I’d like to hear the information what a lot of you would require for your minds to be changed as well!
So the crux of the matter for me is the consciousness of mammals and birds and some other nonhuman animals. As you go down the ‘complexity scale’ the consciousness of certain beings gets more debatable. It is less known and likely that fish are conscious compared to mammals. And it is less known and likely that insects are conscious compared to fish. However, there is quite the amount of evidence supporting consciousness in all mammals, birds, and some others based off evolution, physiology, and behavior.
One of the following would have to be proven for me to change my opinion:
1) That mammals and birds are not conscious, ie they do not feel subjectively nor can they suffer, or that their consciousness doesn’t mean anything in any meaningful way. Or maybe convincing me that if the N (N being how many animals are equal to a human) is an extremely large number, nonhuman animals should not be considered
2) That consciousness shouldn’t be a determining factor over moral consideration (I doubt this will change as this is my baseline morality).
I would continue being vegan for other reasons, but I would not try to convince others, unless the following were proven:
1) That factory farming does not actually contribute a significant amount of greenhouse gases
2) That meat production could be more sustainable compared to plant farming to feed a growing population (I personally think food should be given to people, but that gets into a different political issue)
3) Along with 2), that meat consumption wasn’t contributing so highly to water scarcity
4) That it was perfectly healthy in average portions (This may already be proven)
I don’t think you are very open minded if you require those criteria for a change of opinion. You are basically arguing that even if I would reduce the total amount that animal suffering when I’m eating meat it would still be wrong for me to eat meat (The way it’s wrong to push the fat man on the tracks).
Well yes it would still be wrong. I’m talking about the act itself. You would be doing better than the majority of other people because you saved a bunch but then you’re stilling doing something wrong.
For instance, if you saved 100 people, its still wrong to kill one.
I think that’s what you were saying? If not, could you rephrase, because I don’t think I understood you perfectly.
Also, could you explain what information you have to get to change your mind?
I’d like to hear the information what a lot of you would require for your minds to be changed as well!
So the crux of the matter for me is the consciousness of mammals and birds and some other nonhuman animals. As you go down the ‘complexity scale’ the consciousness of certain beings gets more debatable. It is less known and likely that fish are conscious compared to mammals. And it is less known and likely that insects are conscious compared to fish. However, there is quite the amount of evidence supporting consciousness in all mammals, birds, and some others based off evolution, physiology, and behavior.
http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
One of the following would have to be proven for me to change my opinion:
1) That mammals and birds are not conscious, ie they do not feel subjectively nor can they suffer, or that their consciousness doesn’t mean anything in any meaningful way. Or maybe convincing me that if the N (N being how many animals are equal to a human) is an extremely large number, nonhuman animals should not be considered
2) That consciousness shouldn’t be a determining factor over moral consideration (I doubt this will change as this is my baseline morality).
I would continue being vegan for other reasons, but I would not try to convince others, unless the following were proven:
1) That factory farming does not actually contribute a significant amount of greenhouse gases
2) That meat production could be more sustainable compared to plant farming to feed a growing population (I personally think food should be given to people, but that gets into a different political issue)
3) Along with 2), that meat consumption wasn’t contributing so highly to water scarcity
4) That it was perfectly healthy in average portions (This may already be proven)
I don’t think you are very open minded if you require those criteria for a change of opinion. You are basically arguing that even if I would reduce the total amount that animal suffering when I’m eating meat it would still be wrong for me to eat meat (The way it’s wrong to push the fat man on the tracks).
Well yes it would still be wrong. I’m talking about the act itself. You would be doing better than the majority of other people because you saved a bunch but then you’re stilling doing something wrong.
For instance, if you saved 100 people, its still wrong to kill one.
I think that’s what you were saying? If not, could you rephrase, because I don’t think I understood you perfectly.
Also, could you explain what information you have to get to change your mind?
I’m open to changing my mind based on unexpected arguments.
Anything specific? That’s not really a crux… yet you criticize me for mine.