims rather than moral principles. 58:04: The speaker argues for veganism based on descriptive consistency rather than moral arguments. 1:00:26: Most conversations about veganism revolve around surface-level arguments and inconsistencies. 1:01:35: The speaker suggests probing deeper into people's moral intuitions to explore the differences between humans and animals. 1:02:08: The conversation with a lady at UT Dallas is highlighted as a favorite, where the speaker felt their points made the other person uncomfortable. 1:03:08: 🗣 The speaker discusses a conversation with someone who interrupted their discussion to debate veganism, highlighting the stereotype of vegans being pushy and the importance of challenging preconceptions. 1:03:08: The speaker had a conversation with someone who interrupted their discussion to debate veganism. 1:03:19: The person seemed confident in their beliefs but lacked knowledge about halal slaughter. 1:03:35: The speaker found it strange that the person interrupted the conversation and then admitted to not knowing about halal slaughter. 1:04:30: The speaker believes that passionate opposing views create a platform for understanding different perspectives on ethical issues. 1:05:06: The speaker wishes to see the stereotype of vegans being pushy disappear. 1:06:03: The speaker finds it hypocritical when people criticize vegans for being pushy while being pushy themselves about other ethical issues. 1:06:36: The speaker believes that dispelling the pushy vegan stereotype can soften people's perception of veganism. 1:06:56: The speaker also mentions the stereotype of vegans being weak or unhealthy. 1:09:01: The speaker acknowledges the need to be pushy in advocating for change, but emphasizes the importance of being vocal without fulfilling the pushy stereotype. 1:09:31: 📚 The podcast discusses the importance of being loud and vocal about veganism and animal rights, and the need to understand the suffering of animals in the meat industry. 1:09:31: Being vocal about veganism and animal rights is justified, considering the suffering animals endure in the meat industry. 1:09:58: Putting oneself in the mindset of the victim can provide clarity on the moral position. 1:11:09: Engaging in discussions, writing books, and spreading vegan propaganda can help raise awareness. 1:11:57: The book 'This Is Vegan Propaganda' provides information on UK farming and animal treatment. 1:13:16: The book challenges the notion of vegan propaganda and invites readers to make their own judgments. 1:13:33: The book has been successful and is on the bestseller list. 1:13:46: The speakers will be appearing at the Vegan Camp Out Australia and UK events. 1:14:44: The Vegan Camp Out is a global event worth attending. Recap by Tammy AI
The discussion at 36:00 has a very clear consequentialist answer: What are the consequences of living in a world where your organs could be harvested to save 5 people at any point in time? Do you want everyone, or your loved ones, to live in such a world? The unintended consequence is sacrificing everyone's security/comfort/trust etc.
However, this consequentialist answer has further implications. You're essentially saying that you could have been born the human who is victim to having their organs harvested. But, why limit the thought experiment to humans? 'You' could have been born the cow that is milked to death or the insect that is crushed by the combine harvester - this answer seems to lead us into stumbling blocks to disentangling the issue. I don't think 'you' could have been in the position of the victim in any real sense. You can only be the you that you are right now. So for me, these kind of thought experiments fail.
@@Cowz19999 It's a possibility. We are making headway into cultivating meat without a spinal cord attached, we could probably do the same with human organs.
@@Cowz19999 We already do that. Consenting individuals carry donor cards. I know what you're suggesting, and if you're being serious, I don't think our moral compasses align, so I don't consider you an individual whose opinion is worth listening to.
I was gonna say surely Rationality Rules was the first person to feature on the podcast twice, but I suppose one of those was on the incredibly long running Cosmic Christian Podcast 🤣
I knew you would stop the vegan thing at some point. Public figures usually do. Not saying you weren’t genuine about it. It’s just hard for me to not assume at this point.
Really enjoyed that! Some fascinating questions I hadn’t considered before and thoughtful answers. If I could add to the question on rights (as a lawyer interested in these things), I think that referring to “rights which can never be violated” is where it gets a little murky. This point was made by Alex but I thought I’d just add to it! There are “absolute” and “non-absolute” rights. While some rights like the right to freedom from torture are absolute and may never be infringed (not that this happens in reality, but that’s the law at least), most aren't, such as the right to liberty which of course is limited by lawful imprisonment. Alex makes a great point about how most rights are simply shorthand for a much lengthier proposition filled with exceptions to the rule. That is the legal position in a nutshell. Relatedly, I think it’s fair to say that, in a legal sense, the reduction of suffering and the concept of rights actually go hand in glove. What I mean is that the basic and general test to determine if a right has been unlawfully infringed is (i) has there been an infringement? (ii) if so, was it infringed in pursuit of a legitimate aim? (iii) if so, was the infringement proportionate to that aim (was it the least amount of infringement necessary)? Most legal cases turn on the third question, which is referred to as the “proportionality test”. Although it isn’t expressly referred to as such, it seems to me that the general reduction of suffering always factors heavily in that equation. For example, where someone’s mental state has reached a point where a court would consider the person a danger to themselves and to others, an application might be brought in court to take that individual into the care of the state which, depending on the jurisdiction, can result in that person losing all sorts of rights in terms of decision-making and so on. However, a court may make that order if the result is proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved; i.e. protecting that person and others from likely harm. One of the more fundamental disagreements in legal theory is between natural law (that rights inhere in every person just by virtue of existing, resulting from things like your intrinsic dignity as a human being) and positive law (that rights only exist because we as societies have set them out). For positivists, the reason animals don’t have a right to life in the same way that humans do is because societies have not chosen to develop the law in that direction. For naturalists, the reasons animal don’t have that right is because they don’t fall into the same category as human beings. Being a vegan, of course I have a problem with this (as Ed says, it comes from ego more than anything more objective) and would extend towards animals more rights than they currently are afforded, including a right to life. If you were to take that view, the problem then becomes when is it proportionate to deprive an animal of their right to life? For humans, states have a negative obligation not to infringe an individual’s right to life (subject to exceptions like necessity in certain circumstances), but not a positive obligation to go around actively saving lives. I wonder if this concept could be (somewhat crudely) applied here. Humans are obliged not to actively kill animals (refrain from farming them), but can do so where necessary (incidental deaths through farming crops). Obviously, this would have the consequence of placing a higher value on the lives of humans. Depending on your perspective, animals would then (i) have a right to life in principle in the “same way that humans do” in that it can be infringed where necessary, or (ii) they would not have such a right because the playing field would always be skewed in favour of humans surviving over animals due to something like sentience levels. It's certainly a difficult one to figure out! But I thought I'd add my 2c for anyone interested enough to read this essay!!
@@Blackkorso If you were to take the view outlined above, I think you'd have to say it's an unfortunate consequence of humans abiding by their negative obligation not to actively harm animals.
I think that the reason why it is hard to admit that a suffering panda might have more moral worth in a pleasure/pain framework is because we don't "want" to kill the human. There is a suffering that we incur by having to kill a member of our "in-group" weather that be species or tribe. I refer to this as the Hummingbird Problem: Would a moral hummingbird decide that a human should be killed over a another hummingbird? I believe that our sense of morality depends on what feels good for us. Often we feel good about being "moral" in our sense of pleasure and suffering but it's quite hard to consider killing a human due to the visceral reaction we have as well as the social blacklash.
Can see as early as April 2022, Alex is already looking for excuses to not be vegan. During the section "when is it permissible to eat animals" he is clearly not just putting out hypotheticals but speaking from personal experience.
Thank you , this is one of the deepest and most honest discussions of the ethics of veganism i have heard. Sometimes the arguments for ethical veganism aren’t as clear cut as we might like, as there are so many desired outcomes that sometimes conflict. I especially appreciated a discussion of the levels of sentience. You don’t hear about that too often, yet it’s something we all take into account whether we want to admit it or not.
It did. he was asking the questions that he was having trouble with and was probably hoping Ed could help with some answers and must've not have been convinced by his answers. It's even called veganism reconsidered
@@jakepara That is the next logical step. I mean Ed literally uses animal products needlessly for entertainment so he doesn't have much credibility on the matter anyway.
About the question which went something like this : 'is eating meat justified in a case where the plant-based alternative would cause more animal suffering?' I think it's important to tackle this question in it's philosophical context. By this i mean that you can answer this question technically and theoretically or you can answer this question in terms of the practical use. If you'd have the knowledge of Laplace's Demon and could analyse a certain situation or event with high certainty about the conclusion that in this one case it would be better to eat meat, then yeah that would be the more vegan thing to do. Now these situations would occur very rarely, if they even exist, and wouldn't contribute to the decline of development against animal suffering in plant-based foods to my estimation. But this situation is not realistic, so it should not be taken serious by anyone and should only serve for theoretical analysis. But practically and realistically speaking, this situation doesn't happen. There are soo many factors involved in calculating and analyzing these situations, with broad statistical evidence you're not gonna be able to analyse such a unique event. This brings me to my ultimate point: plant-based foods 'promise' less animal suffering, with general evidence suggesting this too. So if you eat a million meals throughout your life, you'd be best off to adhere to the plant-based foods since statistically speaking you're gonna have caused the least amount of animal suffering if you always stick to the plant-based foods. Certainly if they start developing further.
@@Jamienewman0 when was the last time anybody's life got objectively improved by thinking of whether your food suffered or not? then you got the answer to your question.
@@MusicJunkie37 yeh you see? i've no time to give a thought about my food much less on hypothetical scenarios from some random whom is just trying to virtue signal with a moral question that doesn't even try to set the whole situation as to why would people be getting killed for food and just goes for the laziest option it can find to make it self feel morally superior.
You sound like one of those Christians... if youre familiar with the way Alex does these podcasts he always takes an opposing stance just to get an interesting discussion.
Rome has supermarkets/grocery stores too, one can always go & buy food there, even during holiday. I also feel like, (almost) only childless people (but of course, not all of them) think they have a right to go everywhere unprepared. Once you have a baby, you quickly learn to think of possible "emergencies" in advance and prepare for them. And it's not different with veganism. It's also not *that* hard to bring your own food.
@@KFrost-fx7dt Have you ever heard of the invention of supermarkets? I doubt, anyone tours through backwoods food-deserts. *lol Weak argument, do better.
@@biancat.1873 What if another pandemic or something happens and you can't rely on supermarkets? I don't like having to rely on stores and be so domesticated, luke livestock. It's just dehumanizing.
@@KFrost-fx7dt I get what you're saying about supermarkets, but I'm not sure your example was very good, considering that a pandemic would probably mean restaurants would also be closed.
Damn, what a great discussion. I was convinced of the moral necessity of veganism after watching Alex's appearances on Modern Day Debate when I watched them last December, and in that time my understanding of veganism has grown and continues to develop more nuance. I watched his original discussion with Ed a couple of months ago, and I feel like that was the perfect primer for me since Alex was still relatively new at the time. Now that I've had some time to sit on it, it feels fitting that now I get to watch Alex go at it again with Ed with a much more complex understanding of veganism. The amount of times I thought to myself "WOW that's a great question to ask, it has been in the back of my head and now I get to hear it be addressed" was overwhelming. And I think it shows how far Alex has come that he even stumped Ed at several different points; they are really into the weeds of the philosophy of the position. Love hearing both of these guys talk, and I wish that I was as great of a communicator as either of them are.
Great to see you two speak once again - Alex convinced me of veganism and I'm a year and a half (ish) strong at this point. Keep up the great work, looking forward to seeing what you guys think this time around!
Everyone here uses animal products for entertainment and likely convenience. At least he was honest about it. I could ask you a simple question and I am sure all I will get is denial. Why do you use animal products needlessly for entertainment while pretending to be against it? I predict you will ignore the comment, go into denial, use a doctrine to justify yourself, or start name calling because the simple question is too much for you.
@@janieswanson2549 Get help. It's worse than I thought. You are way dumber than I thought- and I already thought that u are dumb as shit. And yes, I'm gonna treat shit like shit.
