Jeff McMahan | Beyond Meat Debate | Propositon (4/7) | Oxford Union
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 вер 2024
- SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
Website: www.oxford-unio...
In the wake of damning new evidence, the contribution of meat consumption to carbon emissions is at the forefront of global conversations. In this debate, fears of environmental damage and ethical concerns for animal rights clash with millions within the meat industry facing unemployment, religious and cultural traditions being condemned, and those with medical requirements risking disapproval for putting their health first. In light of these competing concerns, we must confront one of the most urgent issues of our time: should society finally move beyond meat?
--------------------------------------
Proposition Speakers
1. Heather Mills
Former model, businesswoman, media personality, and activist. She launched VBites, a vegan food company, and plans to create a ‘vegan Silicon Valley’ in the North of England.
2. Professor Jeff McMahan
White’s Professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of Oxford and author of The Meat Eaters. He has been a vegetarian for more than 50 years and continues to query the ethics of killing animals.
3. Carol Adams
Writer, vegan feminist, and animal rights advocate. She is known for having written The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory, and was inducted into the Animal Rights Hall of Fame in 2011.
--------------------------------------
Opposition Speakers
1. Mikhaila Peterson
Canadian podcaster who runs the blog Don’t Eat That. She eats a meat-only ‘Lion Diet’ and claims this has helped her overcome autoimmune and mood disorders.
2. Peter Stevenson OBE
Chief Policy Advisor to Compasssion in World Farming and recipient of the RSPCA Lord Erskine Award. He was lead author of the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation review of animal welfare legislation.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Oxford Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. Since 1823, the Union has been promoting debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Animals eat animals. we are also part of this realm. You can look at animal farming in a cruel way, but the alternative is hunting untill nothing is left. what is more cruel?
Also,
The suffering endured by animals needs no further explaination and will in his opinion not be disputed, but the morallity of canibalizing a baby does????
Lastly,
Hunting is used in a controlled manner to keep surtain populations of animals in the right capacity because otherwise they'd create an inbalance in the ecological plainfield in surtain localities. This is not for human pleasure. It is, however, caused by human influences which we must address because otherwise we run the risk of endangering spieces which are not thribing under the same conditions. Once again a weak argument from the opposition.
We have the awareness to understand that killing and eating animals is unsustainable yet also a completely unjustifiable morality when we have foods that are way healthier and don't involve the purposeful suffering of sentiment life forms. The shear minutes of pleasure from eating the flesh of an animal is not worth more than that animals life, simple as.
You're so consumed by your own uneducated beliefs here, when you talk about hunting. Due to hunting an imbalance was created, humans killed and made most predatory animals extinct, we took the food intended for them and stocked it into factories for ourselves.
So where's part 2/8 then?
Too dangerous for youtube
Who was the speaker?
@@mojojojo7163 (information redacted)
@@AndersRosendalBJJ Mikhaila Peterson uploaded it on her channel! Here you go!
ua-cam.com/video/gMfjm4NWkYU/v-deo.html
@@AdoringAdmirer That ones already up. It doesn’t say who no 2 speaker was.
I saw a smile come to Mikhaila's face when he said "most people in developed societies would be far healthier if they ate a vegan diet... ...That, I think, is beyond dispute"
The peer reviewed Adventist studies showed that vegans have lower rates of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and multiple types of cancer.
Link on my channel under "About" then "Chronic."
@@someguy2135 Do those studies take into account the amount of food people consume, as well as how much those people exercise etc.?
Largest group of nutritionists and dieticians in the world released a meta study confirming that vegan diets are healthy for all stages of life and lack no essential nutrients. And you think mikhaela fucking Peterson’s smirk somehow trumps that… lol
@@Dvoid107 i would like to know that too
@@Dvoid107 I don't know offhand. However, I do know that Seventh Day Adventists tend to be health oriented and exercise more than the average non Adventist. The religion encourages that, as well as abstaining from alcohol and smoking. The great thing about the Adventist studies is that the only variable was the diet.
He made a good start, but the utilitarian argument (the aggregate pleasure derived from eating the pig is outweighed by the deprivation of the pig's pleasure) is a loser. First, there is no basis on which to compare the pleasure of a pig with the pleasure of a human. Second, there is no basis on which to compare various types of pleasure (in this case, the pleasure of eating versus the deprivation of life). Imagine the difficulties that could arise from such a calculus. For example, does the pleasure of the rapist outweigh the loss of pleasure of his (forgive the sexism) victim? What if there was great pleasure--perhaps a gang rape, perpetrated by a hundred rapists? And what if the deprivation of pleasure was reduced--perhaps an elderly victim, lacking self awareness and on the verge of death? The example is monstrous, but that is my point. Utilitarianism is a treacherous basis for morality.
who cares, I butcher the pigs and I eat them.
He wasn’t giving a utilitarian argument, he literally said there are constraints so that the good achieved from eating meat would need to be substantially greater than the harm caused, maybe watch it again mate
@@JohnFisherChoirhe pointed out emotions nothing more than that.this is a food chain process which take place naturally.Animal husbandries play key role in Economy without them lower class cannot even run their livelihood; his statement totally in favour veganism .
I think he made this argument so as not to go too far down the animal suffering route, which ultimately causes discomfort during the speech among meat eaters, but ultimately denial and they will go out and eat a burger... Though I think this was ultimately misguided because anyone whose attention has been drawn to the awful conditions tantamount to torture in factory farms would not eat meat.
I think you, like many others, are too quick to dismiss consequentialist/utilitarian arguments based on absurd results that can be reached when creating artificial and incomplete thought experiments. The rape example is easily addressed by first pointing out that the harm that a rape causes extends far beyond the act itself, for example into the enduring psychological trauma caused. Additionally, permitting rapes to occur would lead to a large part of the population living in fear, in addition to many other social problems. Considering all the benefits, I think the only reasonable utilitarian/consequentialist conclusion is a full-on ban on rape.
As for your first no-basis argument: it's unclear what you mean. Do you mean that we can't compare the pleasure of a pig with the pleasure of a human? I think we are close to having some sort of a basis to do so, through science. Considering what we already know about the similarities between our brains and those of animals, reason dictates that significant attention is appropriate and the pleasure of eating an animal product rather than a plant product has nowhere near the same moral weight as the taking of years of life (and the immense suffering that these animals are usually forced to endure before their killing). If the argument is that we cannot know the contents of the consciousness of other beings - that's an argument for solipsism.
The argument about the incomparability of types of pleasures also doesn't hold up. Just look at some of our clear preference for avoiding major harms compared to experiencing minor pleasures. I would bet those preferences can be objectively substantiated to some extent by neuroscientific experiments, if that's your cup of tea.
In any case - the quality of conscious experiences seems to me the only appropriate starting point for a system of morality. Deontological ethics for example always seem to me to make use of far less plausible presuppositions than the simple recognition that pain is bad and pleasure is good.
A pig lives 15-20 years? Only if it's raised by humans. In a natural setting, their lifespan would be nowhere near that amount. Most animals in a natural setting live short brutal lives. Judging their lifespan based on human intervention is disingenuous.
How does that mean there should be more suffering, 60 billion land animals is a lot, no reason to create more death
Roughly 4-6 years. They usually are cannibalised by other pigs die of disease or starve to death. Not much better than a bad farm, way worse than a good farm
There's a very reasonable and compelling argument for veganism, this one ain't it
Every comment under this video: ‘this argument is terrible and easily disproven. No I will not explain how or why.’
@@Celestina0 False. Just from skimming through the comment section I have read multiple many comments explaining how or why this argument is bad.
However not everyone has to repeat everything that is so obvious that it almost goes without saying. The Professors argument is entirely based around reducing meat consumption to "pleasure", which is simply not the case.
Other than that, it is just 10 minutes of pseudo-moralistic gobbeldygook filled with limpering comparisons, like reducing cognitivelly limited human beings to beneath the level of a pig.
@@Celestina0 It's neither reasonable nor compelling because it places a pig's potential well-being above significant pleasure for humans. Just argue factory farming is inhumane, and you have a much more compelling argument.
@@Chug5003 how is that not reasonable? I imagine you use the same moral calculus with other animals. Abusing pets is wrong no matter how much pleasure you get out of kicking your cat. We weigh the cats well-being above the pleasure gained from committing acts of violence upon it. Anything else is just inviting animal abuse.
@@Celestina0 Cruelty for cruelty's sake is frowned upon regardless of the subject of abuse being a cat, a person, or even a tree which can feel nothing. The slaughtering of farm animals serves a basic human need while being more healthy and pleasurable for humans than alternatives. The moral issue with factory farming is that the harm inflicted on the animals is vastly disproportionate. Everyone should at least agree it's the most pressing issue on the matter, and far easier to address than the universal intuition that killing prey to eat is fine. The reasonable argument to make is that somewhere between a traditional farm and factory farms, there is a point at which the harm done to animals becomes vastly disproportionate to what humans get out of it.
Look at you all the in comments fighting so badly to enjoy your little moments of sensory taste over the life of an animal. Everyone of you meat eaters knows it is not morally justifiable yet you're all trying so hard to deny that fact, and I love it. All your minds are deeply morally sick, open your hearts and your minds to the devastation this race of men causes and actually do something about it, choose a vegan diet.
It's just "anti-vegan talking points 101 speedrun", I would be hard-pressed to believe these people have any motivations at all, or are even capable of enough self-reflection to be "in denial".
