If you decide to read this from the second line on, please respond, to avoid bias as much as possible.
decided?
Do you believe that the first vegan/vegetarian you can think of really know what their True Rejection of animal eating is? I have yet to meet a handful of vegans who really can describe what would have to be true of the world for them to eat meat and consider that others eating meat is ok.
Usually the easiest way to detect is by presenting the three arguments: Logic of the Larder (more animals for creation, more minds around to live). Counterfactual (If two people claimed they would never eat meat if and only if you started doing so, would you? or Would you pay for 3-5 people to stop eating meat instead of stopping yourself?) and Numerical(less meat, less grass, more forest, more dense fauna, more animals more natural suffering).
But the secret is to let them state the reason for not eating meat prior to each question.
So back to my stupid question. Do you think that the first three vegans you can think of don’t eat meat for the reasons they say they don’t???
If you read this, please respond, to avoid bias as much as possible.
I don’t like this sort of request. You’re forcing obligations on anyone who reads this thread. You can do better in this respect if you rot13 the question or make it an external link. Even with that I’m uncertain about this.
Anyways, I can’t think of three vegans for whom I can usefully comment on their reasons.
The ‘logic of the larder’ would sway literally no one I know, not just vegans. It’s usually a question of not contributing to factory farming, not some abstract thing about suffering in general, and in some cases a diet that worked after health issues and they kept to it.
One person from a group of four people I know who eat vegan sees the need for ending natural suffering in nature; the other do not regard “natural” occuring suffering a problem. So, no.
No. But that’s hardly unique to vegans; if you pull five random people off the street and find something each of them objects to, chances are they’ll be objecting for confused emotional reasons.
I do know one person who’s allergic to dairy products and finds that meat upsets her stomach, and uses “vegan” as shorthand, but that’s probably not what you’re going for.
I know one vegetarian (my sister) and I believe she does know her objection. When we were young (10-11) she stopped eating meat after visiting a farm. As far as I know, she’s never eaten meat since then. She says she just had the insight that animals were “real” and didn’t want to eat them anymore.
Good questions. I have put them to one vegetarian I know. The reason this person stopped eating meat is that she is now “weirded out” by the thought of eating an animal, even though she still likes the taste and misses it. Her replies to all your counterfactuals would be “no” because it’s her personal preference, not a quest for animal rights or against animal suffering, so her logic is self-consistent.
I have yet to meet a handful of vegans who really can describe what would have to be true of the world for them to eat meat and consider that others eating meat is ok.
I don’t think I know any vegans whose rejection isn’t based on personal preference who consider meat consumption okay, exactly, but I think they weight their reasons for not eating meat lower than their reasons for not making a big deal about it.
The only relevant personal anecdote I have is an ex-vegan friend who started eating meat when she realized that a medicine she used was animal-sourced, that she wasn’t going to stop taking it(it wasn’t life-saving, but it was useful), and that to avoid eating meat at that point would be grossly hypocritical.
The only relevant personal anecdote I have is an ex-vegan friend who started eating meat when she realized that a medicine she used was animal-sourced, that she wasn’t going to stop taking it(it wasn’t life-saving, but it was useful), and that to avoid eating meat at that point would be grossly hypocritical.
Tangentially, considering that ‘grossly hypocritical’ seems to be a cognitive distortion of some kind. It is more a ‘failure of absolutism’ or somesuch. The moral implications of eating meat don’t seem to change just because you eat the pill.
Perhaps it was the realization that she didn’t actually believe what she claimed to? It did sound a bit odd to me when she said it, for what it’s worth.
Perhaps it was the realization that she didn’t actually believe what she claimed to? It did sound a bit odd to me when she said it, for what it’s worth.
To be fair it does seem to be consistent with the “vegan intuition”—whatever we call the deontological or virtue ethic that tends to drive the bearer to an ‘all or nothing’ avoidance of the animal products. It is only inconsistent with the approximately consequentialist justifications often given for that value system. That is, the abandoning of the veganism isn’t much more absurd/weird/distorted than what drove the veganism in the first place. It just isn’t an ethical system that happened to have been based on Von_Neumann–Morgenstern axioms.
Do you believe that the first vegan/vegetarian you can think of really know what their True Rejection of animal eating is?
I don’t believe in the concept of “True Rejections” in the sense you are advocating it here.
Most vegan I know don’t follow that paradigm because of a cognitive moral argument but because of something they would call compassion for animals. Compassion happens to be an emotion and no logical argument.
Many vegans I know also think that being a vegan is healthier and like the feeling that the change to that diet brought them.
The first one I can think of definitely knows her reasoning: she doesn’t like the taste of meat (though she is more of a vegetarian). For her to eat meat, it basically has to be overly processed to the point where it really doesn’t taste like meat anymore (e.g. she will eat hot dogs and pepperoni occasionally).
For the ‘true’ vegans I know, I’m pretty sure they don’t know what their reasoning is, and the only thing that would need to change for them to consider eating meat OK would be for it to stop being trendy for them to be vegan. At least, they’ve never been able to clearly articulate a position to me.
Seconding Nornagest’s answer, insofar as I can think of three vegans. Aren’t the questions of who the three are and why they’re the first three to come to mind relevant to what you want to learn?
