Are fat vegans immoral?

--

[silverharloe]

This seems like a "after we solved the big problems" concern. It's also the kind of thing the meat industry says to halt discussion: "you don't have a plan to solve 100% of all problems, therefore your plans and goals are worthless"

[Luftgitarrenprofi]

Overeating is not a problem directly related to veganism. Even if this argument is taken seriously, it has to be tackled separately.
That being said, I'd agree that unnecessary suffering for cosmetic reasons is obviously immoral.
But at this point in time it's splitting hairs over something hyper-specific that shouldn't stop anybody from becoming vegan, even if they are a bodybuilder.

[minnkhant]

I misread the title as "Are fat vegans immortal?" and clicked at lighting speed. I was so excited until Steven says "are they immoral?"

[amagicion]

There was a key part of his agnosticism that I think got lost in the parallel you drew to the shooting example. For him, the likeliness that the expansion increases overall animal suffering is comparable to the likeliness that the expansion decreases overall animal suffering, simply because nature is so horrific. To adapt it to your analogy, it would be more comparable if your firing of the gun had a comparable likeliness of stopping a violent crime as it did to striking an innocent bystander. It's still a really interesting question, but IMO the way you tried to press it missed that portion of his argument.

[jonathanmitchell]

Another difference between the analogies is that eating some amount is a necessity. So, a more similar comparison would be one where you are forced to shoot into the forest 100 times per day just to stay alive, but one day you decide that you'll shoot an extra couple times just for the sake of it. That seems a lot less egregious to me given that, if you do end up killing someone, it's much more likely to happen during the 99% of the time where you're shooting just to survive.

[Sebloe]

A vegan that eats more than they need to is negligible in comparison to the amount of crops needed for livestock. Overall it’s a silly argument against veganism.
If you’re against animal cruelty then being vegan is the starting base - then we can have a conversation about how to improve from there and how to change industrial farming altogether to reduce suffering even further.

[mayconlcruz]

Well, that's a topic that I certainly see escalating.
I understand that the focus of the debate is on the vegan diet, but in my view, this is another facet of the old dilemma about the human condition and it ability to bend nature to supply so quoted "dubiously valid" desires, with that having reached to the point that we have people considering our own species as a kind of virus and that the damage that our presence causes massive damage to our planet, simply by the fact that we exist.
Discussing whether our food is no longer just for subsistence purposes is immoral can extend to all facets of our life, society, and technology that we enjoy, and this in itself is fuel for an existential crisis for many people...

[GhostMe]

I read the title as “Are fat vegans immortal”

[NaJk]

The reason even us vegetarians hear these arguments all the time is because people are super defensive about eating meat.
It's so funny to me how they can complain about millitant vegans but the instant they hear the reason why someone is a vegetarian or vegan they instantly go for very aggressive arguments based upon flawed reasoning.
It's kind of fascinating how the same people complaining about other people being sensative are the EXACT people who are sensative but about "their" things.

[jhunt]

Vegans cause fewer crop deaths than meat eaters, even the fat ones. From a utilitarian perspective telling people to go vegan and eat minimum calories won’t convince anyone to switch. Enough vegans in the population can not only reduce crop deaths by virtue of using less land but they can also promote veganic farming and vertical farming to spare crop deaths further, something meat eaters have no concern over. Also I don’t see how using farmland is a rights violation, we could feed the entire world vegan with 75% less farmland, we don’t need to encroach on new land to turn into farms, we have more than enough already.

[Pjvenom]

Interesting one, let's not forget that if humans ate 100% plant based directly massive amounts of land would be freed up, and realistically the Vegan lifestyle/philosophy would be the only genuine outlook that actively would try take crops deaths and possible rights violations to free living animals seriously/seek a less harmful system, it's beyond hard to believe that a non Vegan that's perfectly fine promoting all the unnecessary abhorrent treatment of other animals currently happening for little more than sensory pleasure in most cases, would really be concerned about small mammals birds & insects possibly being killed in crop production. At least the overweight Vegan is against animal oppression exploitation and generally seeing other sentient beings as little more than food/products for human centric uses. "They are not food, you are violent." Lets hope a more benevolent future for all Earthlings is on the horizon.🌱🌍🖖🌅🍀

[kappasphere]

I think the "shooting into the forest" analogy is a false equivalence, because when you shoot into the forest, the best that can happen is for there to be no result at all, while with cultivating land, you're replacing the very cruel wilderness with a still but potentially less cruel cultivated land, meaning that in the best case scenario, the passive cruelty happening on the land will decrease.