I think they are largely mouth-breathing NPCs who will never even consider abstaining from socially-condoned torture, because they are incapable of independent and critical thought, and are delivering programmed, reflexive responses they learned on TikTok
You lost me at hunting. Living in the American midwest, if deer populations weren't kept in control you would risk many more human lives due to car accidents. Research has been done in Yellowstone National Park concluding that unregulated animal populations will actually change the course of rivers because overgrazing will lead to excessive erosion. Nature needs balance.
Well, assuming you are perfectly right, that has no connection to buying (and supporting by creating demand) meat from factory farmed animals (i.e. basically all meat you can buy in a supermarket) which is the main problem; and saying that there might be some situation in which killing animals can be justified says nothing on the matter whether it's generally right to expose animals to almost constant suffering for their whole life for some few minutes taste buds pleasure enchantment.
@@mateusztgorak you sidestepped my genuine critique of the speaker. My point is he went too far when applying the same ethics as one would regarding animal farms to that of hunting. Both methods of obtaining meat have completely different pros and cons to society. Watch part 6 of this debate to get a less moral absolute point of view.
@@mateusztgorak then don't hunt no one is forcing you to eat meat or hunt,
@@jksg1au both are fine. Grass fed livestock is best.
Looking for outliers doesn't cancel out the situation for the vast majority
His entire speech hinges on having to think of animals as equivalents of humans. I'm surprised that he isn't arguing against the pesticide industry used in farming, because the only logic he uses to justify thinking of animals as human equivalents is that a cognitively disabled infant has no better mental capacity than a pig. I'm sure he would also agree that killing a mentally disabled infant with less function than an insect would be wrong, so why does he not pose the moral dilemma for the consumers of pesticide? How has all of his intellectual gymnastics allowed an arbitrary line of dilemma to stop at farm animals for some reason and not apply to insects with the same logic?
He already said that there should be some exceptions, he's not a pacifist. Pesticides are used to defend property, killing humans who attack your property and cannot be stopped or reasoned with is legal. Besides he may be against pesticides, veganic farming systems don't use pesticides and neither do vertical farms.
You don’t even know his actual view he doesn’t view them as equal and he is literally the smartest person in the debate you should try watching his interviews
@@lukejones1568 comparing a pig to an infant is not smart. he is a vegan zealot
@@GarudaLegends Its you again lmao why don't you explain to the class why you think a comparison is "not smart"?
@@radiocorrective comparing an adult pig to a 3 year old child is beyond stupid.
The dilemma: Meat eaters must give a compelling explanation for the moral status of the infant compared to the pig.
1. The infant is human.
2. The pig is an animal.
Dilemma solved. I'm going to go thaw some pork.
The challenge to your response is to explain why is being a biological member of the species homo Sapien morally relevant but not membership in other merely biological categories that is clearly morally irrelevant (like race and sex). Also, if membership in the human species is morally relevant, why would it be wrong to kill intelligent non-human aliens (Spock, superman etc)? I think you should think seriously about the issue by reading the main philosophical arguments before commenting next time
@@JohnFisherChoir If we happen upon Spock, it may be worth considering. Until, then appealing to fantasyland then accusing someone else of not thinking seriously is absurd.
@@ericfeldkamp3788 it is worth considering now because our moral principles should not be at complete odds with our intuitive judgement about the implications of the principles (since we have intuitions about hypothetical cases, these are as fair game as real ones, and often better since we can control for confounding factors)
@@JohnFisherChoir Confounding factor 1. Is it real? No.
Unconfounded.
If we found out that there are still some members of Homo Floresiensis left, which are our close cousins thought to be extinct 50,000 years ago, would you pay for closing them in a cage, so they can't move their whole life and gas them, and eat them (as you consider right doing for pigs)? If no, why not? They aren't human (that term is reserved for homo sapiens). What about some aliens possessing the same intelligence as we do? Would it be okay to torture them and eat them? What if they are a little less intelligent? “The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer? Why should the law refuse its protection to any sensitive being?” Bentham (1789)
I don’t know anyone who eats meat purely for “pleasure”. It is scientifically the most nutritious food available on the planet. To claim “pleasure” as the chief reason for eating meat can’t even be taken seriously.
I eat meat for pleasure. I love it.
Not necessarily. Nutrition of meat can be found on plants. This makes animal consumption unnecessary.
The pleasure argument came about because some people say, "i respect vegans but i can't give up meat." They can't do it because they love the taste of meat.
@@psychologynerd7280 no
@@psychologynerd7280 yeah it can be found in plants, but not in any 1.
Consumption of meat certainly essential at some point.matter is what we consume influence our health.first of all this is a food chain process. which is requisite to maintain right balance on earth.
What happened to part 2 of 8? I can't find it anywhere. Also, I don't think 'Propositon' is a word...
Proposition is definitely a word
@@bw2020 notice the missing "i". /Woosh
@@alderon1991 oh yeah. Oops.
if you've ever talked with a hunter (not a sports hunter who does it for fun, but a professional) you understand they manage the forrest .. they keep the animals in a ballance if they don't there will be regular population explosions followed by starvation years going hand in hand with a severely damaged flora.
so to generalize animal hunting as a complete or net negative according to his argument .. is plane and simply wrong .. and as so often .. a pure theoretic academic approach to reality .. missing it as so often.
not to mention, why they do this? bc there are no natural predators to keep the populace stagnant. and why there are no predators? humans need for space for farms and such.
@@peterbereczki4147 thx for the addition. was thinking about writing that too but decided against it. rethinking it .. makes more sense to bring it up so, thx again
Part 2 must be Haram
Figured out Louise Gray "The Ethical Carnivore" was the speaker they cut
Thanks! I'll check her out!
The moral high ground is astonishing…why stop at humans? I think he should take it further… provide a plant based diet for all the carnivores...fish, eagles, dogs, cats...cos the animals they hunt too will have their pleasure taken from them..
Hes talking about our individual choices and human ethics, minimising the suffering which we can control. I think he accepts that a certain amount of suffering is unavoidable.
"An insane academic stopped me in the woods and demanded I eat tofu instead of the elk I had taken. Unfortunately for him, I'm a bear, and eating him gave me the shits."
That might be the goal one day bucko, based on wellbeing.
If you search further that is his goal.
You are correct. He believes exactly that. Look up his 2010 article "the meat eaters" in the New York Times
I found this proposition a little disturbing when thinking that he measures the justice of the act in "pleasure". Makes me wonder how much "Pleasure" is lost in abortion in comparison to the "Pleasure" of the mother and if there's an amount of fairness on that.
Just questions based on the framework used.
Oh facts
Are you really using abortion as a way to make yourself feel better about killing and consuming animals?
@@caimoriarty9004 What?. I'm not justifying nothing, just applying the logic that he uses in a general framework. 🤷
Considering that some of the anti-meet voices are comfortable with the pro-choice option, I thought that it would be fair to face their logic their own beliefs.
@@lmmaguet I feel like you're distracting yourself with another issue all together, the simple thing is here, we have no necessity to eat animals, therefore we shouldn't cause them harm or kill them to eat them. Abortion is a whole other issue and that's not why I'm here to comment.
this is a good example of a strawman argument. mixed with whataboutism. good for you!
Most people would be healthier if they ate a whole food omnivorous diet. We need to cut out the chemical ridden, rancid oil and preservative laden processed foods.
LIKE BEYOND MEAT and other heavily processed "vegan" alternatives!
The ideal diet is a whole food plant based diet. Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods were designed to appeal to meat eaters, who are used to animal based meals with high levels of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol. Beyond and Impossible do not have dietary cholesterol, but they do have plant based fats to tempt meat eaters. It seems to have worked. Here is a video of a blind taste test in which 5 out of 8 meat eaters preferred the taste of Impossible burgers to those made of cow flesh.
ua-cam.com/video/NYOCv-y8ckM/v-deo.html
The peer reviewed Adventist studies showed that compared to omnivores, vegans have lower rates of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and multiple types of cancer.
Link on my channel under "About" then "Chronic."
@@someguy2135 can you link the peer review article to see if they adjust or control for procesed foods, carbs, alcohol, tobacco or physical activity?
@@eduardors9375 The reason I have the link on my channel instead of posting it here, is that UA-cam now has a policy which auto deletes any new comments that include links. The only exception is a link to other UA-cam videos.
@@eduardors9375 The great thing about the Adventist Studies is that Adventists (with a few exceptions, I assume) adhere to a similarly healthy lifestyle in terms of smoking, drinking alcohol, exercise, etc. The diet was basically the only variable.
I haven't read that part of the study. Please report back here if you discover anything relevant.
He just said, it's understandable if you don't treat humans and animals the same and we don't care about animal suffering then goes on and on about animals are suffering because we like taste
You don’t have to treat animals like humans to be against animal suffering.
@@moderncaleb3923 i am doing exactly the same. Not treating humans and animals the same. I am against animal suffering too, if a guy is taking out his stress on a dog. But then, if it is scientifically proven to work and reduce stress much better than other methods then that's a good deal. It's the same with animal experiments. I don't see any human volunteering as guinea pigs. So we have animal to fill in the gap.
I love meat but not suffering…
@@gifthorse3675 that's hypocritical. It's like saying i like to push someone off a building but I don't like them dying.😂
Yea and the poor gobsh1te doesn't seem to know that humans are also animals. Poor fella still lives in the dark ages!