If you decide to read this from the second line on, please respond, to avoid bias as much as possible.
decided?
Do you believe that the first vegan/vegetarian you can think of really know what their True Rejection of animal eating is?
I have yet to meet a handful of vegans who really can describe what would have to be true of the world for them to eat meat and consider that others eating meat is ok. Usually the easiest way to detect is by presenting the three arguments: Logic of the Larder (more animals for creation, more minds around to live). Counterfactual (If two people claimed they would never eat meat if and only if you started doing so, would you? or Would you pay for 3-5 people to stop eating meat instead of stopping yourself?) and Numerical(less meat, less grass, more forest, more dense fauna, more animals more natural suffering). But the secret is to let them state the reason for not eating meat prior to each question. So back to my stupid question. Do you think that the first three vegans you can think of don’t eat meat for the reasons they say they don’t???
I don’t like this sort of request. You’re forcing obligations on anyone who reads this thread. You can do better in this respect if you rot13 the question or make it an external link. Even with that I’m uncertain about this.
Anyways, I can’t think of three vegans for whom I can usefully comment on their reasons.
Sorry, I tried to make it more decidable now.
We have a poll option which would seem a simpler solution
The ‘logic of the larder’ would sway literally no one I know, not just vegans. It’s usually a question of not contributing to factory farming, not some abstract thing about suffering in general, and in some cases a diet that worked after health issues and they kept to it.
One person from a group of four people I know who eat vegan sees the need for ending natural suffering in nature; the other do not regard “natural” occuring suffering a problem. So, no.
No. But that’s hardly unique to vegans; if you pull five random people off the street and find something each of them objects to, chances are they’ll be objecting for confused emotional reasons.
I do know one person who’s allergic to dairy products and finds that meat upsets her stomach, and uses “vegan” as shorthand, but that’s probably not what you’re going for.
Seconding this, insofar as I can think of three vegans.
I know one vegetarian (my sister) and I believe she does know her objection. When we were young (10-11) she stopped eating meat after visiting a farm. As far as I know, she’s never eaten meat since then. She says she just had the insight that animals were “real” and didn’t want to eat them anymore.
I don’t drink Bud Light. Can I really know what my True Rejection of Bud Light is? Probably not. Woe me!
Good questions. I have put them to one vegetarian I know. The reason this person stopped eating meat is that she is now “weirded out” by the thought of eating an animal, even though she still likes the taste and misses it. Her replies to all your counterfactuals would be “no” because it’s her personal preference, not a quest for animal rights or against animal suffering, so her logic is self-consistent.
Yes.
Also,
I don’t think I know any vegans whose rejection isn’t based on personal preference who consider meat consumption okay, exactly, but I think they weight their reasons for not eating meat lower than their reasons for not making a big deal about it.
The only relevant personal anecdote I have is an ex-vegan friend who started eating meat when she realized that a medicine she used was animal-sourced, that she wasn’t going to stop taking it(it wasn’t life-saving, but it was useful), and that to avoid eating meat at that point would be grossly hypocritical.
Also, a pundit I’m fond of has commented to some extent on this topic: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2007/12/why-i-eat-meat/2378/ and http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2008/12/the-end-of-an-era/4434/ encompass it pretty well.
Tangentially, considering that ‘grossly hypocritical’ seems to be a cognitive distortion of some kind. It is more a ‘failure of absolutism’ or somesuch. The moral implications of eating meat don’t seem to change just because you eat the pill.
Perhaps it was the realization that she didn’t actually believe what she claimed to? It did sound a bit odd to me when she said it, for what it’s worth.
To be fair it does seem to be consistent with the “vegan intuition”—whatever we call the deontological or virtue ethic that tends to drive the bearer to an ‘all or nothing’ avoidance of the animal products. It is only inconsistent with the approximately consequentialist justifications often given for that value system. That is, the abandoning of the veganism isn’t much more absurd/weird/distorted than what drove the veganism in the first place. It just isn’t an ethical system that happened to have been based on Von_Neumann–Morgenstern axioms.
I don’t believe in the concept of “True Rejections” in the sense you are advocating it here.
Most vegan I know don’t follow that paradigm because of a cognitive moral argument but because of something they would call compassion for animals. Compassion happens to be an emotion and no logical argument.
Many vegans I know also think that being a vegan is healthier and like the feeling that the change to that diet brought them.
The first one I can think of definitely knows her reasoning: she doesn’t like the taste of meat (though she is more of a vegetarian). For her to eat meat, it basically has to be overly processed to the point where it really doesn’t taste like meat anymore (e.g. she will eat hot dogs and pepperoni occasionally).
For the ‘true’ vegans I know, I’m pretty sure they don’t know what their reasoning is, and the only thing that would need to change for them to consider eating meat OK would be for it to stop being trendy for them to be vegan. At least, they’ve never been able to clearly articulate a position to me.
I’ve never met a vegan AFAICR, let alone three.
Seconding Nornagest’s answer, insofar as I can think of three vegans. Aren’t the questions of who the three are and why they’re the first three to come to mind relevant to what you want to learn?
I know no vegans. Sorry.