@@veganmeg Using my own words proves how effective they are against you. I guess you used them since you couldn't come up with anything better. Odd how you use animal products intentionally and needlessly for entertainment while complaining about Alex saying it was inconvenient. Oh well. I guess this means my prediction holds true. Thanks for the win and your ongoing concession.
so cool to see a conversation where they are able to move on from the basic points about veganism to some really in depth thoughts and discussions, great to hear form both of you I hope there's more content together in the future! (I will definitely attend vegan camp out aus if I can)
Survival of the fittest still applies if reproduction favours weaker animals because "fitness" doesn't mean strongest, quickest, or biggest. It means more likely to reproduce. When a deer with shorter antlers is favoured to reproduce because his antlers are less likely to be selected by hunters then that too is "survival of the fittest" because having shorter antlers confers fitness (a greater probability of reproducing.
I would be curious to hear opinions about the ranking of animals "worth" based off potential good they could do. Does the value of a creature morally change based on how much they could potentially help other creatures? If a creature who feels less suffering than other creatures but can help other creatures have less suffering, are they more (i hate to put it this way) morally valuable? I haven't thought about it too much, but it seems like an interesting question.
For example bees? Even if bees lack sufficient consiousness to have moral worth in a vegan context, bees extinction may result in the extinction of beings of higher moral worth? Interesting question. p.s. Isn't Alex on record stating if there was a button to end all life, this removing all suffering, then he cannot think of a single reason not to press it? In the anti-natalist perspective the subsequent extinction of 'higher' species is a bonus. p.p.s. Peronally I disagree since extinction also rules out the possibility for future happiness.
I'm not a vegan, certainly not according to the standard definition, but in my opinion this was the most intelligent discussion on the subject ever, anywhere...that I have witnessed at least. Even the definition of veganism was not just taken as granted but thoroughly combed through. These two are finally grappling with the most difficult questions in what I consider a proper way. I've heard so many ideological black & white claims or non-coherent appeals to emotion which have long made me cynical about veganism. This was so completely refreshing and opposite of that! Alex most surprised me with his potential commitment to non-cognitivism. I had no idea. It is the position I hold, but it isn't particularly popular. Ed is generally super consistent and clear from what I've heard of him, but even he managed to surprise me with an outright denouncement of intrinsic rights...of anyone, including humans. He can also clearly name a trait, even if it makes him feel awkward. Kudos for that! That whole rights and intrinsic value thing never made any bit of sense to me, without God. I just don't get atheistic moral realists. To me, that's an oxymoron. Over all, great stuff! Keep it up boys!!
@Happy Cats That would depend on your definition of a vegan. I'm not at all convinced I should not use any animal products. Also, my biggest criticism of veganism in general is the focus on suffering, minimizing suffering. It's incoherent because as Ed himself said, the ultimate conclusion of following that logic, is anti-natalism. I think more focus should be put on maximizing wellbeing.
@@alexlarsen6413 Maximizing well-being, yes, but not at the cost of the well-being of others. You can be vegan & anti-natalist while maximizing your own well-being, they aren't all mutually exclusive. It's literally as easy as choosing something else at the supermarket & doing whatever tf else you want to do in your life, because this is the reality: ua-cam.com/video/8gqwpfEcBjI/v-deo.html
A right isn't an obligations we must uphold at any cost, it's a claim to sufficient justification when harming someones fundamental interests. A demand for justification for harm. That is what it is. So the question isn't "do X have rights?" Or "do rights exist?", but - what is sufficient justification?
Yeah this was during his brief vegan period. Although I don't think modern Alex would actually have a different standpoint now. He'd simply argue that now in his case, eating animal products is now "necessary" rather than "unnecessary" because of his health concern, or that or that being vegan is no longer "practicable" for similar reasons. Veganism doesn't support harming ones own body for the cause.
Earthling Ed made a good point. Natural predations usually improve the traits and health of both preys and predators because the process weeds out both the preys and predators that are too weak, too sick in an beneficial evolutionary race. This leaves both predator and prey better as species. Human predation tend to be selective and usually targets the healthy and fit as results negative traits are selected. One example is the Malagasy crocodile. They became smaller and more furtive creatures (usually reduced to a few habitats) because of human predations.
Overconsumption (not in terms of food intake) is better than underconsumption. It means we have a degree of excess. There will always be waste, no processes we are in control of can preserve 100% of the energy put into it. We need to use more and more resources for our continued survival and development. That will probably also mean a higher degree of efficiency, but that's just a part of it.
18:38 Help I have this dilemma right now (sort of) Living in the Philippines, I don't have access to durable vegan shoes, and importing from EU or north america would be rly bad for the environment (& super expensive). Plus, idk any shoes more durable and long lasting than cow leather The best options I have (durable & fair trade) are locally made leather shoes. Suggestions?
Beans and tofu are cheap… and standard american diet is not the healthier … What I can better understand (and maybe that’s what u you mean by you’re comment) is for people living in food desert… but even there… whole food as rice and beans are gone a be cheaper and healthier than Mcdonald… An other argument that I can understand is the single parent who don’t have the time to learn how to cook vegan recipe …
The same way you use technology that might have been created by humans in brutal working conditions even though you believe humans deserve moral consideration.
@@cbri6926 "standard American diet is not healthier" If you can't see how weak this is, I don't know what to tell you. You're comparing the worst possible diet for humans to one that's a little better
I have to disagree with Ed on whether everybody can be vegan, and I wish he had more seriously contended with the "under my view no one is truly vegan" criticism he anticipated. Because I think it has more widespread application than the indigenous person example you guys talked about. We hear whole lists from people all the time about why a plant based diet would be challenging for them. Long lists of allergies, health conditions, sensory issues, local availability, money, access to cooking (whether that be time, skill, or means), level of independence from family members, whatever. These are legitimate challenges that go past "I don't want to, wouldn't be as tasty, wouldn't be quite as convenient." A LOT of the time people are misinformed about whether their circumstance is an actual barrier, sure. People will say they can't be vegan because they're allergic to coconut, or because they can't afford special vegan chili that costs 36 dollars. We should correct people on that. But that's not always the case! AND, to a certain point, _we aren't them and we don't fully know what their circumstances are._ So activism becomes less effective because we either have to ignore people who don't fit our conventional idea of who can be vegan (elitist and inaccessible, classist, etc.) and/or we act paternalistic toward people, demand medical records and try to discern for ourselves what they can "actually" do (vegans are pushy and annoying, disrespectful, ideological.) In this, we ultimately lose people and a lot of potential action because they either feel unheard and disrespected, or use their fall from "ideal veganism" to justify completely and totally giving up on any change. Like we haven't even talked about nonfood animal products this whole time. Surely it's easier to change people's minds on the spirit of veganism and allow action to follow... than it is to enforce an absolute checklist of conventions one must adhere to to fit in.
There's even an argument that Ed's understanding of who can be vegan doesn't hold incredibly wealthy/powerful people to high *enough* standards. But maybe he would say there's only a lower boundary and not an upper boundary or something
@Reggie Warrington I agree with you. I'm saying that people "in certain circumstances" should be considered vegan right now if they're doing what they can. But I think Ed would say that those people aren't vegan, though they could be if they were in better circumstances
I don't think the answer of "overconsumption is bad for your health anyways, so don't do it" is a good one, because there are scenarios where that might not be the case. My caloric intake went up over 2x since started to go to the gym. Is it immoral for me to get jacked? It is absoulely not necessary for me and I am probably far beyond a point where it benefits my health. What about if I eat plants, where the production causes less animal suffering and emissions?
@@bdnnijs192 Is it also not vegan for me to ride my bike to work instead of taking public transport? What if you eat plants that harm 2x the animals the plants I eat do and I eat 2x the food and am jacked. Are we both not vegan?
@@chuckyfox9284 That depends on wether taking your bike causes more harm or taking your bike. The difference is vegans would consider work a necessity, while they would not consider getting jacked a necessity. p.s. vegans might give you a free pass if you get jacked to prove it's possible on veganism and spread the gospel amongst gym bros
@@bdnnijs192 To be clear I do consider myself vegan even though I'm somewhat jacked and do ultra endurance cycling where I consume huge amounts of food. I think 99% of vegans would make the same judgement. In the end it's just a label with a vague definition. I think it's fair to say I am not vegan because I consume a lot more food than is necessary, even if I have convinced quite a few people to go vegan or at least consider animal welfare by being jacked and in general a very "rational" person who people might not expect to be vegan.
@@chuckyfox9284 You know the vegan society's definion. Any calory (and suffering) surplus needed to get jacked is not a necessity. I don't make the rules. The vegans that turn a blind eye on their own principles do. The definition is a kind of no true scottsman argument. By that definition you, and many others, are not True vegans.
I feel the answer to this statement is made at the beginning of this video. We live in a time where we actually have the ability to make a choice. And what choice do you make having the ability to make a choice. Self-righteous is perhaps the wrong term here now today. Maybe self-awareness is more fitting? Now I could be wrong. But is an open question/ statement.
If you are that hungry before your visit to the Vatican then you failed by not eating earlier and I doubt that unless you have some medical condition waiting to eat until after your visit is not going to cause a great deal of hardship.
How successful are vegans at fulfilling their 9 essential amino acids with regular food intake? If we are to follow the health exception, it takes a combination of foods, typically to get all 9 essential aminos in time to utilize them, while all or most animal products fulfill this requirement. Is this a non issue, a partial issue, or serious issue? Then, my next question would be, wether we eat the cows or not, should we not move ruminating animals back to the pastures? There are so many benefits, of decentralizing them and returning them to their practice of ruminating on pastures. Their methane production returns to a cycle instead of just dumping into the environment. It builds healthy soil, and microbiome, curbing water run off, and sequestering carbon.Can even reclaim decertified land, back into productive soil. If you did allow for eating the animals, in this system, it will be a healthier food than the k-fed alternative. Mark Hyman MD's book, Food Fix, suggest that pastor raised ruminating animals, in a decentralized system, would produce food so much healthier, that it could be the single largest contributor toward edging health threats such as, diabetes and heart disease. Is it more acceptable to raise animals that would live in their natural environment, without the use of regular antibiotics and hormones therapies, eating food that doesn't make them sick, ie corn and grains, also made with problematic agricultural products that would no longer be needed. But, would still benefit from having minders to protect from predators, and doctors to keep them heathy. Would this make their eventual slaughter, still unacceptable? I would propose that we have decentralized pasture raided natural ruminating animals to eat. Vegan, food options, and all the meat alternatives. All while pursuing the other interventions to improve agriculture. Having options, while optimizing out the damage of our food production, and reducing harm, while improving health outcomes, seems like the most moral and utilitarian path.
1) protein is mostly not an issue as a vegan. If you eat legumes almost daily you get enough of every aminoacid except cystein and methionin. For those you have to eat some nuts or seeds. Both legumes and nuts/seeds is something every vegan I know eats like 5 to 6 times per week. It's pretty standard by now to cook with it. 2) Those benefits are there, but wildlife animals do that as well. If we take some of the land used for animal agriculture to farm human edible food and return the rest to nature, we could have the benefits you talked about and additionally have some space entirely given back to nature.
This resonates with me on a deeper level now. It seems like those questions have been lingering in the back of your mind for quite some time, as if you've been searching for a way to find a loophole out of veganism.
I really like how Ed accepts that he doesn't know all the answers, it feels very honest to me.
Tbh that should be expected but unfortunately most people are not like that.
Yes, it's what makes this podcast so interesting for non-vegans like myself.
Alex should invite ex vegans in his channel.
I don't believe there is such a thing as ex vegans
@@joolzvega7298haha .welcome to real world them. You can believe whatever you want to believe. It won't change the truth of the matter.
ua-cam.com/video/8MprLRv-IHs/v-deo.html
It’s so nice to see Ed discussing with an intellectual equal rather than him having to counter the same ridiculous arguments over and over again
Seeing him stumped on things is so rare and such a treat. Enthralling discussion here. Definitely has the ability to change some minds about things, including mine.
Intellectual equal?? 😂clearly didn't watch like 5 minutes of this, alex is significantly beyond Ed, he just doesn't want to make Ed look dumb, so he doesn't fully pressure him that's all
@@snowforest6487 Any evidence for this or are you just talking out your ass?
@@snowforest6487 Yeah Alex is far beyond Ed. Ed is just incredible in terms of arguments for veganism which doesn't require the depth that Alex always brings
I bet Ed has debated actual intellectuals, BUT not everyone has considered veganism as thoroughly as Ed or Alex.
Alex’s ‘Meat eaters case for veganism’ was the thing I needed to start on the path of veganism 3 years ago. Earthing Ed, has inspired a well informed but compassionate approach to vegan advocacy. Two amazing people.