And what about the plant pleasure to grow and to blossom and to not be eaten you can make the same argument but plans for full of toxins because they can't run away from their predators it's not the same thing
Plants don't have nervous systems, so we do not care about their well-being or experience of the world, if they even have one. They are neither sentient, nor conscious. Even if they experience some form of suffering, it would be so different to our experience of suffering, that we wouldn’t be able to determine if it's actually bad or not, or even if it can be categorized as good or bad.
Would you care more if I beat a dog to death in front of you or if I stomped a flower?
@@MemaK124 but plants do respond to non-physical stimulus. There was an experiment where 2 seeds in 2 separate pots were grown. One was complimented every day and the other was cursed at
Surprisingly there was a difference in the end. And if the lack of sentience puts one over the other then I don't know where you would place people who have been in comatose or vegetative state for decades?
Or better yet, following the orator's argument, if a person was born without a nervous system, much like a plant, does that person deserve human rights?
If you DO care about the plants pleasure from growing and blossoming, you should choose a way of eating and living that reduces the amount of plants you have to harm. That would be veganism, because the animals omnivores eat need to be fed plants as well, which leads to not just more animal deaths, but more plant deaths too.
Excellent argument from Jeff McMahan; very intellectual and logical. Well done OU.
so, 3 arguments for no meat and 2 for meat... i don't want to think that there is an agenda...
Is this dude for real? His argument against meat eating is pleasure? What kind of world does he live in? Living is not all about pleasure, unless you're purely obsessed with seeking pleasure in which case you're usually a trash human being anyway. Meat isn't essential for happiness, I've never heard this argument. The argument I hear is nutrients and a balanced diet most often. Plus development is pretty damn important. And you wouldn't eat your own species in general. I know there's some animals that do but unless I'm missing something that wouldn't be the norm? At least not in humans
Yes his arguments are crackers. I eat for the nutrients needed in the food I eat. There are certain nutrients we can only get from meat, red meat especially. Don’t blame the burgers for what the soda and bread did.
@@clovermark39 meat eaters support the patriarchy!
As far as I am aware you can get all nutrients from a plant-based diet. What essential nutrients are exclusive to meat?
Good lord, a hedonic calculus is to define what lives and what is eaten? Then for God's sake don't eat....anything.
But what if I ONLY eat mentally deficient children?
What planet is this guy from? The land of fluffy bunnies and life in a Disney world. He has been brainwashed to believe that he is not a natural predator that yes has evolved as a preditor that occasionally eats plants when game is not available. Scientists have proven we function at a higher level when we eat meat, it's obvious this guy is lacking.
"Scientists have proven we function at a higher level when we eat meat". Source?
So from the videos I've seen so far this entire thing can be summarised as:
Anti Meat - we're morally superior and you should feel guilty. Do as you're told.
Pro Meat - let's talk facts and nutrition.
They main thrust of the argument isn't that vegans are morally superior, it's that consuming animal products is immoral. This is an important distinction. The motive is to act in a moral manner, not to relieve yourself of guilt. Nowhere did the speaker start shaming or guilt-tripping the meat-eaters. He was presenting his point of view and his arguments against the consumption of animal products. If you felt guilt listening to his points, that might say something about the validity of the arguments.
Let's look at an analogy. A westerner says it is morally wrong to stone gay people, when talking to a radical Muslim fundamentalist. Is it a valid response of the fundamentalist to say "Your just shaming me and acting morally superior"? Of course not. The person has to engage with the argument and provide reasons to why said action is morally justified or not. If we accept this "guilt-tripping" response as valid here, all discussions around moral questions became useless - you can always accuse the other person of guilt-tripping and disengage from the conversation without defending your position.
If you want let's talk facts and nutrition. A well-planed vegan diet is appropriate for all stages of life according to The Dieticians Association of Australia, The American Dietetic Association and The British Dietetic Association. You can get every single nutriet your body needs from a vegan source. So there is no need to consume animal products. When we don't need to eat meat, how do you then justify then slaughter of billions of animals yearly? Animals that live in constant pain and suffering. Does the pleasure and convenience a couple of people get from a 15 min meal justify ending an animals entire existence?
Source: www.livekindly.co/myth-buster-vegan-diets-are-unhealthy/
95% of these animals would not exist if not farmed for food.
Why is it a good thing that these animals exist? Wouldn't the world be better without animal agriculture and all the suffering and ecological destructions it causes?
I would prefer them not existing…
@@Isa-it7df Maybe none of us should exist , then there would be no suffering for any one ...
@@dreinhard52 Yeah, I agree. Nobody is harmed by not existing.
True.. haha. So it's a net zero of anything. Look at all these snowflake 😂
After seeing the brain damage that has resulted from these people NOT eating meat I am right now getting dressed to go out and pack my fridge with chicken, fish and steak.
okay dude you don't gotta rub it into peoples face how much you love causing suffering to other sentient love-capable individuals
Don’t think that’ll help you
You are what you eat *insert chicken noises here*
@@TryingtoTellYou Are animals that eat chickens also chickens? Are wolves that eat chickens part chicken? My whole point is that you need WAY BETTER arguments and counter points. I personally don't eat that much meat I try to eat a more plant based diet, mostly I only eat fish and chicken. My whole point is that the people in the video and the people who have replied to me ( including you ) have mad such bad arguments that It makes me want to eat more meat.
so is your goal to get less people to eat meat? or is your goal to feel better then other people?
@@philodox7599 I was only teasing. I am not for moving beyond meat. After watching all the speakers, its apparent to me that eating meat still falls under necessity to the health of some. However, the vegan goal is commendable and I do believe that if we can do better, we should. Some of the compelling arguments against making meat eating completely illegal were the finite amount of fertile soil we have on the Earth, the fact that the stool of cattle is a natural fertilizer of soil and that we can reduce the amount of pigs we need to kill by multiplying pig cells in the lab. By doing so, we would not require meat to be entirely outlawed.
While all his arguments are coherent and understandable the moral framework those arguments build on are questionable at best. Weighing the morality of choices by how much 'pleasure' it will create/allow is asinine. Say you are faced with the choice to save one of two, a dog who lives with rich loving owners or a sick homeless person, would you choose the dog, because it will live a more 'pleasurable' life than the homeless person? Or to take his hypothetical the mentally disabled infant or the pig? Is a rich persons life worth more than a poor persons?
On to a different hypothetical: If we are measuring moral choices by pleasure then wouldn't it be ok to steal some of my friends candy, cause I have none? Would I not get more pleasure out of taking a few pieces of candy, than he would be denied by losing a little candy? Would this not be morally correct?
Your hypothetical doesn’t do justice McMahan’s case. He already agrees that human beings have more worth than animals, and that animals can be sacrificed for human beings when necessary. The equation that he emphasises is the deprivation 10 minutes of taste pleasure from a meal vs. the years of life pleasure that is lost by the animal. Even assuming that humans have greater value, whatever value that is wouldn’t justify the vast majority of meat consumption, the type of meat consumption that isn’t literally necessary for your survival.
@@moderncaleb3923 Things that taste good do so for a reason, it isn't random arbitrary as you seem to hinting at. The reason why meat taste good is because it is good for you with all the nutrients it provides. No justification is necessary to eat meat since eating meat is good. The pleasure and pain of a pig or any animal is irrelevant....
@@erickgreen2361 Does sugar taste bad to you? If it doesn't, antifreeze tastes just like it. Not really a healthy choice. Every nutritional requirement can be met through vegan sources. Rape may feel good, but I'm not justified in raping someone because it feels good. Just because something feels good doesn't make it good. Eating meat is horrible. If you think the suffering of animals is irrelevant because you enjoy eating their body parts, you should also think if someone murders you your suffering is irrelevant because the person murdering you enjoys it.
@@moderncaleb3923 He actually doesn't agree that humans have more value than pigs or other animals, that is one of the main points of his argument. The major flaw in his approach is the "pleasure" aspect. We don't eat food for pleasure. We eat for for nutrition and survival. Meat is a necessary component for a healthy human being. We are omnivores and our bodies function at an optimal level with higher levels of meat, then nuts and fruits. Vegetables came into the human diet later on and can be argued that they are harmful and cause many of our illnesses and health issues.
Also, I don't give a toss about a non-human animal. I don't care if they can feel pleasure or pain and they don't care about humans. Lions don't have ethical dilemmas about their food sources or their fee-fees. Modern animal killing is with little pain and growing up on a farm with "free-range" chickens and cows and horses and goats and turkeys and all the other damn creatures we took in a fed, I can tell you they can lead some fairly torturous lives. Chickens constantly torture each other and they are vicious. Pigs will eat humans and bite you if you get in a pen with them. Urbanites and hippies are so closed off from nature and animals. Carrying little human-bred dogs that can't survive on their own in handbags is mark of a kind soul.....
You would be the one that gets eaten first in a plane crash scenario.
@@corgimeatlover9970 You're making bad vegan arguments like a typical vegan debater. I can't tell you the number of times I had to deal with vegans with twisted logic.
Your antifreeze analogy shows you fail to understand what I was saying. Its in the same vain as me saying 25 year olds are smarter than 11 year olds and you retort with 11 year old chess grandmaster. Just because artificial things and poisons may taste good doesn't negate that things that taste are typical are good for you. I don't know why you even feel the need to try to dispute this. Do you think meat taste good for no reason?