And balancing committing a potential evil against doing nothing at all is an entirely different question from committing an evil while preventing a potential greater evil.

[klutterkicker]

People should focus more on arguing according to their own values, less on trying to argue someone else is hypocritical by values they don't share.

[JohnCena]

Commiting not-living is also a great way to reduce suffering.

[Dogman]

Personally I think if the perception of vegans is they are all skinny and unhealthy then a fat vegan would serve a similar purpose as a buff one. You don't need meat to gain weight (like if you're underweight)

[lady_draguliana]

Episode Idea: How does Veganism comport with domestic pets?
Note that house-cats getting out or being let out of the house have driven may bird species to the verge of extinction. Dogs and Cats are carnivores with some reduced omnivorous ability (that is, arguably, rather unhealthy for them), so is feeding them meat-based food ethical, due to the harm to prey? Is depriving them of meat ethical due to their dietary needs being neglected?

[alexanderkubicki]

What a time to be alive when he have topics such as this to discuss 😂😂😅😅

[darryldempsey]

As I see it there's levels to Veganism, in summary:

Basic Veganism (Level 1) involves abstaining from all animal products, primarily opposing industries exploiting animals for varied purposes. Most vegans resonate with this foundational level, which notably curbs sentient animal suffering and environmental damage.

Sustainable Veganism (Level 2) goes a step further, addressing the indirect impacts of our consumption choices on sentient beings. This isn't solely about diet but broader lifestyle choices. ITs about avoiding all forms of overconsumption, if it can amplify the harm to sentient beings.

Ahimsa Veganism (Level 3), rooted in the Sanskrit principle of "non-violence", is the most profound commitment. Adherents don't just avoid animal harm but any harm to sentient beings. This might mean excluding certain foods, medications, or products that, despite being plant-based, still harm sentient beings. This intense dedication, though admirable, might be impractical for many, potentially overshadowing the wider aim of veganism promotion.

[QiryuslilBerdy]

At two extremes of a spectrum we have hedonism and asceticism. The hedonist never misses an opportunity to indulge in pleasure or excess, and the asceticist avoids ever opportunity of pleasure and excess. The irony of these two extremes is that while youd expect the hedonist to feel guilty for all their wasteful luxuries, its actually the asceticist who imiserates themselves with guilt and srupulosity.

Its difficult for some people to make peace with the fact they can never be perfect.

It's just as difficult for others to admit they should be better

A wise person can do both

[perplexedon]

Yeah I'm become more and more convinced that crop deaths are less than the equivalent wild animal suffering on that land.

Interestingly that (on animal death alone) does entail that the utility of meat may actually exceed that of plants, as by requiring 10x as much crop land for the equivalent calorie of meat. If every hectare of land saves net 10 rodent lives compared to wild land, then when eating a hectare of crops worth of calories, the vegan option saves 10 rodent lives and the equivalent meat option would save 100 rodent lives and kill one cow.

I personally thing the climate change, public health, biodiversity impact, and land use of meat would still make the utility of eating meat vastly negative. Since getting pet rats, I'd be slow to make the argument that cows suffer more or are more sentient than rodents. The important thing to realise though is that the vegan thing to do wouldnt be to eat meat, itd be to buy 10x as much vegan food as you need and waste the rest.

I also dont like the framing of agnosticism as "if there was a 1% chance youd kill someone, would you take that action". The agnosticism isnt towards the action potentially doing nothing, its towards the action saving a life. I'd argue that it is morally neutral to press a button that has a 33% chance of doing nothing, 33% chance of giving someone a terminal brain tumour, and a 33% of silently curing someone of an undiagnosed terminal brain tumour. You could press that button all day and the expected value of your actions is no net effect.