I am about 3 months in to being more plant based. I have had some meat less than a pound in that time, where it was all that was there and going to be thrown out later regardless. I have reduced eggs and cheese considerably. I am still on the fence about honey though.
Same here! Went vegetarian within a month of watching that video three years ago. Took me another year to understand the suffering in connection with dairy and egg production, but as soon as that sank in I went fully vegan.
@@Epsylon21 Just in case you haven't, please watch Ed's vid called something like 'Why vegans don't eat honey'.
@@thomassinikangas had almost the same journey. Went vegetarian (wasn't hard since I grew up with a vegetarian mother) in August 2019 after Alex's video had been fully internalised, became a vegan in February 2020 and haven't looked back.
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
For the record: most pasta in Italy (apart from the north), will not contain any eggs. If it does contain eggs it will be mentioned on the menu. But almost every dried pasta dish will only be made from water and durum wheat flour.
I thought that scenario seemed a bit far fetched.
He mentionned "fresh pasta" though, isn't that by definition NOT dried pasta? Can you make fresh pasta without eggs, is it popular in Italy to make fresh pasta without eggs? Is fresh pasta not even "a thing" in Italy, or do they exist but they're insanely less popular than dried pasta? I'm just super confused, I have no idea if you simply didn't hear "fresh" pasta or if you're saying fresh pasta is rare, or that no one ever sells only fresh pasta. Haha
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Sicilian here, retired chef. For clarification:
Fresh pasta IS egg and flour, with water and salt. Without the egg, you don't get the gluten buildup. Without the eggs, there's no rich flavor. Some use yolks, some use whites, some the whole egg. But i's the egg that makes it "fresh."
Dry pasta, what factories make, is just flour and water. That's why it's so flavorless and never tender. It's papier mache. No chef in italy worth his salt makes egg free pasta, just the chain places, the cost cutters, and the vegans.
Pour flour, make a well, add egs (with a little water and olive oil), mix by hand. Form a dough, let it rest, press and cut. It's among the oldest recipes in Europe, right there with barbequed meat.
@@MrProy33 Appreciate the information but disagree with the implication that eggs are needed for flavour. I love dried pasta and even if you don't I'm sure you're smart enough and resourceful enough to either come up with a way to do it vegan or lookup how vegans have done it already. But even if that came up dry it'd never be an excuse to rape someone and kill their children, which of course is what we do to steal eggs.
Looks like someone has to go and rewatch their own video.
Aye exactly
The seeds were sown in the first question, weren't they?
@@hanumaniam Nah, it was a good question. The commonly used definition for being vegan has that ambiguous part about practicality which is a fair thing to ask about.
@@MapacheOculto I was referring to how you can see him testing the waters for leaving veganism behind him. Obviously less than a year later he stopped being vegan and it's fascinating watching this interview with Ed which Alex was clearly using to help him find an out because of that questionable definition from the Vegan Society.
@@hanumaniam Absolutely. I came to the comments here to say the same.
seriously fascinating discussion, you two. i’ve never heard anyone delve so far into the minutiae of veganism
Completely agree… Connor asking the toughest questions that I’ve ever heard as a vegan before. Makes me start questioning what it means to have “rights”.
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
_Fresh_ pasta _with eggs_ in Rome? We finally found something that Alex is not very well read about! First, fresh pasta with eggs is mostly from the Italian north east, Emilia in particular. Second, all traditional Roman dishes, like Amatriciana, Carbonara, Gricia, really anything other than Cacio e Pepe, would _never_ be done with fresh egg pasta in Rome! Dried water-and-semolina pasta is the king in Rome.
It will be much more difficult to find something that does not have Pecorino on it!
this is the most important part of the conversation lmao
Where did you get this information from? Are you sure it's true? For instance, I know that a popular type of pasta in Rome is "tonnarelli", which is made with eggs. But I don't live there, so I might be wrong.
@@allezy7434 I was born in Rome (actually I lived just in front of the Vatican, that's why the example from Alex was quite funny).
But you are right: tonnarelli is indeed a fresh pasta with eggs relatively common in Rome. Still, it is quite marginal in the cuisine, mostly used with Cacio e Pepe. It is more commonly eaten in Abruzzo, with some form of ragù (what an American would call Bolognese). In Rome to find a restaurant with only egg pasta is really difficult, I cannot think of any. It would be instead _quite_ common (almost sure) in Bologna or Parma.
There is btw a nice video by Alex the French Guy about carbonara, discovering exactly this: he made carbonara with fresh pasta, was unsatisfied and he flew to Rome to discover the rich dry pasta tradition.
@@bobon123 I see, thank you for correcting me. I'd heard from a few people that they were really good for cacio e pepe, so I just assumed they were widely used in Lazio as well. I'm from Veneto, never been to Rome, and it clearly shows lol
I genuinely was worried about visiting Italy because of the egg in pasta this has put my mind at ease thank you
1:10:02 “If you’re confused about what action to take or how to go about it, or the legitimacy of the moral position, just place yourself in the mindset of the victim involved.” This statement remains truer than ever. So sorry you’re confused about your moral position and I hope your (and Joey’s) past advice can bring you some clarity. The animals need you to regain it.
He is not confused about his moral position. He addressed issues with IBS in a recent video, which he had prior to adopting veganism. He also stressed that this has nothing to do with the health aspects of a vegan diet. There are studies on how IBS is exacerbated in people with a restrictive diet (eg veganism / vegetarianism). If you don't have his health issues, you are privileged.
I think it isn't the confusion about the moral position, but check the section from 3:43
Ed explains that the primary reason why veganism is a moral position today is due to the applicability and practicability of veganism today compared to the rest of human existence. Being vegan is possible to do today, and it is practical to do today, therefore it becomes somewhat of a duty to be vegan today.
3:51 Alex agrees, and emphasises the operative word "practicability", and asks about the bounds of it.
In retrospect, 4:59 is when he describes his own experience. Around the 6 minutes mark, Ed responds with his own experience.
Given Alex's health situation, Ed's response to moral justification of non-veganism kinda covers him too, don't you think?
"He is not vegan any more? He must be morally confused! There is clearly no other alternative!"
Actually, neither you nor Alex has any idea what the mindset of a cow is (i.e., what it is like to be a cow). Or a chick. Or a pig. Or a bat. To presume otherwise is at best species-centrist, and at worst, wildly ego-centric and arrogant. Yes, cows - like humans - experience pain. But they do not think like humans do, and so they do not suffer like humans do. For suffering - as far as humans are concerned - differs from pain, inasmuch as it is languaged, entails self-awareness, memories of the past, conjecture about possible futures, an ability to interpret events, and beliefs or judgements about how things ought to be.
This is not to say animals _don't_ suffer (I don't know whether they do or don't) - only to say that if they do, so far there is no evidence that they do so in the way that humans suffer.
The question that arises for me when you assert your position so confidently is: are you concerned about the impact of monocultures on animal habitat? Do you abstain from eating food that isn't shipped to your local community? If your advocacy for veganism is a moral one, are the many communities world wide who don't have airable land on which to grow food sources for humans immoral?
As a type 1 diabetic and vegan I've never been in a situation where I felt it justified to eat animal products. In fact I find the idea of eating animal products repulsive. I've always been prepared wherever I go because I assume there won't be vegan options. If there is options then I'm pleasantly surprised. Or before a trip I will Google where my family can get vegan food. I don't give myself any excuse for eating animal products. FYI I've been vegan since 2009 and type 1 diabetic since 2015.
Amazing! Thanks for sharing!
What about eggs? Chickens lay eggs no matter what? Why is it bad to eat them, if they have to be laid, regardless of fertilisation.
Do you suspect your diabetes was caused by your diet?
@@davidregi7571 No. Diet doesn't cause Type 1 Diabetes.
@@PBMS123 because as soon as you start viewing animal excretions as food products, you start the cycle of exploitation. when you sell these products, it creates a demand that farmers then need to supply and will inevitably involve cruelty so they can make the most profit, for example male chick's being killed at birth because they aren't profitable for the farmer
One of, if not thee, most intelligent vegan discussion I've ever seen. Thank you both.
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Guess again
I feel that when I speak to someone who's on my same moral level regarding the way we treat animals I can just talk more freely about anything and have deeper and more serious discussions, that seems to be the case between you two here and I love it
Super duper interesting conversation. Thank you much gentlemen.
Also "But I Could Never Go Vegan!" is actually the title of a cookbook.
EDIT: To clarify, it's a vegan cookbook. There is a sequel "But My Family Could Never Go Vegan!" (I have them both in my personal cookbook collection).
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
It's so refreshing to see an intelligent discussion between two compassionate beings... I swear watching Ed debate college students kills my brain cells.
Isn't Alex a college student? lol
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
@@JM-us3fr He has already graduated. And regardless, even when he was a university student, Alex was way more intelligent than the vast majority of his peers from other universities.
LOLLLLLL🤣
Negative peace is not peace.
The two people that inspired me to go vegan going over some of the questions I've been asking myself for a while, love it
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Are you going back to eating meat now that Cosmic skeptic quit the diet?
@@cyberfunk3793 Certainly not, but I am curious for his reasoning as to why he quit.
@@mihaimarcu4435 Probably got health problems because of it and got bored of eating rice and beans every day.
@@cyberfunk3793 ah, for a second I thought you were asking out of genuine curiosity/in good faith, you just wanted a gotcha moment, have at it.
Veganism lead me to antinatalism which lead me to negative utilitarianism and now I'm struggling with this. Man... philosophy is such a mind fuck it hurts my brain figuring out what I agree with when pushed to hypothetical extremes.
Two reasons can cause difficulty in taking a stance on something: 1) repression or 2) lacking a clear enough understanding of the thing to make a judgement. If 2 then the solution is to take your time learning more about the thing until you understand it enough to take a solid stance.
@@zeebpc that makes sense. Ill check out the site, thanks man.
Well, why not regular utilitarianism? It has the same advantages because suffering is horrible and it should be counted a lot more than it is usually though, but you have less bonkers conclusions
Let's say you could have the best day you could possibly imagine just by stubbing your toe against a table, would you?
@@matt-st9ox For example? Regular utilitarianism does entail antinatalism
Man, this was refreshing. So reasonable and well articulated. I’m a longtime vegan and have got a bit rusty with articulating my views so this was helpful. Doing God’s work fellas. Appreciate you both 💛
Interesting to congratulate two atheists for doing God's work :) (Just an observation!)
gods doin nothin@@dezso199
This was intellectually stimulating and addressed the deeper thoughts I’ve had since becoming vegan 🌱
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Do you ever think about the fact that veganism for everyone means domestic farm animals will cease to exist? That you’re effectively denying life to billions of creatures in the future by being vegan? Farm animals do get enjoyment from life. A vegans inability to deal with the eventuality of death would take all that enjoyment and life away.
Gary Francione says "if we all went vegan because we cared morally about nonhumans, that would necessarily translate into methods of crop production that would be more mindful of incidental and unintended deaths."
Humans' moral worth trumps animals'.
Idk if in that quote Gary denied this, but for animal production we need to farm like an insane amount of crops to feed the animal, and if we just ate the crops we gave to the animals we would farm wayy less crops.
That's sweet and all, but even as a vegan who's worked on small farms with minimal crop deaths, the "farmers are killing animals because they're not vegans" arguments slightly feeds into the "vegans have never been on a farm cliché". Like, it may be possible, but it's easy to sit there and claim "we could fix this if we were the ones plowing the field", while not actually having any concrete proposals. Though as I said, I've worked on small farms with very little "direct" crop deaths - the trick is to ensure you have some useful predators around, like birds that eat certain insects that would normally eat the plant. But is that really more ethical than insecticides ? Eh. Though question. Though there would then be even more insect lives and deaths if it were wild land instead of farming ground.
@@josephancion2190vertical farms and hydroponics solve this problem.
Ok now I’m listening to this whole discussion again, and it sounds like he is literally confessing his exact experiences! Scary!
He's a Catholic, doing confession to Vegan Jesus.
@@FixdalOK 😂
Yeah looking back on it now, he really was just trying to find every little loophole. Yikes. I wonder if it woulda been different if he ever did a vigil or actually saw a farm or slaughterhouse. It seems like it was never more than just a philosophical exercise in his head. He never actually connected to the victims.