You didn't need to say nutritional requirement can be met with vegan sources. It doesn't change the fact that meat taste good because it is nutritious. Since you mention I'll say a few things about the vegan diet. Its probably the worse diet you can try, you only have to look the complete lack of b12, saturated fat, and cholesterol from said vegan sources. Not to mention the nutrients from vegan sources are inferior to animal sources....
I am not talking about feeling good, I am talking about things that taste good. You seem to like equate them when you shouldn't. A woman may feel good from having sex with hundreds of men but it is obviously bad. In contrast, things that taste good typical are good for you, if that wasn't the case your taste buds would be functional useless.....
Eating meat isn't horrible, it is good. The pain and pleasure of an animal is irrelevant because I am a predator and all animals that walk the Earth is my prey. As such, I have no obligation whatsoever to care about the pain and suffering of my prey as I harvest their flesh and blood....
It is beyond idiotic to think I wouldn't care the pain of someone murdering me ( on a side note stop calling the butchering of animals murder). You do realize I can just care about my own suffering and not care about the suffering of animals. Your vegan mind that place me on the same level as a lowly pig and cow probably just didn't consider such a benign proposition. For future reference, don't put on the same level as an animal.....
Hopefully your next response is more thoughtful.....
This guy is not a philosopher he’s a man on a mission to defend a position to no end.
It’s called being on one side of a debate panel 🤦♀️
I don't even like hunting, but when he gives the argument about game killed in hunting he completely ignores how dreadful the death of wild animals ALWAYS is: either death by disease/starvation or devoured by an other animal.
6:24 "May have" is the keyword,
There is a difference between "May have" and "Cannot possibly have"
That's a cognitive difference between a Human infant and a Pig
That's to point out that there's different people with different intelligence levels. The main point is that you wouldn't kill a human animal (humans are animals too) because they're less intelligent than you. Pigs are smart as a 3 year old, would you kill the kid because they're not that intelligent? There's people who are even less smart than a pig, people in vegetative states. we would still not kill them and then eat them because they can still suffer and respect that.
For him to take that argument on shows his lack of intelligence. Killing a 3 year human is called murder.
@@andersanderson4234 You're missing the point, he isn't talking about specific moral laws in your country, it's about ethics. Remove moral laws out and think about his scenario in isolation - that distils the point down to its ethical bedrock.
@@Rigpa88 I'm not talking about morals specific to any country. I'm not going to follow his breadcrumbs to his isolated scenario so that he may persuade me. It's not a good argument. But more, I am arguing to Human Animals point.
It is my understanding that consuming insects has the same nutritional value as meat but I cannot find an affordable supply of insects to consume
I milked cows on my parents dairy farm in my teens.
Back then I didn't understand the suffering of animals. Our cows moo'd and cried for days at the loss of their calves.
As dad drove down the kilo long track to our front gate, his trailer packed with days-old calves, I remember them mooing loudly for their mums as the trailer bumped along the track.
Those calves were off to the slaughter house so we could drink milk.
I'm now a 77-year old 'fruitarian'. Animal farming is so cruel.
Stock are belted and abused, even today, and we support that by buying animal products.
Who cares. Nobody that’s who.
Think of the anguished human mothers who have to let go of their children when they grow up. So horrifying what we force that suffering on these mothers.
hes arguing that fast food chains should be put down, I agree, unhealthy animals raised, should not happen. It is unhealthy for us and should not be eaten. Whereas locally grass fed beef and pork that is sustainable for consumption is what I'm for. Fast food is disgusting.
Why do some species of animals eat other animals while others survive on leaves, grass, berries etc? Why do some kill their food right away while others eat them alive? The thing I don't like is factory farms I like the old farms where the animals are outside and are not kept confined inside which I think is disgusting and should be illegal.
Did you know that in ancient Bhārata (India), a person who consumed ANY type of animal was known as a “Chandāla” (dog-eater) and was not even included in mainstream society, but was an outcast?🥩
So, do you ADMIT that you’re an animal-abusing criminal, Mr. Dog-eater? 😬🙄😬
Why does it matter what other species do? We have a choice to kill animals for food or not to kill them. Why choose the violence and harm?
@@adolphus8552 Does a lion not choose violent and harm when it attacks a buffalo?
@@zachboynton9836 nope, a lion doesn't have the ability to consider the consequences of her actions. She kills to survive but we can survive without killing animals for burgers by the billion so its a totally different thing. Do you think wild animals are good role models?
@@adolphus8552 I don't think wild animals are a good role model no, I just don't think your point is very valid. A lion has as much as an ability to consider the consequences as a vulture or hyena's for example, both of whom are scavenger creatures who only eat an animal after its dead. I also think theres value i understanding animals ravenous nature, particularly that of a lion. Jeff himself in some of his books surrounding the barbarity of warfare has discussed how during war, humans can exhibit the same level of sensless violence. So I wouldn't argue its a totally different thing either.
Hey if you're not comfortable eating meat DONT! Just leave those who want to for better health DO!
This segment was the best part of the debate! The points made are excellent and a meat eaters inability to change their habits after viewing this is indicative of a dogmatic and selfish lifestyle.
It was pretty bad in my opinion. His argument was essentially something along the lines of epicureanism and hedonism but in a considerate fashion for the other end of the stick...
He really tried to quantify the pleasure of humans and animals. If it was a 13 year old kid who made the argument I might be a bit more accepting of it but he's a professor in Oxford
@@chaddedmapipi5789 you’re proving his point. His argument is based on your inability to point out the morally relevant trait that would justify difference in treatment. Failure to do so leads to absurdity or a contradiction. If you think the morally relevant trait that justifies difference in treatment is species, then you’re no different than a white supremacist that claims that the morally relevant difference that justifies difference in treatment is race. It’s an arbitrary group denomination. Failure to understand that demonstrates a lack of critical thinking.
Here is a simple video on the matter that you should try to digest
ua-cam.com/video/3HAMk_ZYO7g/v-deo.html
@@chaddedmapipi5789 Point out the difference!
I got no dilemma, we've decided as a society that we don't cannibalize each other. But as the APEX predator, we will consume those lesser creatures for our nourishment.
Besides the young woman's health argument, MANY people are allergic to some plant-based products. Very few are allergic to meat.
This guy was the only decent speaker in this entire debate; the others were very weak. I expected a lot better from the Oxford Union.
Bhudda said, "Life is suffering." So, choose your poison.
Ah life is suffering so let's torture animals to satiate my taste buds
I'm not sure he meant "fuck it, just act immorally."
The infant argument is so dumb. Babies grow up to be adult humans. Pigs do not grow up to be adult humans. There is no potential for adult human in a pig.
"Babies are less than or equal to pigs sometimes" (paraphrase)... "so this makes a dilemma for meat eaters". No it doesn't. We have largely not ventured to dabble in knowledge insufficiently, and then further ventured to convince others of our addled and shoddy conclusions. We just eat a roast around the table with family and go about our lives. We work with our hands, and lack the ambition and the opportunity to be this foolish.
"A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring"
A typical argument from a vegetarian. What must be noted is that he will not mention the extra vitamins he will have to take to balance his diet. Further this is not an argument between free range farming or intensive farming. Sadly the world survives on a very cruel kill or be killed eat or be eaten. I would imagine Mr McMahan drives a car and has little or scant regard for the sentient beings that are impaled on the screne of his car. Equally the deaths caused by the ploughing of a field to plant vegetables. The fact is, meat eater or vegetarian or vegan, you cannot go through life without being responsible for the death of many animals in the persuit fo food.
We cannot avoid harming animals, but since harming animals is wrong, we should try and reduce harming them as much as we feasibly can. That means eating vegan.
I'm not even vegan but even I can tell the vegan side wiped the floor with Mikhaila.
It's pretty terrible that the previous speaker laid out clinical research on a sample of 2000 people that was demonstrative of incredible health benefits of a carnivore diet and this careless academic declares "It is indisputable that you'd be healthier on a vegan diet."
it was an online survey from volunteers. It's like asking crystal salesmen if the crystals help their mood - of course the they will think and say its great.
The research she talked about is not credible at all…
Why is the person who thinks pigs and human babies have the same value of life not in a mental hospital?
Lovey that the structural changes in infrastructure to make the change weren’t addressed.
We replace animal farms with re-forestation and perhaps some other farms. But given animals eat the majority of the crops we grow, not too many additional farms would be needed.
@@sedwarg oh animals eat so much of plant crops, we would definitely need less farms overall. Meat eater here by the way, just acknowledging the facts
At the end of it all.. the animal is an animal and a human is a human. The argument is not valid since human life and well-being always take priority.
Actually an argument can be made to differentiate the moral value of a cognitively impaired infant vs a pig.
A cognitive impaired human can produce a cognitive unimpaired human, cognitive impairness does not carry itself on reproductively.
I also believe there is an argument to be made on the fact that the attribution of rights to animals is not being subject to the scrutiny of the fact that animals cannot extend the same rights to us.
As a final point, animals, dependant of their different levels of cognition, have been shown to have diferent levels of susceptibility to pain, ability for the expectation of pain, suffering and anxiety. So to equate the killing of all animals as being the same level of morally dubious is to ignore the reality that some animals aren't endowed with complex enough nervous systems to have the capability to suffer (shrimp for example) and live their lives more as automatons rather than even a primordial version of whatever an animal sense of self might be that would allow for the complex emoti of suffering.
And yet we do want to minimise suffering to all conscious agents regardless of their ability to reproduce. We wouldn't say that a woman who was unable to reproduce had no moral worth. I dont think that it is relevant to an individual, or the justified suffering inflicted on that individual.
