this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
41 points (82.5% liked)
Vegan
2967 readers
2 users here now
An online space for the vegans of Lemmy.
Rules and miscellaneous:
- We take for granted that if you engage in this community, you understand that veganism is about the animals. You either are vegan for the animals, or you are not (this is not to say that discussions about climate/environment/health are not allowed, of course)
- No omni/carnist apologists. This is not a place where to ask to be hand-holded into veganims. Omnis coddling/backpatting is not tolerated, nor are /r/DebateAVegan-like threads
- Use content warnings and NSFW tags for triggering content
- Circlejerking belongs to /c/vegancirclejerk
- All posts should abide by Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you are more interested in the point made at ~13:00
this is basically John Rawls original position, or veil of ignorance:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_position
I think it is a valuable thought experiment for all -isms
Y'know I wonder if Rawl's original position would technically apply here. Part of the veil of ignorance requires you to be sentient and intelligent enough to understand the consequences either way. I think that the 1st imperative might apply better in this case.
Plus people can't really imagine what it's like to be a pig. ๐ท
Obviously everyone is limited by the scope of understanding they have right now, I could not decide what is best for everyone in every situation and the view of the world changes over time in society.
Rawls did not consider many issues but I think that makes it easier: It is not you or me in our current situation who decides, you and me are already human so we have to decide before we are anybody and at that point we have none of those limits. If at this point you don't want to experience suffering or injustice what prevents the you you are now to not inflict suffering and injustice on others?
Yes, you could become one with lower intelligence so maybe you decide to give them the best possibilities they can have in live. With even distribution you are 10 times more likely to end in cage an be killed than to end up as any human, it takes little imagination to see that its not desirable.
Martha Nussbaum (Justice for animals - absolute recommended read) has some good points on the shortcomings of the veil of ignorance, not invalidating but refining. She takes it and extends the thought of freedom and independence with fairness. A fairness that is not required by Rawls because in his scenario everyone has the same abilities.
Not to disagree with the usage of Kant, it is obviously valid. I personally lean more towards Kohlbergs theory of moral because I think it provides more depth, nuance. For the point made in the video I think Rawls is a good fit.
Fantastic comment! Thanks for the names. I really appreciate you writing this.
+1 for philosophy buffness
I mean the main issue, even regardless of the valid points you're making, is that if people don't even care about their fellow man then hoping for animal equality is a bit of a crapshoot. I really hope that we develop safe alternatives that are appealing to the masses soon.
The alternatives that are available (ie, pulses, nuts, seeds, roots, tubers, grains, vegetables, bark, fruit, buds, flowers, minerals, fungi, bacteria cultures, products of fermentation, even fuckin lichen, moss and ferns if you want) are not "unappealing" due to any intrinsic qualities they possess or do not possess. People have been manipulated into being habituated to a cruel, toxic, and destructive diet. Once a human is habituated to a diet, they resist change. Giving them more "appealing" products won't change that, unless capital decides it is better for the masses to be habituated to a new set of products.