@@GhostCorvid20 Why do you use animal products needlessly for entertainment while pretending to be against it?
@@janieswanson2549 evidence?
Regarding suffering, my current standing on the subject is that suffering is not the presence of pain or the absence of pleasure, those are just indicators. You can disprove the notion quite easily. For pain, there are plenty of instances where mentally stable and healthy humans actively seek it (spicy food, intense physical activity, certain adult activities, etc). You would not say people indulging in these painful experiences were suffering. Pleasure is less obvious, but if you told someone who was grieving the death of a loved one that you could make them happy and forget about their loss, most people would decline the offer. Therefore the lack of happiness in this situation isn't the suffering, it's actually something else
Suffering, in my mind, is actually the disparity between a sentient being's desires and the reality of the world. What is important isn't that you don't cause pain, it's that you don't put a sentient being in a situation it strongly desires (or will desire) not to be in. Likewise, it is an ethical good to create a situation that a sentient being desires (even if that situation involves their pain). This is why you can't kill humanely. Even if you kill the animal completely by surprise and without pain, it being dead would have been something it desired not to be (we know this because animals show desperation when they realize they are in a dangerous situation).
There are, of course, a lot of subtleties to this. If an action will slightly align the world with a being's desire in the present, but greatly misalign it in the future, then that needs to be taken into consideration. For example, letting a child run in the road may seem like fun to the child right now, but that is because they don't understand the risk of death or serious injury, therefore it is justifiable to prevent them from doing so
Thank you so much for typing this out!! Immediate addition to my moral arguments haha
@Negan The Vegan I agree those practices are horrific, and I wasn't saying spicy food is the same level. It was merely an example of where pain does not equate to suffering. People also intentionally whip themselves, suffocate themselves, even tear chunks of their own flesh out because they enjoy it. It hurts, but they want the pain. That means they aren't suffering. The difference for animals is that they don't want that pain. Even if it was a small amount of pain it is immoral, but of course humans inflict a large amount of pain on them. My point wasn't that that is okay. Quite the contrary, it was that there is more to suffering than merely experiencing pain
I loved this conversation! Got me to reflect on a lot.
I have one small criticism at 24:18, when you started talking about "reverse natural selection." Natural selection is a process of change, not improvement, so it's wrong that the deer are becoming "evolutionarily worse" because they're being hunted. The deer that survive are, as always, the ones most well-adapted to their environment. Calling it "the opposite of natural," as you did, is incorrect.
That irked me a little too. I think Alex makes a distinction between natural selection and human selection here, where, arguably, no distinction functionally exists.
I think it's purely a wording issue because it's the opposite of what would happen if humans didn't interfere. That's what they mean I think, they just used a poor term to describe it
@@bobthellama6988 I largely agree, with the caveat that I don't think humans are unique in causing this direction of evolution. Alex's argument is that humans are causing 'reverse natural selection' by picking off the strongest, with the biggest horns.
Well, the same is true for any predator. If a predator starts to choose the most colourful prey to eat, then the prey animal would potentially become less colourful over time to compensate, even if being colourful provided some other benefit. That's not 'reverse natural selection', it's just natural selection at work.
We define 'fittest' as 'fastest' 'largest' 'strongest' (etc) in our framework, but 'fittest' from an evolutionary perspective only really means "best able to survive and reproduce". An animal could be the 'fittest' but be slow, small and weak, depending on the environment, flora, fauna etc. The weaker deer with smaller horns (etc) are fitter than the larger deer in an environment where humans hunt.
@@ryangibson7126 you raise a good point. But consider this:
Before humans started hunting the animals with the largest horns were best-adapted to survival. Let's call this percentage of survival x.
Naturally, the smaller the horn, the smaller the chance of survival. So creatures with smaller horns have a chance of survival < x. Let's call this value y.
Humans have now targeted the animals with large horns, meaning the animals have a smaller chance of survival with larger horns than smaller horns. This new chance of survival with large horns is z. So z < y < x.
So because humans have hunted, the combination of genes that give the best possible chance of survival (now y) is less than the chance of survival the best combination of genes could give if humans had stayed out of it (x).
Does this mean that human evolution is independent of natural evolution? No. But it does mean that humans are making animals comparatively weaker when it comes to their chance of survival.
@@bobthellama6988
What I find interesting is that given enough time, and with consistent enough environmental pressures, the smaller horns may even *gain* some functionality since having bigger horns is making them less fit for survival. Imagine a Buck with razor sharp daggers on their heads!
The gratitude I have for the pair of you is immeasurable. Oh behalf of the animals you saved from me, thank you.
Hope we get a followup video with Ed to discuss veganism again.
That would definitely be worth something.
I don't know what the hell happened with Alex but the most frustrating part is that I have not see him debunk any of his own argument that brought him to veganism and now he just refuses to cover the subject.
I found him via looking up stuff about veganism, it made me really understand why we ought to be vegan and I he has been my entrance point to properly dive into ethics and understand it.
...and he just gave up on it based on arguments he thoroughly debunked himself before.
@@PauLtus_B he was offered lump some to go against.
I love how alex understands the right to life arguments. It shows a level of good faith to understand something you don't believe or don't feel strongly about.
I’m a type 1 diabetic vegan, I would rather skip a meal than eat non-plant based food, we dose for meals so skipping meals isn’t a problem. If I was having a hypo and had no treatments with me and no plant based sweets or sugary drinks were around then I would be ok breaking vegan for that moment
Breaking Vegan sounds like a bad porno lmao
I think there are case you can eat meat.
For example, you have diabetic, and u in a situation you has to eat meat or skip 3 meal or 3 days of meal. I think it is okay to eat meat in that case. I dont have health issues, but skip meal drive me crazy
@@SenEmChannel I wouldn’t eat meat as that wouldn’t help with diabetes, I would eat sweets with gelatine, egg or milk if I had to, but meat isn’t food anymore. I think diabetes was a bad example, to treat a hypo you’re best off with a full sugar drink and you’ll probs fancy a big plate of chips which are readily available and plant based
@@bigcookielittlecookie i mean with health issue in general, not diabetes alone. Sure i will it suger, soda, or something like that. But assume life put you hard and you can not perfectly repare for every situation. Then, someday we can have a case that we need to eat right now, whatever reason ( hungry, diabete, blood pressure, ect) and if we dont eat in that situation we can end up in hospital for months. but so bad, all food around is meat, egg or milk( no candy, no surgar)Now i that case i think it ok for you to eat.
I think im not vegan, im half vegan. That mean i dont eat meat, milk, egg when i can. But if life push me, i will eat anyway. I do belive vegan is good ethical treat. I just dont belive anyone can do it as good as it say. i want to be full vegan, reason i dont become full vegan because it too hard for me. someday, sometime we may be eat meat, kill animal for food if life push us hard enough. But in normal day situation, im think vegan is good choice
@@bigcookielittlecookie Dr. Cyrus Khambatta and Robby Barbaro MASTERING DIABETES - they are both type 1 (and vegan) and have a very well researched book. Hope it can help maybe!
Thank you. You are a fantastic interviewer. This conversation has given my a lot to think about and provided interesting perspectives on topics I wrestle with.
18:38 well you still have to name the trait. You wouldnt say that eating a huge bodybuilder per year is a good thing to do just bcs it causes less deaths.
Come back and watch this video Alex. You can still change back (perhaps with some better nutrition knowledge).
Alex is not denying plants are nutritious. But when you are allergic or have allergic-type symptoms to proteins such as lectin found commonly in plants, what do you propose Alex to do? Eat supplements and refined carbs every day? Plants are not benign to people who have zero sensitivities either, at high enough concentrations they can become poisonous, as demonstrated famously by Walter White with every day beans. Remember plants evolved defense mechanisms to discourage animals eating them so they could reproduce and multiply, and some people are more sensitive to those mechanisms than others.
@@amuthanshan that is the biggest load of BS I've read in a while. Plant defense chemicals? You mean the things that are in plants that are healthy for humans, phytochemicals? Where are you getting your information from, Carnivore MD?
37:30 the part about it being strange to say animals have a right to life like humans do, because we violate animals right to life even by being vegan through crop deaths and such -- well we also violate human rights just by living our daily life too like paying for electronics, housing, employment, coffee produced by child slavery, etc... probably everything we pay for or do somewhere down the line violates or prevents some 'human' right.. so how is this a problem exclusive to veganism and animal rights? so now what must we do? we cant say humans have rights now either? we just need to sit in a blank room and stare at a wall or else we're contradicting our values? Its a problem for any conception of rights not just animals.
Its not a problem exclusively for veganism, but if vegans want to claim that animals have the same consideration to life that humans do they have to concede that they are also justified in killing humans for self-preservation. At which point you’ll have to contemplate how many lives are you justified in taking just so you can exist? If you had to kill hundreds of humans to survive, would it not be more moral to sacrifice yourself in the interest of those humans?
It's more about being consistent, and whether we can be. If we can't be consistent with how we morally treat animals compared to humans, it brings into question the fundamental compatibility of veganism with human society.
Perspective philosophy did a great response to Alex on why this "animals might not have rights" actually isn't very well reasoned out. I admire Alex, but on this one he is way off.
"Rights" has to do with our obligation to respect others interests - when we can do so. When we can't respect someone elses interest, because our own are more pressing, we enter out of morality. We CAN'T act differently, and ought implies can, so even if the other has a right we actually respect, we literally cannot uphold it. Doesn't mean right suddenly evaporate as a rational way to think about ethics.
Say every child has an interest to have their body and life respected. We ground this on rational reasons through recognizing and identifying the childs interests as similar to our own etc. We then call our obligation to respect an interest "their right". But then suddenly a terrible scenario happens, and you have to disrespect their bodily autonomy to save their or someone elses life or something. That doesn't mean rights are meaningless because violating them is possible or inevitable. It means rights violations must be justified. "A right" is a demand for sufficient justification for being harmed.
@@fromeveryting29 ok but “a terrible scenario” in your example, can’t just translate to human society. Sure, if it’s some extraneous event, but if that “terrible scenario” is general human society.. then that is a problem for the ethical framework. Which could well be the case with veganism.
@@deuceup4280 Not sure I agree there, but thanks for the challange. I think it perfectly translates to human society. To be forced into a situation (by nature, society or whatever) where you have to violate an animals body and life is a tragedy, because that animal has interests to live and be happy, just like us. It's terrible for the animal, maybe even for you, if you recognize your shared identity with the animal.
Maybe you have to do it to survive, or to save someone else. That is a terrible scenario. Nature is a terrible scenario.
Society is the endevour to organize rationally in order to try to respect each others interests, and mediate the tragedy of nature. We do this quite sucessfully. We can live in protection from unjustified harm. It's not perfect, but it is improving through ethical discourse expressed through veganism, workers rights, feminism and so on. This way we say "yo, if we are rational, we see that these individuals also have interests, so we must respect them, too. And that means harm done to them unjustified - is an injustice. So, are we justified in the harm we inflict on them?"
It's impossible not to harm others, yes, but it IS possible to construct a society that RESPECTS others. My diet harms crop animals, but I still respect them, and advocate for a society that respects them, which is entirely possible to exist.
Our society doesn't respect other animals, which is the issue veganism raises. We treat them irrationally, we treat them as if interests suddenly don't matter if the ones that hold them are a little different to us. Like we used to do other races.
Remember that most crop deaths happen exactly because most crop farmers do not respect those animals. If we lived in a society where farmers did, we would be working on not being forced to violate those non-human individuals interest to live. If we are forced to, we are forced to, and the violation would be justified on the grounds that ought implies can. A respect for others means we respect them when we possibly CAN do so. That is what having a right means.
I REEALLY recommend perspective philosophys video "cosmic skeptic is wrong about animal rights" or some similar title.
This might sound bad, but Alex is very shaky and new to meta-ethics and ethics as a whole, as he himself admitted in this video, and it shows. Alex is very confident in his presentation, which I think sways people a lot, even though he is just beginning to explore issues he is completely new to. If you want to take your thinking about ethics to a new level, perspective philosophy is a goldmine. The two have also had conversations. Great guys, both of them. Cheers.
it's awesome to see the 2 people who convinced me to go vegan interacting again
I watched something a while ago that showed Inuits catching fish, whales and seals for food.