The obvious response is to modify the case of the cognitively impaired infant so that they're also infertile. Once they become infertile, it becomes morally permissible to slaughter and eat them? I find that highly implausible.
@@connorkianpour1077 How far do you plan to move the goalposts to align with ideology? Keep taking attributes from the hypothetical child until the pig becomes it's equal? That will never happen, we as a species are evolved to proliferate/ ensure continuity of our species. Would that be at the expense of all other species? In my opinion, yes.
Here's another hypothetical, what if you were the father of the child you describe? I don't know about you but there's no amount of dead pigs that would equate to the life of my child, however limited their capacity.
So can a criminal, yet we deny the right to reproduce to criminals in prison. By your logic, the right to reproduce must be taken into consideration, and therefore we cannot imprison anyone?
This argument is cringy.
You made the assumption that a cognitively impaired infant is worthy of moral consideration because they could reproduce and create a non-impaired person. Please walk this back.
Cognitively impaired people of all ages deserve moral consideration because, like the rest of us, they are having a subjective life experience- they can experience pleasure and pain. And they, like all of us, would prefer to not be unnecessarily subjected to torture and pain.
One’s ability to reproduce has no bearing on whether they deserve moral consideration.
In this respect animals are the same as is. They are de also having a subjective experience of life, and would prefer to not be subjected to unnecessary pain and suffering.
Additionally, when we talk about moral consideration, we don’t mean entering moral contracts with animals. We don’t mean giving them rights to vote or drive.
What we want to grant them is only one right…. The right to not be abused and exploited by humans. No big “moral contract.” Just one simple right.
comparing pigs to handicapped babies... I think there was a satirical essay written about eating babies during famine! This was such a pedantic argument and totally vapid.
What a vile and ass backwards argument. I am appalled at the utter lack of quality in this debate. So many presuppositions and outrageous rhetorical claims. No, a vegan diet is not inherently or magically better for the environment. This continues to be a talking point that is growing tiresome. And a human infant is still a human. And to compare it to an animal is pure absurdism.
A vegan diet is absolutely better for the environment in comparison to a Western diet high in meats and animal products. This is empirically true. If you doubt the empiric claim I can shoot you some sources. It also makes sense from a logical point of view. Animals are inefficient in the sense that most of the energy/food they consume gets turned into heat, so it is basically wasted. A very small amount is actually used for their bodies. Instead of wasting 30-40% of crops on animals globally we can just switch the production from animal feed to something edible for humans. This is already the case for a lot of crops (like soy or corn) and can easily be done for most crops in the West. Doing so we cut out the middle mad and there will be no needles energy loses.
EDIT: Also why is it absued to compare animals to humans?
Yes actually it is. But I'd love to hear why you think it's not.
Ha! No one is arguing that a vegan diet is 'inherently' or 'magically' better for the environment. The argument is based on empirical science and practicality. Your ignorance of that science is not an argument against its results. As for comparing humans to animals: humans ARE animals. Furthermore, the argument is not that we should value humans less, but merely that we should value animal life more.
@@sedwarg The industrial farming that is required to feed the planet kills not just millions but billions of animals of all kinds every year. These aren't just mice and snakes and ground nesting birds living in the crops but everything in between. It's completely destroying ecosystems and food chains. And nevermind the widespread use of pesticides and fungicides required to ensure yield.
The mass production of soy for human consumption is sterilizing thousands of hectares of arable land, rendering it useless for generating proper nutrients to feed healthier and more sustainable crops.
The explosion of deer and feral hog populations, especially in the US, are an ecological disaster waiting to happen. Refusal to cull these invasive species and keep their numbers in check would not only result in substantial crop loss (a disaster for an all-vegan population reliant on such crops) but in the case of feral hogs, the tainting of ground water and the destruction of native flora which would result in transforming green forests into stagnant wastelands and arid deserts.
None of these issues were even brought up. And they have a far more significant impact on the environment than animal flatulence.
@@aaronwolf4211 A huge portion of industrial agriculture is used to feed animals, not humans. Around 30-40% of crops and 80% of land. Yet this animal agriculture is responsible only for 20% of the world's supply of calories. When taking into account land use, water use, co2 emission, etc. plant foods are more efficient per calorie and gram of protein. So, if we all went vegan the use of land and crops would go down. This is an empirically true statement for which I can provide sources.
If the world went vegan, less animals will die in crop production, because less crops will be produced. We will also use less land, less water, less CO2, less fertilizer. Also there will be less soil erosion, less habitat destruction (like in the amazon for beef production), less polluted soils and groundwater.
Few vegans are against culling of out-of-control animal populations. If it's needed to stop the destruction of a eco-system with very few natural predators, it will be done.
Again, all these claims are verifiable. You can google around and check if I've said anything false.
These people think that if we don't eat meat animals will have animal utopia. They don't think how brutal nature is.
No body is denying nature is brutal. It's absolutely horrific. What vegans are saying is that we don't need to needlessly hurt and exploit animals. If we went vegan the majority farm animals wouldn't be able to effectively go back into nature, they have been selectively bred for certain traits that drastically lower their survival chances. Their populations are artificially kept high on an industrial scale to produce animal products. So if we all went vegan the number of farm animals will almost plummet to zero, which is a great thing.
@@MemaK124 exactly and genociding them by letting them go back to the wild is equally evil.
@@bajorjor1 We are currently genociding them at a scale much large than what is natural. And this genocide is perpetual and never-ending. We artificially keep their numbers high in order to slaughter them for consumption. They live horrible lives and suffer horrible deaths. About 70 billion land animals are killed by us per year. Just imagine what suffering that is. We can stop this cycle of suffering by no longer breeding and farming them.
If we continue with the current system orders of magnitudes more animals will suffer a horrific life and death in animal agriculture, than if we just stopped consuming animal products.
The moral situation is as follows:
We stop consuming animal products -> Around 100 billion land animals suffer and die once.
OR
We continue to consume animal products -> Every year 70 billion animals suffer and die for the rest of human civilization. Not to mention this number is going up yearly.
I think the moral choice is obvious.
Mr. McMahan makes some compelling arguments which are completely new to me.
Kudos! They were very well presented too.
He lost me a the comparison of a human child to that of an animal though.
+Jason Paradis why? What is the morally relevant difference between them that justifies factory farming one and not the other?
@@Celestina0 I actually think that factory farming is unjust, so my issue with his comparison is not with the immorality of the mass slaughter of animals, but rather the equating of a human life with that of an animal's. Reducing the value of a human life to that of an animal's is just a non-starter for me in the debate.
My perspective is that as the highest order of life on the planet we have a responsibility to be proper stewards and caretakers of animal life on our planet. That said, even a human who is catatonic is still a member of the human race and should be given the right of being considered by its own kind as being of more inherent value than another species.
Our humanity is both terrifying and beautiful, it is unique among the species on this planet. No other animal has the range of reason, capacity, speech, or ability to comprehend ideas beyond that of simple survival. Even a catatonic human would (if such a thing were possible) reproduce non-catatonic humans. It is our humanity which I hold most dear, and I believe that if we take the step of comparing our own kind as being no higher or more noble than other beasts, we lose a part of our own humanity in the process. It is a cold, calculating, and troublesome slope when we begin to say one human's life is no more valuable than another's let alone an animal.
That part of our humanity that is beautiful, which is capable of seeing the value in another human, of expressing compassion, and empathy can suffer if we begin to see our fellows as no higher than the animals we are charged with stewarding.
By all means, let us find a means of eating which does not involve the cruel slaughter of our charges, but not at the expense of our own kind.
@@D_and_B_Gaming The diet that "does not involve the cruel slaughter of our charges, but not at the expense of our own kind" is a whole food plant based diet. Vegans have lower rates of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, and multiple types of cancer. That was the finding of the peer reviewed Adventist Studies. They also found that among the dietary groups they studied, only the vegan group had an average BMI in the recommended range.
Link on my channel under "About" then "chronic."
@@D_and_B_Gaming The largest organization of nutrition professionals officially declared- "It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease. Vegans need reliable sources of vitamin B-12, such as fortified foods or supplements."
Link on my channel.
what a ridiculous argument. pigs are omnivores. why would i value a pigs diet over mines?
I think this guy is an ass for continuing to assume people only eat meat for pleasure and no other possible reason. How condescending.
Furthermore, anyone that lets an animal just bleed out or die from it's wounds while hunting instead of killing it quickly so it doesn't suffer is not a Hunter, but a psychopath.
I think we as humans eat all food for pleasure. Because while you may like a certain food others may not. It all comes down to taste and what appealing to you. Which is a sort of pleasure. Because at every meal I’ve ever eaten with friends and family there’s always one at the table that says those famous words. Mmm this taste good! And that my friends is Pleasure. And meat for thousands of years has been one of the foods at the table. So Whether you feel it’s barbaric or not to kill animals for the pleasure of eating them. You have no case till the world stops killing humans in the womb for convenience. because it doesn’t fit in to your plans in life. Just my opinion!
it is for pleasure, all the nutrients you can get from meat can also be taken from plants with no direct animal suffering involved and no severe environmental hazard, the reason you still choose to pay for unnecessary animal death is because of the pleasure of meat taste
Pretty weak premise IMHO. Indefensible morally. Equivocation between animals and humans doesn't help his cause.
amazing how a man can be so old and still know so many wrong things.
