by choosing not to eliminate yourself
you're effectively taking resources that
something else could be taking you are
denying something else the ability to
exist you're being selfish
and you're being immoral if we're
arguing moral obligations killing
yourself would be
the most moral thing to do so why
wouldn't killing yourself be the moral
obligation
hey joey pleasure to meet you my name's
ed
and as you know there's a banner on the
front of this table and it says veganism
is a moral obligation you've been
listening to my other conversations
but what do you think about that
statement yourself i like eating meat
yeah
and i realized that it is immoral but i
will argue that being vegan is also
immoral
why is being vegan immoral because
i think just um
the act so nature is kind of brutal
right sure thing just um everything's
always eating it each other everything's
competing to survive
there's a set amount of resources and
only the fittest can have them right
like pretty much nature is immoral right
would you would you agree with that or i
think nature is mostly morally neutral
in the sense of nature can't determine
right from wrong nature doesn't have the
capacities that we have or the
intelligence to rationalize the morality
of a certain action obviously when we
talk about nature we're talking about it
there's this huge kind of concept
something that isn't you know a sentient
conscious being but rather an
amalgamation of so many different
systems and so nature itself is
incapable of being moral or immoral but
we are of course not nature we may come
from nature and of course exist within
the natural world although separate in
many ways but what separates us is the
ability to make moral and immoral
decisions would you agree with that um
to an extent but i would like to go so
nature is a system though right where we
all survive in our no
everything's competing and as a system
we can ju judging that system by human
standards it that is in a moral system
because judging i'm not judging nature
i'm judging by the system that we've
created the system of animal
exploitation i'm not interested in
judging what happens out in the wild
which we have no control over and
ultimately haven't created i'm
interested in judging the morality of a
system that only exists because of what
we humans do
i guess but i would argue
that we exist in nature and i think the
just existing by itself is an immoral
thing looking at it from a human
perspective are we allowed to murder
because in nature there is murder ever
animals kill of the animals of their own
species can we do the same because it's
in nature
uh i would say that
that is immoral right just the act of
killing is immoral
so we have notions of morality both
things that are morally immoral outside
of the context of what happens in the
wild outside of the context of what
happens within our society we establish
that some things within society should
be deemed moral and immoral regardless
of whether or not they happen within
nature
yeah
so our consumption of animals therefore
is not morally justified just because
the wild and nature outside of a human
context can be brutal that doesn't
provide us a moral justification to be
brutal ourselves um but i'm just saying
that um
because
just to exist right
is in a moral act
that therefore
even if you are vegan even if
you are
you know limiting your immorality by
reducing the amount of suffering you're
inflicting
being immoral but you've hit the nail on
the head there reducing the amount of
suffering that we caused unfortunately
what we have here is an appeal to
futility where we say that we either
have to kill ourselves or we can do
whatever we want of course we're not
going to advocate for killing ourselves
that's not going to get us where we want
to be we want to create a world that
reduces suffering and that's what you've
said you've just acknowledged yourself
that veganism reduces suffering correct
yeah okay so does that not make it a
moral obligation because with the
choices that are presented in front of
us it is the morally preferable choice
as a result of it reducing suffering you
predicted pretty much what i was going
to say
which was that um
when by choosing to exist by choosing
not to eliminate yourself you're
effectively
taking resources that something else
could be taking you are denying
something else the ability to exist
you're being selfish
and you're being immoral right
but again we're making an appeal to
futility what you're rationalizing there
is the concept that because we can't be
perfect anything we want to do is
morally justified because uh you know
it's futile to live in a perfect utopia
just because there will always be
suffering just because we can never live
a morally puritanical life devoid of of
you know resource extraction devoid of
of harm in some capacity doesn't then
justify the maximization of that harm i
think that morally speaking whilst we
can never eliminate suffering we should
seek to reduce suffering
i
that's a totally you know valid point to
take
but i would just i mean like i have
difficulty you know kind of taking
myself away
from that argument because it still is
immoral right and to say oh i'm this
amount of moral versus
oh i'm this percentage immoral just
seems um
a little weird to me if that makes any
sense to you so i can go about my day
and not harm another human okay yeah but
i'm still living an immoral life so am i
allowed to harm a human then even though
i can avoid doing so because we live
immoral lives
i mean yeah it would definitely it would
make you more immoral okay so if i can
live a life where i don't have to harm a
human and i can live a life where i have
to harm an animal in the ways that we
you know we conventionally do for the
food that we consume um if it's morally
preferable not to harm a human in the
absence of necessity surely it's morally
preferable to not harm an animal in the
absence of necessity
um yeah it makes sense
um
yeah so in that context then if we
establish and this is the only thing we
need to establish to you know make this
statement on the banner correct if we
establish that with the choices that we
have veganism is the morally preferable
choice
even though it's not perfect but it's
morally preferable substantially so then
that by default makes veganism a moral
obligation
yeah
i get where you're coming from right
okay but ultimately i still do feel like
if we're arguing moral obligations
killing yourself would be
the most moral thing to do so why
wouldn't killing yourself be the moral
obligation because if we do that we
can't seek to create a better world we
can't seek to create a world that
reduces suffering ultimately the end of
the day what we should strive to do is
create better systems create better
relationships with humans and non-human
animals and with the life that we have
we can debate the morality of bringing
more life into existence but with the
life that you and i have we should seek