Now I know there are quite probably some incredibly remote and small Inuit tribes who have very little or no access to any modern civilisation, but although these people (in the documentary) are still classified as Inuits, they weren't a small tribe, they had cars and houses and snow mobiles and motor boats and smart phones and TV's and internet etc. All the trappings of modern society.
Yet it was still pointed out that they 'have' to live off animal products because they are Inuits.
It seems to me that if you can ship in all the trappings of modern society, some of which are quite difficult to obtain and transport, then you can quite easily ship in vegan food, and storing food in that climate is so much easier and less expensive too.
Just a thought....
I know it's not as simple as that, as a lot of their income is from selling many of the animal products from their hunting, and it wouldn't be easy for them to find other methods of income....
I guess my point is that it's not always as clear cut as it might at first appear....
Concern yourself more about the majority in the West before having a go at indigenous minorities.
@@Flobb1t
He wasnt having a go at them at all, he was just trying to point out that even in extreme cases where eating animal products is traditional it could be still possible to be a vegan albeit with some difficulty.
Those communities are already usually struggling deeply with poverty, relying entirely on importation of food would at the least be extremely politically unpopular and therefore unachievable, and that's assuming said food is subsidized somehow. If it isn't, I imagine many of the more modern tools like snowmobiles would no longer be affordable...
@@Flobb1t I think he was talking about those who aren't in "survival" situation. I think very few people (fewer even than previously supposed) are actually in need to kill other animals to survive.
People conflate indigenous people (or of indigenous heritage) living in the modern world, and those indigenous people living in more of a naturalistic setting or in very deprived areas in the modern world (i.e reservations). It's pretty ridiculous. There's no excuse.
This was a sorely needed episode. Been struggling with these questions for a while (even if they are occasionally hypothetical), and glad to see others are struggling too.
Finally thank you for updating the podcast! I love hearing your conversations in the car!
I just love listening to Alex talk. Whether about veganism or religion. He is a force to be reckoned with. Thank you both for the information.
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Thank you Alex for asking far betters questions than most do on this subject. Great discussion.
Ed doesn't go here often, because it's not important or useful to his advocacy....but I LOVE that you did here!! He's used to Socratically asking questions, not answering tough ones.
I think this is a great conversation that identifies the problem of describing veganism as a reduction of harm. Whilst that is an important component, it does not describe the full ideology. To describe veganism to its broadest extent we must include the ethical position that rejects the notion of viewing animals in a commodity or resource status. In the same way we wouldn't say that causing harm to one innocent human is justified if it were to result in less harm to others. The individual's right not to be harmed or used as a means to another's end is unjust, even if it were to lead to a larger harm reduction overall.
But we do think harm to humans is justified to preventable worse. We just experiened this frist hand thanks to covid. Locking people up against their will is a form of harm. (It's also the foundation of our criminal justice system)
alright kant lol
I know we usually focus on reducing suffering when trying to improve the world, but when people forget to give pleasure a factor in the moral equation, we end up philosophically in positions like anti-natalism or trying to destroy the earth. I'm curious if anyone thinks they have a consistent vegan philosophy that includes a being's pleasure alongside suffering reduction?
I'd say that most advocates and animal ethicists do not think that only suffering matters, although it seems to be a common view that suffering - specially extreme suffering - has a relatively greater weight and should take priority over other values such as pleasure/happiness, justice, knowledge, virtue and so on. It isn't a popular stance to claim that an hour of horrendous suffering can be compensated by creating and hour or even 100 hours of great pleasure or bliss (or by bringing into existence a certain amount of happy beings). Most would agree that we should prevent the extreme suffering.
A suffering-focused ethic can take many forms and admit of different axiological views. This is why many consider the future positive experiences that other beings can have, a reason not to kill them prematurely. I recommend checking out Magnus Vinding's great book called "Suffering-Focused Ethics: Defense and Implications" or just take a look at the entries on his website: magnusvinding.com/2020/05/31/suffering-focused-ethics-defense-and-implications/
Also check organizations such as the Center For Reducing Suffering or the Center on Long Term Risk.
Regarding the world destruction argument against negative-utilitarianism, I recommend this paper by Simon Knuttson:
www.simonknutsson.com/the-world-destruction-argument/
Or David Pearce's "The Pinprick Argument" against negative-utilitarianism: www.utilitarianism.com/pinprick-argument.html
@@SoloUnAnimal Thanks! Will take a look
Pleasure is all we go for for us egoistic hedonists. 😎
The utilitarian concept of pleasure or happiness as a factor to be balanced against pain and suffering is a falacy. The will to live is what should really be considered. Many sentient beings, both human and non-human, suffer relentlessly but still wish to continue to live - and that wish should be their right. The almost universal will to live is therefore the metric which should take priority in the moral argument. This is nearly always overlooked.
@@davidpalk5010 Interesting perspective I hadn't thought about! Are you a utilitarian of any sort?
As for me, I would normally group "fulfilling the will to live" in with other pleasures, as in "It pleases me that I continue to live".
If you're utilitarian, I'm curious what you think when people place their own will to live below other preferences, e.g. "I would rather die in place of my child", or "I would rather die than see my house bulldozed". It seems that there are cases where sentient beings do sometimes balance their will to live against happiness, pain, and suffering, and find their will to live to be weaker.
It's a sad tradeoff to be forced to make, but the fact that sentient beings sometimes choose it feeds my intuition that there can be pleasure or suffering so great that it outweighs will to live in a utilitarian moral argument.
Goodness, I've struggled with a lot of these ethicist questions since I became vegan. In my internal debates, I have often hit moral roadblocks and would assign it to what I personally refer to as 'the nuisance of ego vs sentience'. I find comfort in them acknowledging that nobody can completely defend themselves morally and prima facie consistency is likely all that we can achieve in absolute terms.
Interesting. As far as I know Ed's method in streer interviews relies on the socratic method finding roadblocks or inconsistencies in 'opposing' views.
Those views needn't be either. They just cannot be (much) worse than roadblocks and inconsistencies in Ed's own vegan views.
I went vegan 9 years ago, in a third world country where nobody even knew what veganism was. I was going to a school where the cafeteria didn't have any vegan options and they didn't let me take my own food. I have traveled around my country, in rural areas, where people still dont know what veganism is. I have traveled to so many different countries where I didn't even speak the language and where it was definitely hard to even communicate the simplest things. Things have gotten a lot easier, and never in a million years I thought that veganism would explode like it has around the world, but even then when it was so hard, I never once doubted my decision. The costs of not being vegan are too high for me. It never ceases to amaze me how many excuses people are willing to make to not take responsibility for their actions. Same thing with fast fashion and most cruel industries.
Soo many dumb excuses. Congrats to you though, I'm sure it was not easy.
big respect to you for taking a very difficult and untrodden path, hopefully one that will be taken by many around you soon.
The issue I think is the fact the diet itself isn't tenable in food deserts which is often ignored.
Secondly, solutions are rather easy to attain if we used lab grown meats which would nearly overnight kill the cruel industries.
Wow, it's almost as if veganism is a first world activity.
Out of interest what country are you referring to.
So happy to have this podcast. Alex putting forth the challenging questions in good faith, and Ed with great responses! Thanks yall :)
What an amazing talk! Thanks both of you. You made me feel accompanied, since many questions are not made within my activism group, and I thought maybe I was taking it too far.
On the decision between eating a plant based food or hunting a single animal; I would wager that the amount of animals that are killed during crop harvesting are less than the amount of meals that same area can be harvested for. So the amount of animals killed per meals-worth harvested is likely less than 1, and so it would still be more moral to eat the plant based food rather than hunt an animal, if we are strictly talking numbers.
And on the idea of humans having a greater right to life than animals based on our sentience and the affect our deaths would have on others; wouldn't by this logic it mean if given the choice between killing a family dog, or killing a man with no social ties who has less sentient capacity than the dog (through disability, or a coma ect), wouldn't that justify killing the human over the dog? Because in this instance the dog has more sentience and more suffering caused by its death than the human. I believe we should treat animals the same way we would a human that has an equal degree of sentience to them.
Keep in mind, if you go this route, you have to fairly account for the fact that the animal being killed may easily provide more than one meal. An elk would offer quite a few meals for instance.
I feel that the best argument against hunting is how it's not sustainable for everyone to go out hunting. If there is some sort of moral excuse for it, you would have to accept that you have no more right to be the hunter than anyone else does, and, as Ed mentioned, that doing anything other than targeting the weak animals would be less moral.
Speaking of humans in a coma, I believe they are vegetables for all intents and purposes if their brain has died. So in actual fact they are already dead and should be taken off life support
Ya lost me for the second paragraph. It's extremely logical that we consider ourselves above other animals that have nowhere near our intelligence. I don't agree with that, but that's just how our brains are wired, and acting perplexed by it is being intellectually dishonest at best.
@@animalsarebeautifulpeople3094 Most comas aren't permanent. And tbh that is just being nitpicky and missing the point. If there is a human with less intellectual capacity and less emotional ties than a dog does the dog by this metric have more rights to life? I was merely giving a coma to give a direct example rather than keeping it abstract.
@@cdogthehedgehog6923 No I feel I am being intellectually honest by acknowledging that the only reason humans consider intelligence as the main measure of worth is entirely illogical, and simply based on the fact it is the only easily identifiable advantage we have. There is no justifiable logic to say that degree of intelligence is how we should measure worth, and even if there was, very few humans abide by it WITHIN the species. Most parents value the life of their dumb child over an intelligent stranger, and many would even value the life of their pet dog over a stranger.
The point at which intelligence has been measured to be worthy of the right to life just so happens to be when it crosses into the threshold of human capacity, almost as if intelligence was a post-hoc justification to continue to treat animals as inferior.
Intelligent is only worth anything to us because we are intelligent, not because we sat down and had a deep philosophical debate and concluded it was objectively the true measure of the right to life. In fact given that the expansion of intelligence has led us into potential extinction would suggest that its worth is entirely contextual and not absolute. A dog may not be able to write an opera or unlock the mechanisms of the universe but it also cannot commit genocide or cleverly work out ways to fake scientific findings to present an unsafe practice as safe, or able to drain the worlds limited resources and generate untold suffering. Intelligence may get us out of it but it is just as if not more likely that it won't, and human intelligence will continue to be used to manipulate those less intelligent.
It's almost as if valuing intelligence as the right to life and accepting arbitrary boundaries might lead to some of the most intelligence minds who lack compassion to temper their imaginings, to see less intelligent humans as having less of a right to life than them for the same reason everyone else applies this to animals. All they are doing is moving that arbitrary boundary.
It's great to hear these concepts around veganism get seriously challenged. I feel like it's easy for us to get too comfortable in our thoughts on veganism sometimes and it's good to remember that behind it all, we're still human and are still trying to figure it all out.
You guys are doing such important work, please keep it up! 🧡🌿
Every chapter in the video had a moment or moments that made me wide-eyed with amazement that the discussion was so thoughtful. 10/10
Regarding the bit on pain, I'm on board with Ed's argument that "less" sentient creatures can arguably feel more pain. Even among humans, as children, physical stimulus hurts more than it does as adults, and it largely boils down to knowledge, experience, and perspective gained throughout one's life. The more painful moments as adults tend to be psychological, even driving people to die by suicide, which happens more frequently because of psychological pain and less frequently because of physical pain.
I also agree that pain is probably not the right axis of analysis for gauging inherent worth. A sentience hierarchy is subtler but more representative, because the opportunity cost of losing a high-sentience creature is greater than the same cost of losing a lower sentience creature, at least in a utilitarian framework.
How do we know how has more sentience and who has less? There is not way we can know how other species experience the world. I did not like how Ed went on and on about superior human sentience. He sounded like a human supremacist.
@@barbaraibiel I think cognitive ability is at least a quintessential component of sentience, if it isn't the entire picture. I don't think making the observation that humans are more sentient than other creatures is a "supremacist" position; it is merely descriptive. The prescriptive part is what I said, that sentience is a valuable and desirable trait, and bias is likely a large component of my opinion.
If other species disagree, I welcome them to challenge me in a debate... too bad that's not happening any time soon.
Original Italian pasta has no eggs in it. The majority of noodles and pasta sold in super markets in Austria (where I live) is now egg free too. In Vienna we even have vegan super markets and a lot of restaurants serve vegan meals.