😂😂😂
Can you elaborate on the wrong things he said
We are not cavemen anymore, its 2022, eating animals is pathetic and barberic, get over it.
What does pleasure have to do with anything, you get more pleasure from bad food than you do meat. I would also like to know what vegan means to him as not everyone has the same definition. the most extreme will eat nothing that comes from an animal others will eat and drink cheese, milk and other thinks that come from animals. So why is he trying to make it an argument about pleasure?
I think you're talking about vegetarians who eat milk etc. Vegans do not consume anything from any animal.
biggest issue I have with this is he keeps comparing animal experiences to human experiences as if they of equal weight. They are not. Sorry, but it’s true. If they want people to stop eating meat they HAVE TO stop arguing from a “moral high ground”, it only gets peoples back up and even more defensive. Offer meat eaters a nutritionally equivalent and satisfying food and maybe we’ll consider it - that’s the ONLY thing that will work in my personal opinion. Even then you’ll have a LONG time to make it a norm! If ever!
The quality of these comments is appalling...either philosophy or critical thinking needs to become mandatory in education systems...
very weak arguments!
Mostly no arguments , lots of sentimentality , suppositions that don't have been proven
how do you know plants are not suffering when you are boiling them and eat them, are you also having the same kind of pleasure as those meat eater? I dont believe in all meat eater as well I think those label meat eater as immoral is just a terrorist in the name of green.
6 minutes in I have become quite uncomfortable, must admit. Though perhaps that means the debate is working.
Comparing animals to mentally incapable people is a difficult thought experiment.
A pig is as smart as a 3 year old. it's a fact. He's not comparing them as a form of insult- he is saying that we wouldn't kill someone because they're less intelligent than us just like people justify killing other animals for that same reason. And because we humans are animals too and suffer just like them then you can't say "animals aren't as smart as us so we can kill them" because that would give you the justification for killing humans too because as I said we're animals too.
@@VeganofSuburbia So okay to eat dumb animals. I can live with that
A disabled child wasn’t bred in captivity for the purpose of food though so although a very good point from a moralistic point of view is fundamentally flawed.
@@Predotah When you do something with a certain intention, the act itself doesn't become moral just because it fulfills said intention. So, if I make a dog farm for the purpose of beating and torturing dogs, the achievement of this purpose doesn't make the farming or beating moral. The same goes for animal agriculture: just because we raise animals in captivity for slaughter, doesn't mean the slaughter or the captivity is morally acceptable.
@@VeganofSuburbia My 3 year old daughter can talk, I've never heard of a talking pig since Charlotte's Web.
This debate was set up terribly. Was the debate over wold foods, vegan, vegetarianism, or banning meat consumption? the opposing side was hamstrung with terrible speakers.. And if you want to ban meat eatting, by way of argue against putting things in cages and force feeding unnatural things... but then that would mean putting me in a cage and not allowing me to eat meat... allow me the same rights you afford bears..
Can the bear can a get job, go to the grocery store and grab a loaf of bread? You sound like Katy Perry when she said women have less rights than a gun. Moronic.
Pleasure or not it’s the health giving of animal food. There are a lot of nutrients not in plant food. Just look at the way we farm and improve that. He thinks we eat just for pleasure then. 🤷🏻♀️ Red meat is only associated with risk to humans. We have been eating red meat a lot longer than just veg. There is no study to say any diet is good for us or that vegans are healthier.
Vegetarians and vegans are healthier than meat eaters. There is no health reason to eat meat, Mikhaila has a gut problem that is untreated and this is why she can't eat anything with fibre or carbs.
Red meats are literally classified as carcinogens by the World Health Organization. That fact is the American and British dietary associations agree that Vegan diets are healthful for all stages of life. But you won't accept that because if you do then your only justification for killing animals is your taste pleasure and that doesn't sit well with you.
@@maomao180 The deer on my property are pests that can cause legitimate problems if they overpopulate. If I’m allowed to “take care” of this pest, wouldn’t it make sense to not let it go to waste? Is it wrong that I also enjoy the crap outta Venison stew?
@@DellSnooze why do they overpopulate?
@clover mark What exactly are the nutrients that you can't get from plants?
What about the millions of people that are factory farmed?
What pleasure is derived from eating meat?
And if there is pleasure, might that be a function of the body to tell you that you ate something good, something with nutrients you might be missing?
Do some back breaking hard manual labor for a few days and see how good eating something makes you feel. Is that pleasure ? Or is that the body being fed and giving the 'satiated'/'fulfilled' signal ?
Personally only red bloody meat does that once and a while for me(making me feel satiated/fulfilled), I crave it sometimes, my mouth is making saliva right now.
Do not eat factory farm meat, I have had it of course but the free range cows are more satiating/fulfilling to eat.
Might not all of us be able to function on a vegan diet ?
No
Well science says anyone can follow a vegan diet so meat is not needed. Is ice cream or French fries also bringing nutrients that might be missing? Or candy, chips etc. Fatty and sweet things taste good bcs it's evolutionarily beneficial to us to like high calorie sources. No inner wisdom to it. Evidence shows meat is bad for you and plant based diets are good for you. You really need to cherry pick to reach any other conclusion.
Never get that satiated/fulfilled feeling from candy chips icecream etc.
What science says that 'anyone' can follow a vegan diet?
Please provide evidence.
As if there would not be evolutionary differences between between groups of people based on where their ancestors thrived. As if that could not possibly have influence on what you can thrive on.
Do certain groups of people need to supplement with vitamin D ?
Are there not whole groups of people who are lactose intolerant ?
@@vacinden THE DIETITIANS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA ” With good planning, you can get all of the nutrients you need from a vegan diet to be healthy.”
@@vacinden DIETITIANS OF CANADA "”Anyone can follow a vegan diet - from children to teens to older adults. It’s even healthy for pregnant or nursing mothers. A well-planned vegan diet is high in fibre, vitamins and antioxidants. Plus, it’s low in saturated fat and cholesterol. This healthy combination helps protect against chronic diseases. Vegans have lower rates of heart disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer than non-vegans. Vegans also have lower blood pressure levels than both meat-eaters and vegetarians and are less likely to be overweight.”
I am reminded of a cartoon I once saw, a large porker approaches its food trough, looks in and says 'Wow, lovely I've got bacon.''
People eat meat for pleasure lmfao really then explain ice cream soda pop chocolate bars potato chips surgery candy and juice and the very sweet lattes at your starbucks and popsicles and fast food and other junk food which people eat for actual pleasure in the western world because we're addicted to the taste of sweet which gives humans are far more potent feeling of pleasure then meat every dose and most of the food products I'd mentioned are mainly plant matter that are loaded with more preservatives then meat lol and I as a human that have eating all of the products I'd mentioned has gotten more pleasure from them then eating meat lol
So if u don’t eat it for pleasure, or nutrition (because believe me, if u want nutrition.. u wouldn’t choose flesh 😂) what do u eat It for? Because u enjoy animal abuse? That’s kinda sadistic
@@alfiewoodley01 I eat meat because I'm an omnivorous human being of Scottish heritage who needs to consume it because it's vital for my survival and people enjoy animal abuse with out killing and eating the animal's in general because there's always gonna be crazy people and killing animal's isn't abuse lol because all animal's kill each other on the daily lol
@@petermacneill8166 you know it is the scientific consensus that you don't need meat to survive, right? And meat is associated with worse health outcomes - pretty much the more you eat the higher your risk of disease?
All the arguments from the speakers so far, for moving beyond meat are for the most part, incoherent reaches for some kind of moral superiority. Unconvincing and scattergun with little to no solid basis. Not using any cited, or otherwise, scientific data along with an emotional argument hoping to pull on peoples moral strings seems to be the only approach that is being employed. I'm actually quite surprised that this is the level of debate that is going on at such a place as, Oxford.
You really love yourself don't you bahaha
I get his point and I think he presented it well, however the moral argument comparing pig pleasure and human pleasure breaks down when you begin to ascribe value to either party.
We all inherently know that humans are more valuable than other creature and as much people hate to hear it, this comes from the Bible and what God says about us.
This doesn't imply we should treat animals poorly for no reason but the value hierarchy is clear - humans are always on top and so to equate pig and human pleasure of equal importance is nonsensical
So are you saying you must gas chamber a baby pig in order to get into heaven?
@@The40yearoldVegan That's a strawman fallacy... How on earth did you even come to that conclusion?
Well, we don't inherently know that humans are more valuable than other creatures, that's only what we want to believe. And how convenient it is to have a belief in a deity, undisputable supreme being (which we know of only through human written book), that supports that our species, next to hundreds of millions of other ones are chosen to be on top. There is nothing inherent in that, just subjectively selfish and ignorant.
@@The40yearoldVegan what on earth are you talking about lolol
@@chaddedmapipi5789 how is a question a strawman fallacy? What conclusion am I coming to? Eating animals isn’t prerequisite to get into heaven so therefore it becomes a choice. How isn’t putting a pig in a CO2 gas chamber treating them poorly ?!?
These false moral equivalencies and "pleasure" related points are not addressing several key points such as sustainability, applicability at scale, health benefits/adverse effects, etc. of dietary choices or necessities. He has failed in providing any meaningful objections to his opposition other than moral grandstanding and has failed in general because of it.
Be careful how quickly you dismiss “moral grandstanding.” All great social change has only come about because of it.