to try and create systems and change
that implements less suffering in the
world that's that's what i think you
know and it's just not a tangible thing
nor is it an ethical thing to talk about
taking life the whole concept of what
i'm discussing is the concept of trying
to reduce life that is taken reduce the
suffering that is caused and so really
at the end of the day what we're
creating is you know a really extreme
hypothetical option which isn't really a
part of
the possibilities of what we can do but
we have to eat and so faced with the
option of necessity to eat we therefore
are compelled to make the choices that
we can make when it comes to the
reduction of the suffering that those
choices make that makes sense
it makes sense yeah
like if yeah if you want to be a moral
person
veganism is you know
theoretically more moral than not being
vegan yeah i would definitely agree with
that where does that leave you then
you're faced with two choices to pursue
an option that you you have just
accepted is more moral or to continue
doing something which you accepted have
accepted is immoral in the context of
having another option that is more moral
like i said earlier though um
they both seem you know immoral to me
relative to you know i realized that's
not true though
but we're not going around in circles
because you've actually you're
contradicting yourself you just said
that it's more morally preferable and
now you're saying that it's morally
comparable but it's not morally
comparable we've you and i both just
established that so because one is
preferable over the other regardless of
the fact that we can't it cannot can't
you know we can't live a perfect life in
the context of the situation that we
have today and the recognition that we
have both made that the vegan option is
the preferable option
what then stops you from making that
change
uh it would be my immorality and my
desire to eat meat and does that justify
it
i mean it's not very justified but
i mean like i said i think we live in an
immoral system
you cannot you can't we've established
you cannot be the perfect moral being
um
we there's some immorality in just
existing itself
so are you comfortable maximizing
suffering then
um well maximizing would be you know
going around killing hundreds of people
and then potentially tens of billions of
animals might be a situation of
maximizing suffering
it is um
a system where suffering is definitely
increased relative to you know a vegan
society and you're comfortable with
contributing to a suff to a system that
increases suffering
uh i think you can certainly find ways
around to try and minimize the suffering
how do we minimize the suffering to its
fullest extent um
minimum well if you wanted a minute you
would be vegan right but if you wanted
to work around that and if you wanted to
remain a meat eater while minimizing
suffering you would probably go with the
standard options right what the factory
found options the this standard you know
non-violent would be the non-factory
farm options right you say non-violent
uh it's non-violent um
the non the the less bad ones right like
you like i don't i'm not too into it so
i don't really know much but i know
there's like non-cage stuff free-range
stuff yeah right but still within those
systems suffering has caused and the
moral objections of taking life is still
found i mean suffering just exists in
life right but we've already established
that morally we should seek to reduce
suffering
but if you are comfortable with
purchasing products that maximize the
suffering there's a course are you
comfortable purchasing products that
increase suffering when you don't have
to what i mean
suffering is just caused
by existence right if we wanted to
decrease suffering we would kill
everything right and there would be no
more suffering because nothing would
exist are you comfortable let me ask you
the question again are you comfortable
purchasing products when you don't have
to that increase suffering
i
i guess so because i
i mean
i'm a very
i don't really like eating
vegan food okay so then it comes down to
taste doesn't it does sensory pleasure
morally justify what we do to animals
uh it is immoral
so sensory pleasure doesn't justify it
we've gone round and round and we're
reaching a really nice point of
commonality i definitely agree it is
immoral
like i said like i'm sure you don't want
to argue it but i would say the most
moral thing killing everything you can't
really do that
um so what can you do
you can decrease it like you said you
can be vegan okay um all right then that
brings us to the end obviously because
where else can we go you know where else
can we go from here accept the final
question uh what's the final question
well what about a system right
where we so
you justify killing plants because like
you know they're less intelligent than
animals they don't have the same
range of feelings range of whatever
right
lack of sentience like sentience what if
there was
biologically engineered cows
where their sentience was
reduced to the level of a plant would
that be moral
well no because you're tampering with
with a sentient individual to get to
that point you're genetically
manipulating them when again the
preferable option would just be to
consume the plant and bear in mind these
animals still have to be fed so we're
still going to be raising all these
plants to do this anyway um but instead
now we've created some sort of uh
morally uh reprehensible version of a
sentient being who we've essentially
lobotomized because we're trying to find
any excuse possible to cut their throat
when we could just pull the plant from
the ground like we do now and consume
that instead
but what is a hypothetical situation
that doesn't exist so now we're going
off in a tangent we're dealing with what
exists in front of us now that system is
not going to exist thankfully but the
system that does exist now exists and we
have the choice based on what is in
front of us today in this modern moment
so what is the final question that i
have to ask you
of course i would agree like i said
we've agreed on this it's more and more
to eat meat than to eat plants so then
what holds you back why will you will
you make that change from this point on
all right like i can barely cook for
myself so i just kind of where'd you
where'd you get your food from now just
the dining halls and the dining halls
have plant-based options i think they
have like one at each one you know it's
kind of kind of iffy maybe but it exists
yeah i don't know if i get the full
diversity of nutrients if i only ate the
vegan dining options here but well maybe
you have to take matters into your own
hands as well then but i'm a real lazy
guy but i'll consider it well yeah
consider it and i think obviously
morally there's an obligation to do it
all right thank you so much for a great
conversation joey have a great time i
really appreciate it