Interesting discussion around hunting! One aspect that was not mentioned is that sometimes the reason there are “too many” deer is because humans have destroyed ecosystems so there are fewer deer predators. The opposite situation also exists. In Canada, human activity (cutting down forests) has given wolves such an advantage in hunting caribou that the caribou are endangered. Instead of addressing the human-caused problem, there is a wolf cull going on. The idea that we have to kill these animals to save other animals is not only horrific but short-sighted.
This was such a refreshing video. It felt like it was over as soon as it started and I was hanging on every word. I wish more content creators could have more videos that address issues beyond the surface level, tired rigamarole that carnists' "debates" entail. Thank you for your commitment and thank you for the video.
Thank you SO much for having Ed back… I’ve been ‘cursed’ by the compelling arguments for veganism ever since your first podcast. I’ve become a conflicted pescatarian/flexatarian ever since, and easily spend an hour a day thinking about this stuff.
I can’t wait to listen to this.
Especially the question you ask at 18:00. I’ve been driven mad thinking about this
I was super anti-vegan because of my upbringing. But after listening to you, im considering becoming vegan. I just don't know where to start
Challenge 22!
baby steps ...ultimately its a process. sure some ppl flip 180 but for most of us it was a "journey". I started by cutting things out gradually. first I dropped beef ...then chicken ...etc. As I was slowly cutting things from my intake I took that time to learn about how to make proper plant based food and also learn about meat and its effects on health, etc. this is where the learning curve is. good luck 👍🏽
I’ve recently cut out dairy (mostly) and it already seems weird to drink milk to me. I would say find something you could do without and cut it out compeltwly
I made the transition all at once. Realized it was laughably easy and felt a little disturbed that it isn’t more widespread as a result.
Challenge 22
0:00: 💭 The podcast discusses the definition of veganism and the practicality of being vegan in different situations.
0:00: Veganism is living in a way that excludes the exploitation and use of animals.
2:11: The definition includes eliminating meat, dairy, eggs, and animal-derived clothing and cosmetics.
3:47: The practicability of veganism depends on individual circumstances.
5:03: Situations where it may be impractical include limited food options during travel.
6:09: While it may not be possible for everyone to go vegan, it is important to acknowledge the limitations.
6:39: 😕 The discussion explores the concept of practicality and justifiability of consuming animal products in certain situations.
6:39: People sometimes use the argument of practicality to detract from their own personal responsibility.
7:08: Inconvenience does not justify buying animal products when alternatives could have been prepared or stocked up earlier.
8:37: Skipping one meal is unlikely to have a significant impact on the average person's health.
9:08: Medical requirements can justify consuming animal products for health reasons.
10:02: The definition of health and its impact on justifiability of consuming animal products is subjective and debatable.
11:19: The speaker ponders on the hypothetical scenario where being vegan is unhealthy and explores the limits of justifiability.
12:49: 💭 The discussion revolves around the definition and practicability of veganism, as well as the ethics of consuming non-essential vegan food.
12:49: The definition of veganism involves minimizing suffering and exploitation to the highest extent practicable.
13:24: There may be situations where it is morally justified to not be vegan, even if it is not in line with the definition.
13:53: There is a potential contradiction in defining veganism as minimizing suffering and death to the highest extent practicable, but not considering someone who meets that criteria as a vegan.
14:58: The risk of diluting the meaning of veganism should be considered when discussing its definition.
16:11: The question of eating non-essential vegan food raises concerns about unnecessary contribution to animal suffering and death.
17:16: Overconsumption is a broader issue in society, and responsible consumption should be encouraged.
17:31: Determining what is essential can be subjective and dependent on individual needs.
17:58: Overconsumption of food and other resources should be addressed to mitigate health and societal problems.
18:39: 🦌 The video discusses the moral implications of choosing between eating animal products or plant-based alternatives, and the argument of hunting as a solution.
18:39: Supporting plant-based agriculture can lead to advancements in more efficient and ethical production systems.
20:12: The paper suggests that it should be possible to produce plants without killing any animals in the future.
21:48: Hunting cannot be a food system due to ecological damage and inability to feed the masses.
23:22: The moral argument for hunting based on population control is flawed as hunters often target healthy animals.
24:09: Hunting disrupts natural selection and can lead to genetic changes in wild animals.
25:00: Hunting is an unnatural process that goes against the principles of natural selection.
25:40: 🥦 The discussion explores whether there are situations where a vegan action could result in more animal suffering than a non-vegan action.
25:40: The speaker hesitates to make a definitive statement but acknowledges that theoretically, there could be situations where a non-vegan action causes less animal suffering.
26:13: The speaker mentions hunting as an example where killing one animal could potentially result in less overall animal suffering compared to being a vegan.
27:36: The speaker acknowledges that such situations are unlikely to exist in reality and believes that being vegan generally reduces animal suffering.
29:21: They emphasize that the philosophy of reducing suffering should be more important than strictly adhering to a generic definition of veganism.
30:03: The speaker suggests that considering the caloric and nutritional density of plant foods could help make more ethical choices.
30:38: They propose that differentiating plant foods based on the scale of suffering they cause in production could be a future consideration.
30:54: The speaker highlights the importance of transparency in food production and making informed decisions to reduce overall suffering.
31:14: They mention that foods grown on trees may be morally preferable due to causing less harm during production.
31:37: In a hypothetical scenario without animal agriculture, the equivalent of veganism might involve raising awareness about animal deaths in crop production.
31:47: 🤔 The discussion revolves around the debate between consequentialists and deontologists in terms of reducing suffering and animal rights.
31:47: The author aligns more with the principle of reducing suffering rather than categorical rights.
32:36: There are logical inconsistencies with both consequentialism and deontological approaches.
34:17: The author does not advocate for eugenics or antenatalism.
35:03: In the human context, the author believes in intrinsic rights and value.
37:27: The author questions whether non-human animals have a right to life in the same way as humans.
37:39: The author highlights the dilemma of veganism involving animal death for survival.
38:07: 🐔 The video discusses the concept of animal rights and the moral implications of killing animals for food.
38:07: Animals having a right to life raises the question of whether it is morally wrong to kill them for food.
38:22: If humans have a right to life, it would be inconsistent to deny animals the same right.
39:13: The distinction between preserving one's own life and killing another for food may affect the moral implications.
40:51: The concept of rights is subjective and may be based on human ego rather than objective principles.
41:26: Some rights theorists argue that rights can be overridden or violated, while others propose specificationism.
42:22: The issue arises when determining why it is wrong to kill certain individuals, such as a homeless person or a pig.
43:09: The speaker believes that rights are not god-given but based on the characteristics and capacities of individuals.
43:21: The level of sentience in animals may determine the rights they should have.
43:37: The speaker suggests that the increased sentience of humans gives them more moral worth or right to life compared to animals.
44:06: 😕 The speaker discusses the moral assessment of different animals based on their levels of sentience and the capacity for pain, highlighting the potential for non-human animals to experience pain more intensely than humans.
44:06: The speaker believes that the capacity for feeling pain and the consequences of death extend beyond the individual, making the suffering caused by the death of a human more far-reaching.
46:05: The speaker raises concerns about the confidence in determining relative levels of sentience and questions if animals with heightened sensory experiences, such as dogs with their sense of smell, may actually experience pain more intensely than humans.
47:39: The speaker acknowledges that humans may have the capacity to experience pain less due to cognitive abilities that allow psychological distancing and awareness of pain's end.
48:49: The speaker suggests that non-human animals may experience pain more intensely due to their lack of awareness of death and inability to distance themselves psychologically from the experience.
49:35: The speaker recognizes the potential devaluation of non-human animals in discussing hierarchy of sentience and expresses a conflict about inadvertently placing humans on a pedestal.
50:51: 😕 The discussion explores the question of whether animals have the same right to life as humans, considering the hierarchy of worth of life and the distinction between humans and animals based on pleasure and pain experiences.
50:51: The differentiation of the hierarchy is less about where humans come to the animals we consume but more about where humans come to the animals we kill in the production of crops.
52:47: The relative weight of intellectual pleasures compared to physical pleasures and the view that intellectual pleasures are worth more than physical pleasures may seem arrogant.
53:18: The speaker is not entirely sure about their own view on whether animals have a right to life and is interested in hearing other perspectives.
54:13: If suffering is what matters, then animals that can suffer more would have more moral worth.
55:43: The difficulty lies in characterizing some atrocities as worse than others based on the scale of suffering inflicted.
56:03: The experience of suffering is subjective and cannot be fully understood by others.
56:14: An analogy is made between the difficulty of high school physics and PhD level physics to highlight the subjective nature of suffering.
56:56: 🗣 The video discusses the nature of ethical debates and how most conversations about veganism focus on drawing out people's inconsistencies rather than debating the ethics.
56:56: Ethical debates often focus on factual claims rather than moral principles.
58:04: The speaker argues for veganism based on descriptive consistency rather than moral arguments.
1:00:26: Most conversations about veganism revolve around surface-level arguments and inconsistencies.
1:01:35: The speaker suggests probing deeper into people's moral intuitions to explore the differences between humans and animals.
1:02:08: The conversation with a lady at UT Dallas is highlighted as a favorite, where the speaker felt their points made the other person uncomfortable.
1:03:08: 🗣 The speaker discusses a conversation with someone who interrupted their discussion to debate veganism, highlighting the stereotype of vegans being pushy and the importance of challenging preconceptions.
1:03:08: The speaker had a conversation with someone who interrupted their discussion to debate veganism.
1:03:19: The person seemed confident in their beliefs but lacked knowledge about halal slaughter.
1:03:35: The speaker found it strange that the person interrupted the conversation and then admitted to not knowing about halal slaughter.
1:04:30: The speaker believes that passionate opposing views create a platform for understanding different perspectives on ethical issues.
1:05:06: The speaker wishes to see the stereotype of vegans being pushy disappear.
1:06:03: The speaker finds it hypocritical when people criticize vegans for being pushy while being pushy themselves about other ethical issues.
1:06:36: The speaker believes that dispelling the pushy vegan stereotype can soften people's perception of veganism.
1:06:56: The speaker also mentions the stereotype of vegans being weak or unhealthy.
1:09:01: The speaker acknowledges the need to be pushy in advocating for change, but emphasizes the importance of being vocal without fulfilling the pushy stereotype.
1:09:31: 📚 The podcast discusses the importance of being loud and vocal about veganism and animal rights, and the need to understand the suffering of animals in the meat industry.
1:09:31: Being vocal about veganism and animal rights is justified, considering the suffering animals endure in the meat industry.
1:09:58: Putting oneself in the mindset of the victim can provide clarity on the moral position.
1:11:09: Engaging in discussions, writing books, and spreading vegan propaganda can help raise awareness.
1:11:57: The book 'This Is Vegan Propaganda' provides information on UK farming and animal treatment.
1:13:16: The book challenges the notion of vegan propaganda and invites readers to make their own judgments.
1:13:33: The book has been successful and is on the bestseller list.
1:13:46: The speakers will be appearing at the Vegan Camp Out Australia and UK events.
1:14:44: The Vegan Camp Out is a global event worth attending.
Recap by Tammy AI
The discussion at 36:00 has a very clear consequentialist answer: What are the consequences of living in a world where your organs could be harvested to save 5 people at any point in time? Do you want everyone, or your loved ones, to live in such a world?
The unintended consequence is sacrificing everyone's security/comfort/trust etc.
However, this consequentialist answer has further implications. You're essentially saying that you could have been born the human who is victim to having their organs harvested. But, why limit the thought experiment to humans? 'You' could have been born the cow that is milked to death or the insect that is crushed by the combine harvester - this answer seems to lead us into stumbling blocks to disentangling the issue.
I don't think 'you' could have been in the position of the victim in any real sense. You can only be the you that you are right now. So for me, these kind of thought experiments fail.
@@ryangibson7126 I think that's a great idea. Breeding humans for organs.
@@Cowz19999 It's a possibility. We are making headway into cultivating meat without a spinal cord attached, we could probably do the same with human organs.
@@ryangibson7126 Can't we just breed actual humans? That would be more authentic.
@@Cowz19999 We already do that. Consenting individuals carry donor cards.