We didn’t look at the financial effects of liberating Jews from concentration camps. We didn’t look at whether abolishing slavery was “environmentally feasible.”
Every time we’ve expanded our circle of empathy to include others, it has always been due to morality. When something is wrong, it’s wrong. Money or sustainability has nothing to do with it.
And besides, eating animals is the least environmentally and financially sustainable way of feeding the earth’s population.
He gives his standard for making his judgement but it is just his opinion. His opinion has no authority over anyone else. It’s just his arbitrary perspective.
Are all moral statements arbitrary perspectives? If so, does that mean torture and murder are permissible?
@@Celestina0 well, I guess if you eat your muder victim then it's fine, or better yet, pay some disadvantaged othered people to kill them for you, then you can eat them with pleasure ... mmm ... baby back ribs. The cognitive dissonance, the horror, the horror....
Consistent with the holocaust?
I'll like to ask to the speaker what kind of food a pig is going to enjoy the most while eating eat. I'll releaf him to the give us the answer. It's meat. The pig won't even bother to kill his pray.
Except for your missing the fact the most obvious fact that dogs eat meat too that is their preferred diet it's not vegetarian kibble
Dogs are not moral agents, dummy
You obviously are suggesting that plants do not suffer? What about the animals and entire ecosystems that you have to kill and commit genocide against to grow a "organic" plant? And who are you to suggest plants do not deserve to live... Maybe we should not eat anything? That a good idea in your opinion? What about the animals that animals eat? Is that wrong? Dogs eat other animals often... so too cats (especially big cats?) What pleasures do you lose when you die because you cannot eat meat or plants because something will die for you to eat? Logically, you fail.
Since typical omnivorous diets use around ten times the land as typical vegan diets do, this isn't an issue. You kill more plants, animals, and ecosystems by far; let's not mention ocean dead zones, topsoil erosion, deforestation, methane emissions...
Plants don't suffer. I don't agree with his argument, but he is saying that what matters is deprived potential pleasure, not suffering. So, plants don't suffer, but what matters to him is that they do not experience pleasure. Perhaps plants do experience pleasure, but then why not mushrooms or bacteria or everything? Obviously you need something like a brain to really have conscious experiences, as far as we currently know, and plants have nothing even close to that, no matter what "science news" headlines say
Again I am not saying I agree, but McMahan is arguing that there needs to be both necessity and proportionality. It is necessary for dogs and cats in the wild to consume animals. Likewise, it is necessary for humans to eat something, but NOT necessary for it to be meat, which also inflicts disproportionate "pleasure deprivation".
These arguments are so far out there hes literally arguing it's arguing to not abort children but his sport children but he is on the side of pro choice i.e. Pro abortion i.e. Pro the killing of another human being that otherwise would have been born into this world these people are really you're still really disgustingly mad I mean I just can't believe a human being things like this
Thats becuz a foetus is not sentient. It cannot be given the same moral value as a fully formed human being or even some other animals. This argument has been refuted many times.
Suffering and death is part of the life process. If u believe christ died & suffered for our sins, then u also have to accept that some of that is going to pass on to us
I have learnt more from my suffering as a human, than from the days that are bliss
When I'm having a blissful day, i serve none other than my own pleasures and satisfaction.
But when I'm suffering, I'm more mindful & more connected with the greater human consciousness. If i had never suffered as much as I have, i would not be the human i am today, and the version of me today is a better version of the person I was 20 years ago.
His whole introduction is a summary of thought pertaining to morality of interaction between human beings, and then he departs from the norm and applies these ideas to animals. This is an entirely other topic of debate. This is not the way proper debate works. Animals are not people. That's insane. This argument does not stand.
Animals are persons for the same reasons humans are persons
@@lukejones1568 You have fun with "persons". Animals are living beings. Humans are humans because of all of the things we are that animals are not. We were created in the image of God.
@@elihuwilliams9346 prove god
@@lukejones1568 The book of Romans chapter 1
@@elihuwilliams9346 the bible cannot be proof of god that’s like me saying read the book god is dead and that’s my evidence for god not existing
I can assure the gentleman that the "pleasure" of eating sweet fruits, ice creams (vegan of course!), vegan processed foods, sweet juices, puddings, etc., cannot be compared to the feeling of eating "meat" and Salt as Mikhaila, myself, and many other individuals with sensitive immune systems have! Define "pleasure" sir as we do NOT live to eat for the sake of "pleasure" ...... Peace! Enjoy your salad and sugar-filled oatmeal! We eat to live and the great Greek physician Hippocrates advised: Food is our medicine NOT pleasure!
And yet the Ancient Greeks advised against excess meat consumption to curb obesity... in fact, the Orphic sect are among the oldest documented vegetarians.
It has been known for thousands of years that meat consumption is conducive to poor health. We know recently, with robust certainty, that it causes chronic systemic inflammation, atherosclerosis, and more. There is good research implicating it in several autoimmune conditions, as well, among a multitude of other things.
There is a worrying, but highly predictable trend of carnivore dieters developing strokes or dangerously clogged heart vessels. Be careful gambling your health on TikTok fads.
Comparing infant with pig is the most rediculous argument against meat consumption. Infant is human being, the guy who presented the argument was once an infant too.. unless he thinks someday pigs will have the ability to make argument to defend themselves 😂.
His argument is that both the infant and the pig are lifeforms capable of emotions and experiences, what gives us the rights to take that away for our pleasure
I think it's a bad argument but you misunderstood him nonetheless
@@chaddedmapipi5789
Nope I don't misunderstood him, he argues infant lack of rational faculty so does pig..but that's disanalogous because infant clearly will have rational faculty someday but the pig will never does.
@@bachdeanOnline So you think potentiallity grounds stautshood? LOL!.
@@mirrekhan1607 what are you talk about??🧐
@@bachdeanOnline its a simple question. Do you think potentially is what grounds moral status?
was this the nap part of the debate i feel sleepy
im having difficulty understanding his point...the most valueless worthless human has by dint of being human more value and worth than any non human animal, unless he thinks humans have no value
His point is that killing innocent, sentient beings like non human animals cannot be justified for most people. If you were to ask him about sacrificing a pig for a heart transplant for a human, he would agree that it would be justified. He made that point earlier in his presentation, even though he did not mention that particular hypothetical scenario.
Pretend you are asking him to clarify his presentation. Ask me the questions that you would have asked him.
Had to stop after 5 min. To sum up his 5min Animal life is just as if not more important than human life, and it is undisputed that a vegan diet is the best diet a human being can eat. I whole hardheartedly and completely disagree, and cannot watch the remaining argument.
Of course you disagree, in that 5 minutes you could have watched 20 carnivore TikToks feeding you propaganda about how butter and bacon will cure your heart disease instead of causing it
I find it interesting that the most of these perspectives come from professional academics whom spend the majority of their time sitting, thinking, talking and writing. I'm not saying they aren't doing anything of importance; we need people like that. But from the perspective of a Boilermaker (myself) working with steel and working my ass off each day literally bleeding for my pay check (i do love my job though)I definitely wouldn't be able to get through a good week without meat.
It's situational in my opinion. What you you do each day?
As someone who has spent quite a good portion of his life observing, reading, thinking, etc, I've understood and still argue since my teen years that anyone who is cooped up behind books needs to either understand they lack actual experience with things outside of those words or go out of their comfort and learn more than they'd get from just the books. Leave it to academic people to conflate pleasure with joy, and pleasure with feeling good because your body is literally telling you that meat provides everything you need.
My father is in his sixties, still working as a contruction worker, on a vegan diet. He has a pretty bulky physique. He's eating whole wheat bread, salads, legumes, fruits, nuts, seeds, etc. I work out on a daily basis, building muscles with no problems.
The problem is not, that it's not possible for you, it's that you are unaware of the variety of food you can eat on a vegan diet.
For example I made a lasanga a few days ago. 30g of Protein/portion and tons of tasty vegetables in it.
@@DerSchedula Yeah it's definitely different on the individual level, I don't like eating much at all. A full stomach will stop me working/fall asleep. Small high in protein meals seem to do it for me. Your old man sounds like a legend. props to him for keeping up that vegan diet. Hard thing to do man.
@@knohands6642 You can eat more of plants than you can eat of animal exploitation products. So you don't feel full as quickly as you might assume and for the most part youll have more energy and itll last longer but that also depends on the plantbased food you choose. I really recommend looking into a whole foods plantbased diet!
Ae yo are the entire people of this country bout to stop completely eating meat if the preposition wins? Or is this just A Debate? Man that'll suck lol
There's probably a supply chain shortage. They just need an excuse.
animals suffer their whole lives meat but also pigs lose 14 years of pleasurable life.
W U T
Do vegans thing that animals die of old age in nature?
Do you even thing?
@@jackmichaelpeter Most of animals in nature are getting eaten alive, freeze to death or starve.
Its much more brutal out there, then its shown on TV or in Disney documentaries.
But hey, your ignorance is bliss.
@@martincireg3862 I’m sure the speakers are aware of this very commonly accessible fact. The thing that is of particular need to clarify though is what relevance this has to anything discussed?
@@jackmichaelpeter My family raised and killed animals for food, I did kill animals for food. In a much faster and painless way then they die in nature.
Vegans are just delusional about nature. That's my point.
@@martincireg3862 so your making an argument here that you personally have killed animals quicker than you claim ‘they die in nature’, and therefore that justifies breeding animals that would never have existed anyway into existence so you can kill then, but quicker?
Do they die as quick in slaughterhouses, which is the vast VAST majority of animal deaths (I’m assuming you don’t kill a majority of the farmed animals in the world yourself)?
If they don’t suffer for minutes and minutes bleeding out, or being lined up and smelling blood in the kill factories, how can you prove, because the burden of proof is on you, that animals always die more slowly in nature? Animals may die quickly in their sleep in nature. They may die quickly with a bit to the neck by a predator. I look forward to seeing your proof of your claim.
Despite that proof, even without it, why does the speed of death relative to nature justify the breeding and killing of billions of animals that would no have existed anyway? I’m completely missing where that argument makes any sense at all. Please explain.
So far it seems like your delusional about farming and have trouble making a cohesive argument that makes sense.
It's not even accurate to say that people eat meat for the pleasure it gives them, because the implication is that this pleasure is the only reason they eat it. Pleasure has never been the only reason I eat meat--I look upon meat as a natural and critical form of nutrition, as did my ancestors. I also view claims that this form of nutrition may be replaced entirely with extreme skepticism, because I see less than desirable physical effects in the people who live on entirely vegan diets. I also don't believe they are entirely honest about the potential negative effects of a vegan diet. They are often driven by idealism more than pragmatism. To give them the greatest benefit of the doubt, in my mind, would be to say that even if it is possible to live entirely vegan, it is more difficult to sustain properly. Meat is a superior source of nutrition, and we are being asked to go without it by fools who should care less about how we live our lives.
I can understand that point of view as it was exactly my point of view around 2 years ago. I was very skeptical about the claims that you can live on a vegan diet and maintain a good level of health. I did agree with the idea that if it was unnecessary to take a life to sustain your own then it would be unjust and immoral to do so, I just thought that eating meat was a necessity. In order to prove/disprove my skepticism I basically tested it out on myself, bought a few vegan cookbooks and gave it a red hot go. So far it’s been a year and a half for me, I’ve been getting health check ups and full blood tests done every 6 months to monitor my progress and I can honestly say it has only improved my health. My blood tests are coming back better than ever and my endurance (I run regularly for exercise) has noticeably improved. Now I know my story is completely anecdotal but I just thought I’d share as I had a very similar view to you before my self-experimentation.
what do pigs eat? well they are omnivores like humans......
if there was a hungry pig and a hungry human in the wild each would try to eat the other.
luckily we're not in the wild. We're in modern societies where we can go to a store to choose a compassionate product (vegan) or a product of violence (animal product)
i live in texas where wild hogs breed like crazy and destroy lots and lots of farmland. its open season year round on wild hog because the farmers lose so many crops. (and their population continues to grow)
i dont mean to be insulting but its very ignorant to think things just appear in the store.
if these hogs were not hunted they would destroy and eat all of your vegan food as well as eat the dear, quail, endangered sea turtle eggs. as well as the food these other animals eat. on top of that they are aggressive and dangerous and invade urban areas as well.
its easy to judge and take some sort of moral high ground and talk about violence and compassion when you dont understand how your food makes it to the store. farms dont exist in the city right next to where you buy it. farms are in rural areas and rural areas are in the wild. so tell me, is it more compassionate to let the hogs live and eat your vegan food or is it more compassionate to kill the hogs and eat them so the rest of the wild life can thrive along with the farms you rely on?
@@jesikats712 I don't eat anything from Texas so its definitely not my food. Why are the hogs breeding so fast there?
@@adolphus8552 the hog issue actually exists in 39 states. texas just has it the worst.
why are they breeding so fast? because thats what hogs do. the question should not be why are they breeding but why is there a lack of natural predator keeping their numbers down.
if you eat fruits and vegies i guarantee hogs had to be killed for it to make it to your plate.
the store you shop at, animals died and lost their homes for that to exist. the home you live in, animals died and lost their homes for that to exist. the city you live in, the car you drive, the clothes you wear. everything you do and own. animals died for it to exist.
there is no valid argument that can place vegans on some sort of moral high ground.
things die so ppl can eat and wear clothes but vegans waste what is killed. how is that moral and compassionate?
@@jesikats712 Did you know most of all farmland goes to produce feed for livestock, so really youre arguing against your own position by bringing that up.
Nice glad to see him use a version of the name trait argument
What gives people the right to eat living plants !?!?!
Because plants are not conscious. Animals are
@@psychologynerd7280 conscious how ?
Also depends as if you type into the old googler she says a very different answer when you type in "are plants conscious".
@@psychologynerd7280 It seems that you were careless in your science class.plants do take breathe, food,and generate waste.
Because plants don't suffer. Animals do. Would you be more upset if I stomped a flower or if I beat a dog to death in fromt of you?
Oh god he's one of those academicians that's high on hearing his own voice. He keeps on going in circles on the same argument that he finds self-evident which is everything but, the amount of assumptions in building out his argument is beyond the scope of a UA-cam comments section.
intelligentsiya**
In that case, why don't you specify even one assumption that he made?
His point is that killing innocent, sentient beings like non human animals cannot be justified for most people. If you were to ask him about sacrificing a pig for a heart transplant for a human, he would agree that it would be justified. He made that point earlier in his presentation, even though he did not mention that particular hypothetical scenario.
we torture each other, literal torture not humanely ending a life via slaughter - not including ritual slaughter ie kosher and halal meat that is
Very good speech
Really? He attempts a eugenicists approach to morality in comparing a disabled human to a pig. Not so long ago we knew what to think of people that ventured down this intellectual path.
@@ericfeldkamp3788 Really? That's clearly not related and even hypothetically assuming that it is, you'd still be making a slippery slope fallacy. Dogmatically following that all members of arbitrarily chosen species, i.e. homo sapiens, no matter their characteristics on any level whatsoever, should receive the same moral treatment is unheard of in academic moral debate. Suppose we find aliens on the same level of intelligence as we have; can we torture them? You either have to say yes (which would universally be considered repugnant) or say no and explain what about them makes it so that we can't - this is a standard Name The Trait argument, and that's all what the speaker was doing. And the crux of this argument is that there is no trait which all members of our species posses - apart from the ability to suffer - lack of which would make it seem right to e.g. torture them. But, to not be speciesist, it logically follows that we have to give moral consideration to all beings that have a capacity to suffer proportional to the depth of that capacity. Humans have the most advanced nervous system, so they experience the most intense pain among all animals and therefore deserve the highest moral consideration, then are other mammals and so on up to insect with the most basic central nervous system (that would exclude e.g. bivalves who don't have any capacity to feel pain). That's a very standard argument. I'm a little worried about your reaction to other thought experiments in moral philosophy. Is killing one person to save five in a trolley problem eugenics? That one person possesses *the characteristic* of being alone on the rails, after all. He might even be very likely to be an introvert which is a *biologically* determined characteristic, spooky.
@@mateusztgorak "unheard of in academic moral debate"
That's a heck of a comment on the academy.
@@ericfeldkamp3788 Sorry if it wasn't clear for you, but I meant that this specific thing laid down in a whole sentence is unheard of in the main literature in the contemporary academic moral philosophy. But there is divergence on the matter of characteristics, e.g. many Kantians (who would then disagree with further premises of a typical Name The Trait argument based on the importance of the capacity to suffer) typically would also add the ability to reason that would further ground moral consideration for (apparently, not including severely mentally impaired) humans while still agreeing about suffering; I think there might be some who hold only the ability to reason as the only morally relevant characteristics, but that creates all sort of trouble, so it's not extremely popular.
@@mateusztgorak is "all humans (and that's not arbitrary) should receive the same moral treatment" a principle we can agree on, or not? I think your clarification was less clear, but hopefully you mean that.
What a pathetic excuse for an argument. Is this what is going on in universities these days? Cringe.
“The Geneva convention says you can’t eat people. So eating meat must be wrong.” 😂😂
Lol, if thats what you took away, you are beyond saving xD
notice how among the pro-vegan speakers the first is visibly sick, the second is getting rich off selling vegan foods, and the third looks malnourished and is low energy
Yes and their chakras are clearly out of order and their auras spell danger with the alignment of Jupiter and Saturn.
@@Celestina0 vegan diet leads to a weak immune system
The first speaker was not a vegan, she said that she still consumes animal products. X')
If you had any rational argument with anything that any of them said, you probably wouldn't feel the need to attack their appearance or character.
@@intrinsic524 Source: dude just trust me.
Also my balls on your face lead to acne.
@@Philiqification ua-cam.com/play/PLHFtFpL-YDT8JihzeEvJ9A4af9PKqfqob.html
Wow, you guys are doing some amazing mental gymnastics in order to justify torturing pigs to eat bacon
lie number 1 - the majority of AMERICAN meat is factory farmed. The UK majority of supermarket meat is NOT factory farmed. You can debate on the quality and care of farming.
Number 2 - We dont kill and eat people... BECAUSE CANABILSM IS WRONG. freak. (same goes for the idea of breeding a human for their organs)
Number 3 - Pigs are definitly more intelligent than an EXTREME cognitively impaired person (but id argue insects could match that too). And id like a debate on the value of their life, yet that's irrelevant.
This guy must be psychopath.
Why is cannibalism wrong? You can't just say something is wrong without providing arguments.
If you agree that pigs are as intelligent as some mentally disabled people, should we then not give them moral consideration? Should we not care about their suffering and stop needlessly exploiting them? If not, can we then forcefully breed and slaughter disabled people for food, like we do with pigs?