I know what you're suggesting, and if you're being serious, I don't think our moral compasses align, so I don't consider you an individual whose opinion is worth listening to.
I didnt think in a million years I'd get my 2 favorite UA-camrs to have a conversation like this 😍
Here it is -- the last vegan video Alex ever shot.
Wrong. He did one on Zouma.. now removed
I was gonna say surely Rationality Rules was the first person to feature on the podcast twice, but I suppose one of those was on the incredibly long running Cosmic Christian Podcast 🤣
I knew you would stop the vegan thing at some point. Public figures usually do. Not saying you weren’t genuine about it. It’s just hard for me to not assume at this point.
Because they wake up from the indoctrination the vegan cult inflicts.
I'd love to hear Ed's thoughts on antinatalism and hear Alex revisit it as well
I'd rather not. I think I would be disappointed.
How come? Do you find the argument for antinatalism compelling and you think Ed would be for or against it?
Really enjoyed that! Some fascinating questions I hadn’t considered before and thoughtful answers.
If I could add to the question on rights (as a lawyer interested in these things), I think that referring to “rights which can never be violated” is where it gets a little murky. This point was made by Alex but I thought I’d just add to it!
There are “absolute” and “non-absolute” rights. While some rights like the right to freedom from torture are absolute and may never be infringed (not that this happens in reality, but that’s the law at least), most aren't, such as the right to liberty which of course is limited by lawful imprisonment. Alex makes a great point about how most rights are simply shorthand for a much lengthier proposition filled with exceptions to the rule. That is the legal position in a nutshell.
Relatedly, I think it’s fair to say that, in a legal sense, the reduction of suffering and the concept of rights actually go hand in glove. What I mean is that the basic and general test to determine if a right has been unlawfully infringed is (i) has there been an infringement? (ii) if so, was it infringed in pursuit of a legitimate aim? (iii) if so, was the infringement proportionate to that aim (was it the least amount of infringement necessary)? Most legal cases turn on the third question, which is referred to as the “proportionality test”. Although it isn’t expressly referred to as such, it seems to me that the general reduction of suffering always factors heavily in that equation. For example, where someone’s mental state has reached a point where a court would consider the person a danger to themselves and to others, an application might be brought in court to take that individual into the care of the state which, depending on the jurisdiction, can result in that person losing all sorts of rights in terms of decision-making and so on. However, a court may make that order if the result is proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved; i.e. protecting that person and others from likely harm.
One of the more fundamental disagreements in legal theory is between natural law (that rights inhere in every person just by virtue of existing, resulting from things like your intrinsic dignity as a human being) and positive law (that rights only exist because we as societies have set them out). For positivists, the reason animals don’t have a right to life in the same way that humans do is because societies have not chosen to develop the law in that direction. For naturalists, the reasons animal don’t have that right is because they don’t fall into the same category as human beings. Being a vegan, of course I have a problem with this (as Ed says, it comes from ego more than anything more objective) and would extend towards animals more rights than they currently are afforded, including a right to life.
If you were to take that view, the problem then becomes when is it proportionate to deprive an animal of their right to life? For humans, states have a negative obligation not to infringe an individual’s right to life (subject to exceptions like necessity in certain circumstances), but not a positive obligation to go around actively saving lives. I wonder if this concept could be (somewhat crudely) applied here. Humans are obliged not to actively kill animals (refrain from farming them), but can do so where necessary (incidental deaths through farming crops). Obviously, this would have the consequence of placing a higher value on the lives of humans. Depending on your perspective, animals would then (i) have a right to life in principle in the “same way that humans do” in that it can be infringed where necessary, or (ii) they would not have such a right because the playing field would always be skewed in favour of humans surviving over animals due to something like sentience levels.
It's certainly a difficult one to figure out! But I thought I'd add my 2c for anyone interested enough to read this essay!!
What about intentional deads during farming (pesticides, mice control, rabbit control, etc) ? How does the right to life applies there ?
You misunderstand the meaning of "absolute" in philosophy.
@@dipanjan_roy I'm definitely no philosopher, I can only speak on its legal meaning.
@@Blackkorso If you were to take the view outlined above, I think you'd have to say it's an unfortunate consequence of humans abiding by their negative obligation not to actively harm animals.
@@SB_9_ I really liked reading what you had to say.
I'm still wondering whether Ed feels betrayed and let down...
I think that the reason why it is hard to admit that a suffering panda might have more moral worth in a pleasure/pain framework is because we don't "want" to kill the human. There is a suffering that we incur by having to kill a member of our "in-group" weather that be species or tribe.
I refer to this as the Hummingbird Problem: Would a moral hummingbird decide that a human should be killed over a another hummingbird?
I believe that our sense of morality depends on what feels good for us. Often we feel good about being "moral" in our sense of pleasure and suffering but it's quite hard to consider killing a human due to the visceral reaction we have as well as the social blacklash.
Exactly
Can see as early as April 2022, Alex is already looking for excuses to not be vegan. During the section "when is it permissible to eat animals" he is clearly not just putting out hypotheticals but speaking from personal experience.
So what? Why should he starve himself with an unnatural nutritionally deficient man made diet?
@@rl7012 thats the vegan way.. Animals >>>> Health
Thank you , this is one of the deepest and most honest discussions of the ethics of veganism i have heard. Sometimes the arguments for ethical veganism aren’t as clear cut as we might like, as there are so many desired outcomes that sometimes conflict. I especially appreciated a discussion of the levels of sentience. You don’t hear about that too often, yet it’s something we all take into account whether we want to admit it or not.
this video is like that "vegans discussing with vegans vs vegans discussing with meat eaters" meme
Well... that didn't age well...
It did. he was asking the questions that he was having trouble with and was probably hoping Ed could help with some answers and must've not have been convinced by his answers. It's even called veganism reconsidered
@@Sui_Generis0 Veganism reconsidered. Not veganism abandoned
@@jakepara That is the next logical step.
I mean Ed literally uses animal products needlessly for entertainment so he doesn't have much credibility on the matter anyway.
@@janieswanson2549 He's vegan. As far as I know, he still is. If he indeed did what you said, then he isn't.
@@veganpowergrab He uses animal products needlessly for entertainment.
So no...he isn't.
About the question which went something like this : 'is eating meat justified in a case where the plant-based alternative would cause more animal suffering?'
I think it's important to tackle this question in it's philosophical context. By this i mean that you can answer this question technically and theoretically or you can answer this question in terms of the practical use.
If you'd have the knowledge of Laplace's Demon and could analyse a certain situation or event with high certainty about the conclusion that in this one case it would be better to eat meat, then yeah that would be the more vegan thing to do. Now these situations would occur very rarely, if they even exist, and wouldn't contribute to the decline of development against animal suffering in plant-based foods to my estimation. But this situation is not realistic, so it should not be taken serious by anyone and should only serve for theoretical analysis.
But practically and realistically speaking, this situation doesn't happen. There are soo many factors involved in calculating and analyzing these situations, with broad statistical evidence you're not gonna be able to analyse such a unique event. This brings me to my ultimate point: plant-based foods 'promise' less animal suffering, with general evidence suggesting this too. So if you eat a million meals throughout your life, you'd be best off to adhere to the plant-based foods since statistically speaking you're gonna have caused the least amount of animal suffering if you always stick to the plant-based foods. Certainly if they start developing further.
or.. just eat whatever you like and dont waste time thinking about meaningless stuff.
@@hellknightf1 : What's the "meaningful stuff" we should be spending our time thinking about?
@@Jamienewman0 when was the last time anybody's life got objectively improved by thinking of whether your food suffered or not? then you got the answer to your question.
@@hellknightf1 Would you say the same if it was humans being killed for food?
@@MusicJunkie37 yeh you see? i've no time to give a thought about my food much less on hypothetical scenarios from some random whom is just trying to virtue signal with a moral question that doesn't even try to set the whole situation as to why would people be getting killed for food and just goes for the laziest option it can find to make it self feel morally superior.
I knew from the excuses that Alex kept making in this interview that he wasn’t truly vegan
Exactly, red flags galore.
what if u was like abducted by aliens nd they said to save da planet u have to eat this burger?? would that b ok ed? thanks pal thought so
@@emrald2000 we arent in that scenario, just fuck up mate.
@@emrald2000 🤣spot on
You sound like one of those Christians... if youre familiar with the way Alex does these podcasts he always takes an opposing stance just to get an interesting discussion.
Rome has supermarkets/grocery stores too, one can always go & buy food there, even during holiday.
I also feel like, (almost) only childless people (but of course, not all of them) think they have a right to go everywhere unprepared. Once you have a baby, you quickly learn to think of possible "emergencies" in advance and prepare for them. And it's not different with veganism. It's also not *that* hard to bring your own food.
Who's going to bring a month's+ worth of food with them on tour?
@@KFrost-fx7dt Have you ever heard of the invention of supermarkets? I doubt, anyone tours through backwoods food-deserts. *lol
Weak argument, do better.
@@biancat.1873 What if another pandemic or something happens and you can't rely on supermarkets? I don't like having to rely on stores and be so domesticated, luke livestock. It's just dehumanizing.
@@KFrost-fx7dt I get what you're saying about supermarkets, but I'm not sure your example was very good, considering that a pandemic would probably mean restaurants would also be closed.
I absolutely love the tough questions Alex asks. Asking those tough and possibly uncomfortable questions is so essential to testing your beliefs.
Ah man I love this interview! I wish there were more videos discussing these aspects of veganism, these conversations seem to be few and far between
Oh hey!! I would love to hear you talk about it actually, if you ever wanted to
👀👉👉The Connections (2021) [short documentary] 💖
Damn, what a great discussion. I was convinced of the moral necessity of veganism after watching Alex's appearances on Modern Day Debate when I watched them last December, and in that time my understanding of veganism has grown and continues to develop more nuance. I watched his original discussion with Ed a couple of months ago, and I feel like that was the perfect primer for me since Alex was still relatively new at the time. Now that I've had some time to sit on it, it feels fitting that now I get to watch Alex go at it again with Ed with a much more complex understanding of veganism. The amount of times I thought to myself "WOW that's a great question to ask, it has been in the back of my head and now I get to hear it be addressed" was overwhelming. And I think it shows how far Alex has come that he even stumped Ed at several different points; they are really into the weeds of the philosophy of the position.
Love hearing both of these guys talk, and I wish that I was as great of a communicator as either of them are.
Great to see you two speak once again - Alex convinced me of veganism and I'm a year and a half (ish) strong at this point.
Keep up the great work, looking forward to seeing what you guys think this time around!
Same! One year strong!
Same! Went vegan in august 2019 Bc of alex :)
Same ☺️
Wow he's been so open about it. It was soooo INCONVENIENT to not eat animals while hanging out with friends. Are you for fuking real Alex??
Everyone here uses animal products for entertainment and likely convenience.
At least he was honest about it.
I could ask you a simple question and I am sure all I will get is denial.
Why do you use animal products needlessly for entertainment while pretending to be against it?
I predict you will ignore the comment, go into denial, use a doctrine to justify yourself, or start name calling because the simple question is too much for you.
@@janieswanson2549 Get help. It's worse than I thought. You are way dumber than I thought- and I already thought that u are dumb as shit. And yes, I'm gonna treat shit like shit.
@@veganmeg As predicted. You went with denial and insults instead of answering the simple fact based question.
I accept your concession.
@@janieswanson2549 you are beyond funny. And you are apparently too dumb to realize that your questions are dumb.
I accept your concession.
@@veganmeg Using my own words proves how effective they are against you.
I guess you used them since you couldn't come up with anything better.
Odd how you use animal products intentionally and needlessly for entertainment while complaining about Alex saying it was inconvenient.
Oh well. I guess this means my prediction holds true.
Thanks for the win and your ongoing concession.
so cool to see a conversation where they are able to move on from the basic points about veganism to some really in depth thoughts and discussions, great to hear form both of you I hope there's more content together in the future! (I will definitely attend vegan camp out aus if I can)
Survival of the fittest still applies if reproduction favours weaker animals because "fitness" doesn't mean strongest, quickest, or biggest. It means more likely to reproduce. When a deer with shorter antlers is favoured to reproduce because his antlers are less likely to be selected by hunters then that too is "survival of the fittest" because having shorter antlers confers fitness (a greater probability of reproducing.
Well done Ed! Glad to finally see someone who has the bravery to stand up, and call out the lettuce industry for the evil vanity project that it is!
I would be curious to hear opinions about the ranking of animals "worth" based off potential good they could do. Does the value of a creature morally change based on how much they could potentially help other creatures? If a creature who feels less suffering than other creatures but can help other creatures have less suffering, are they more (i hate to put it this way) morally valuable? I haven't thought about it too much, but it seems like an interesting question.
For example bees?
Even if bees lack sufficient consiousness to have moral worth in a vegan context, bees extinction may result in the extinction of beings of higher moral worth? Interesting question.
p.s. Isn't Alex on record stating if there was a button to end all life, this removing all suffering, then he cannot think of a single reason not to press it? In the anti-natalist perspective the subsequent extinction of 'higher' species is a bonus.
p.p.s. Peronally I disagree since extinction also rules out the possibility for future happiness.
I'm not a vegan, certainly not according to the standard definition, but in my opinion this was the most intelligent discussion on the subject ever, anywhere...that I have witnessed at least. Even the definition of veganism was not just taken as granted but thoroughly combed through.
These two are finally grappling with the most difficult questions in what I consider a proper way.
I've heard so many ideological black & white claims or non-coherent appeals to emotion which have long made me cynical about veganism. This was so completely refreshing and opposite of that!
Alex most surprised me with his potential commitment to non-cognitivism. I had no idea.
It is the position I hold, but it isn't particularly popular.
Ed is generally super consistent and clear from what I've heard of him, but even he managed to surprise me with an outright denouncement of intrinsic rights...of anyone, including humans. He can also clearly name a trait, even if it makes him feel awkward. Kudos for that!
That whole rights and intrinsic value thing never made any bit of sense to me, without God. I just don't get atheistic moral realists. To me, that's an oxymoron.
Over all, great stuff! Keep it up boys!!
Intrinsic value would not be validated by a deity. Existential value and moral value are two different topics.
I don't understand theistic moral realists
@@shanemous2451 Not just any deity but if the theistic, im*creator god of the cosmos were real, then yeah...it would be the measure of all things.
@Happy Cats That would depend on your definition of a vegan. I'm not at all convinced I should not use any animal products.
Also, my biggest criticism of veganism in general is the focus on suffering, minimizing suffering. It's incoherent because as Ed himself said, the ultimate conclusion of following that logic, is anti-natalism.
I think more focus should be put on maximizing wellbeing.
@@alexlarsen6413 Maximizing well-being, yes, but not at the cost of the well-being of others. You can be vegan & anti-natalist while maximizing your own well-being, they aren't all mutually exclusive. It's literally as easy as choosing something else at the supermarket & doing whatever tf else you want to do in your life, because this is the reality: ua-cam.com/video/8gqwpfEcBjI/v-deo.html
Ed! Come back to UT Dallas soon! I enjoyed your debates and I hope to see more in the future and in person
Great video! I've never heard of Ed before but he seems really smart and I loved the points he brought up. Very interesting discussion.
RIP BRUH
A right isn't an obligations we must uphold at any cost, it's a claim to sufficient justification when harming someones fundamental interests. A demand for justification for harm. That is what it is. So the question isn't "do X have rights?" Or "do rights exist?", but - what is sufficient justification?
There is no sufficient justification to kill organisms, because living organisms give us all the necessary nutrients.
Wait I'm confused. Is this from before or after Alex went back to the dark side? 🤔
i think before
That's a very sad star wars movie if everyone is just sith by default 🙁
Yeah this was during his brief vegan period. Although I don't think modern Alex would actually have a different standpoint now. He'd simply argue that now in his case, eating animal products is now "necessary" rather than "unnecessary" because of his health concern, or that or that being vegan is no longer "practicable" for similar reasons. Veganism doesn't support harming ones own body for the cause.
Alex FINALLY touched on the Agricultural Aspect I always ask about....I appreciate the honesty and discussions....And yes, I heard it on Rogan
Earthling Ed made a good point. Natural predations usually improve the traits and health of both preys and predators because the process weeds out both the preys and predators that are too weak, too sick in an beneficial evolutionary race. This leaves both predator and prey better as species. Human predation tend to be selective and usually targets the healthy and fit as results negative traits are selected. One example is the Malagasy crocodile. They became smaller and more furtive creatures (usually reduced to a few habitats) because of human predations.
You can't reconsider that now! I went vegan just this week
Nice 💪
Legend!
Veganism reconsidered indeed
Huge fan of you both for years. So happy to see this collaboration!
Overconsumption (not in terms of food intake) is better than underconsumption. It means we have a degree of excess. There will always be waste, no processes we are in control of can preserve 100% of the energy put into it. We need to use more and more resources for our continued survival and development. That will probably also mean a higher degree of efficiency, but that's just a part of it.
18:38 Help I have this dilemma right now (sort of)
Living in the Philippines, I don't have access to durable vegan shoes, and importing from EU or north america would be rly bad for the environment (& super expensive). Plus, idk any shoes more durable and long lasting than cow leather
The best options I have (durable & fair trade) are locally made leather shoes.
Suggestions?
No clue how you can stop being vegan once you realize animals deserve moral consideration. Makes no sense.
Idk, health or economic issues
Beans and tofu are cheap… and standard american diet is not the healthier …
What I can better understand (and maybe that’s what u you mean by you’re comment) is for people living in food desert… but even there… whole food as rice and beans are gone a be cheaper and healthier than Mcdonald…
An other argument that I can understand is the single parent who don’t have the time to learn how to cook vegan recipe …
The same way you use technology that might have been created by humans in brutal working conditions even though you believe humans deserve moral consideration.
@@cbri6926 "standard American diet is not healthier"
If you can't see how weak this is, I don't know what to tell you. You're comparing the worst possible diet for humans to one that's a little better
Thank you both, that was excellent.
I have to disagree with Ed on whether everybody can be vegan, and I wish he had more seriously contended with the "under my view no one is truly vegan" criticism he anticipated. Because I think it has more widespread application than the indigenous person example you guys talked about. We hear whole lists from people all the time about why a plant based diet would be challenging for them. Long lists of allergies, health conditions, sensory issues, local availability, money, access to cooking (whether that be time, skill, or means), level of independence from family members, whatever. These are legitimate challenges that go past "I don't want to, wouldn't be as tasty, wouldn't be quite as convenient."
A LOT of the time people are misinformed about whether their circumstance is an actual barrier, sure. People will say they can't be vegan because they're allergic to coconut, or because they can't afford special vegan chili that costs 36 dollars. We should correct people on that. But that's not always the case! AND, to a certain point, _we aren't them and we don't fully know what their circumstances are._ So activism becomes less effective because we either have to ignore people who don't fit our conventional idea of who can be vegan (elitist and inaccessible, classist, etc.) and/or we act paternalistic toward people, demand medical records and try to discern for ourselves what they can "actually" do (vegans are pushy and annoying, disrespectful, ideological.) In this, we ultimately lose people and a lot of potential action because they either feel unheard and disrespected, or use their fall from "ideal veganism" to justify completely and totally giving up on any change. Like we haven't even talked about nonfood animal products this whole time.
Surely it's easier to change people's minds on the spirit of veganism and allow action to follow... than it is to enforce an absolute checklist of conventions one must adhere to to fit in.
There's even an argument that Ed's understanding of who can be vegan doesn't hold incredibly wealthy/powerful people to high *enough* standards. But maybe he would say there's only a lower boundary and not an upper boundary or something
@Reggie Warrington I agree with you. I'm saying that people "in certain circumstances" should be considered vegan right now if they're doing what they can. But I think Ed would say that those people aren't vegan, though they could be if they were in better circumstances
I don't think the answer of "overconsumption is bad for your health anyways, so don't do it" is a good one, because there are scenarios where that might not be the case. My caloric intake went up over 2x since started to go to the gym. Is it immoral for me to get jacked? It is absoulely not necessary for me and I am probably far beyond a point where it benefits my health. What about if I eat plants, where the production causes less animal suffering and emissions?
Moral or not, getting jacked is not vegan.
@@bdnnijs192 Is it also not vegan for me to ride my bike to work instead of taking public transport? What if you eat plants that harm 2x the animals the plants I eat do and I eat 2x the food and am jacked. Are we both not vegan?
@@chuckyfox9284
That depends on wether taking your bike causes more harm or taking your bike.
The difference is vegans would consider work a necessity, while they would not consider getting jacked a necessity.
p.s. vegans might give you a free pass if you get jacked to prove it's possible on veganism and spread the gospel amongst gym bros
@@bdnnijs192 To be clear I do consider myself vegan even though I'm somewhat jacked and do ultra endurance cycling where I consume huge amounts of food. I think 99% of vegans would make the same judgement. In the end it's just a label with a vague definition. I think it's fair to say I am not vegan because I consume a lot more food than is necessary, even if I have convinced quite a few people to go vegan or at least consider animal welfare by being jacked and in general a very "rational" person who people might not expect to be vegan.
@@chuckyfox9284
You know the vegan society's definion. Any calory (and suffering) surplus needed to get jacked is not a necessity.
I don't make the rules. The vegans that turn a blind eye on their own principles do.
The definition is a kind of no true scottsman argument. By that definition you, and many others, are not True vegans.
Two brilliant fellows talking. Many ideas brought up I never thought about. Great talk!
How did Millennials get to be such a self-righteous lot.
I feel the answer to this statement is made at the beginning of this video.
We live in a time where we actually have the ability to make a choice. And what choice do you make having the ability to make a choice.
Self-righteous is perhaps the wrong term here now today. Maybe self-awareness is more fitting?
Now I could be wrong. But is an open question/ statement.
Millennials are highly confused after the baby boomers taught them to reject Christianity.
Great stuff Alex and Ed !
If you are that hungry before your visit to the Vatican then you failed by not eating earlier and I doubt that unless you have some medical condition waiting to eat until after your visit is not going to cause a great deal of hardship.
Amusingly, there is a burger joint with vegan options on the menu approx. 7 minutes from the Vatican.
How successful are vegans at fulfilling their 9 essential amino acids with regular food intake? If we are to follow the health exception, it takes a combination of foods, typically to get all 9 essential aminos in time to utilize them, while all or most animal products fulfill this requirement. Is this a non issue, a partial issue, or serious issue?
Then, my next question would be, wether we eat the cows or not, should we not move ruminating animals back to the pastures? There are so many benefits, of decentralizing them and returning them to their practice of ruminating on pastures. Their methane production returns to a cycle instead of just dumping into the environment. It builds healthy soil, and microbiome, curbing water run off, and sequestering carbon.Can even reclaim decertified land, back into productive soil.
If you did allow for eating the animals, in this system, it will be a healthier food than the k-fed alternative. Mark Hyman MD's book, Food Fix, suggest that pastor raised ruminating animals, in a decentralized system, would produce food so much healthier, that it could be the single largest contributor toward edging health threats such as, diabetes and heart disease. Is it more acceptable to raise animals that would live in their natural environment, without the use of regular antibiotics and hormones therapies, eating food that doesn't make them sick, ie corn and grains, also made with problematic agricultural products that would no longer be needed. But, would still benefit from having minders to protect from predators, and doctors to keep them heathy. Would this make their eventual slaughter, still unacceptable?
I would propose that we have decentralized pasture raided natural ruminating animals to eat. Vegan, food options, and all the meat alternatives. All while pursuing the other interventions to improve agriculture. Having options, while optimizing out the damage of our food production, and reducing harm, while improving health outcomes, seems like the most moral and utilitarian path.
1) protein is mostly not an issue as a vegan. If you eat legumes almost daily you get enough of every aminoacid except cystein and methionin. For those you have to eat some nuts or seeds. Both legumes and nuts/seeds is something every vegan I know eats like 5 to 6 times per week. It's pretty standard by now to cook with it.
2) Those benefits are there, but wildlife animals do that as well. If we take some of the land used for animal agriculture to farm human edible food and return the rest to nature, we could have the benefits you talked about and additionally have some space entirely given back to nature.
This resonates with me on a deeper level now. It seems like those questions have been lingering in the back of your mind for quite some time, as if you've been searching for a way to find a loophole out of veganism.
Interesting conversation guys, keep fighting the good fight as best you can.🧠🌱💚🌍