Higher empathy for animals?

[Kalinychta]

I had one vegan basically yell at me once online just because I said that being a vegetarian or vegan should be a personal choice and not be forced onto others.

So having a slave should be a personal choice and shouldn’t be criticized by others, right? Saying you’re not a vegetarian but you don’t condone animal cruelty is like saying you own slaves but don’t condone racism.

You seem like a rational and compassionate person to me and the fact that you’re even having these conversations is a step above most of the population. I can tell you don’t condone animal cruelty. So I’m wondering, why aren’t you vegan?

 

[Polchinski]

Saying you’re not a vegetarian but you don’t condone animal cruelty is like saying you own slaves but don’t condone racism.

Here is the difference. When you own slaves, you are hurting people that are alive. When you eat meat, you are eating the meat that is already dead.

So, by eating meat, you don't have a direct impact on the animal you are eating: it has been killed long before you got to the store.The only thing you are impacting is how many FUTURE animals would be killed when they will look at supply/demand data to decide that. And your personal eating habbits won't affect it, since you are only 0.000000000001% of a population (unless you live in a very small village).

Now, here is something you CAN do, on an individual level, that WOULD help animals. You can go to the store where they sell fish that is still alive, and buy those fish in order NOT TO eat them. That way you would save it from others eating it. Similarly, in small villages they sell alive chicken as food. And you can do the same: buy it in order NOT TO eat it. Basically, keep both ALIVE fish and ALIVE chickens that you bought in a "food" market, as pets.

Both of the above two things would be analogous to buying slaves in order to free them. Slaves are alive, and so are fish/chicken is alive. You can buy ALIVE slaves to save them from potential slave maters and you can buy ALIVE fish/chicken to save it from being eaten.

And, while you are saving ALIVE fish (or ALIVE chicken) this way, you can continue to buy DEAD fish/chicken for food. Logically speaking, there is no contradiction between these two actions.

 

[Rodafina]

Therefore, the most logical thing to do for someone who is concerned about animals, is to continue to eat meat themselves, while trying to force everyone else to become vegitarian.

But this would make one hypocritical.

If your goal is to influence others, you are already in risky territory.

Logically speaking, if your goal is to influence others to not eat meat, you will be met with more resistance if you are a meat eater who says don’t eat meat. That is illogical.

My goal is to honor individual choices when it comes to food choices.

For the sake of the conversation, I will share I’ve been a vegetarian for 30 years.

 

[Polchinski]

Logically speaking, if your goal is to influence others to not eat meat, you will be met with more resistance if you are a meat eater who says don’t eat meat.

Good point. But that still leaves an option of eating meat in secret while telling everyone else you don't eat it.

 

[Rodafina]

Good point. But that still leaves an option of eating meat in secret while telling everyone else you don't eat it.

It sounds like you are not serious. Perhaps, trolling here?

 

[Polchinski]

It sounds like you are not serious. Perhaps, trolling here?

I am serious. I am just trying to think through it logically. Actually this was the topic I was puzzled about for quite some time. These types of problems are known as "Prisoner's Dillema" in mathematics.

Similarly, I was also puzzled why do people vote? Individual vote won't change anything. But convincing others to vote would. So the most logical thing to do would be to spend lots of time trying to convince others to vote a certain way, while don't really bother to go yourself to the voting station.

Of course, if others know you didn't go to voting station, they won't take you very seriously. So you have to lie to them that you vote the way you want THEM to vote, while in reality you simply don't vote. But you lie that you do.

That is the most logical strategy actually. Because half an hour it takes to make a trip to a voting station and back is more important than 0.00000000000001% chance that the number of everyone else's votes is exactly the same.

Similarly, your ability to enjoy meat every day is more important than 0.0000000001% chance that the one additional person buying the meat will influence how many animals they would kill.

But in both of those cases, you become a lot less persuasive if you are discovered. Thus, in both of those cases, your ability to have "best of both worlds" would depend on your willingness to lie.

 

[Rodafina]

I am serious. I am just trying to think through it logically. Actually this was the topic I was puzzled about for quite some time. These types of problems are known as "Prisoner's Dillema" in mathematics.

Similarly, I was also puzzled why do people vote? Individual vote won't change anything. But convincing others to vote would. So the most logical thing to do would be to spend lots of time trying to convince others to vote a certain way, while don't really bother to go yourself to the voting station.

Of course, if others know you didn't go to voting station, they won't take you very seriously. So you have to lie to them that you vote the way you want THEM to vote, while in reality you simply don't vote. But you lie that you do.

That is the most logical strategy actually. Because half an hour it takes to make a trip to a voting station and back is more important than 0.00000000000001% chance that the number of everyone else's votes is exactly the same.

Similarly, your ability to enjoy meat every day is more important than 0.0000000001% chance that the one additional person buying the meat will influence how many animals they would kill.

But in both of those cases, you become a lot less persuasive if you are discovered. Thus, in both of those cases, your ability to have "best of both worlds" would depend on your willingness to lie.

Why not live by your own standard?

If you are convincing others by lying, you have become dishonest and untrustworthy.

Eat meat. Don’t eat meat.
Vote. Don’t vote.
I don’t care. But hypocrisy and lies are no way to convince others if that is what you want to do.

I understand and agree with the premise that one drop of water in an ocean doesn’t have much influence on tides.

There is no need for lying if you choose logic.

 

[Polchinski]

I don’t care. But hypocrisy and lies are no way to convince others if that is what you want to do.

That assumes that others will somehow discover your lies.

I understand and agree with the premise that one drop of water in an ocean doesn’t have much influence on tides.

Thats precisely the point

 

[Rodafina]

That assumes that others will somehow discover your lies.

Interesting. You and I must feel very differently about lying. Lying is illogical to me and regardless of if it is ever discovered, it doesn’t make me feel good to live a life of lies. But like I said, I have no power or desire to change others’ behavior, including yours.

 

[Luca]

You've made some good points here @Rodafina

My goal is to honor individual choices when it comes to food choices.

Same here. I would never try to convince anyone that the way I choose to eat or not eat is the "right" way.
Due to medical issues, my diet is mostly protein-based and I typically eat very little sugar or starch, and a lot of iron. But obviously that's what works for me and makes me feel healthy, and it may not work for (or be seen as healthy, ethical or practical for) everyone else. I respect that their choices may be different.

I have a lot of strong opinions but I don't try to force any of them on anyone, ever. It's okay to disagree.
Sometimes disagreements and differences of opinion can turn into incompatibilities though, and if those people don't want to be friends with me and/or don't want to respect me, I'm not going to be angry about it or disrespect their choices, or even continue to argue with them. There is already too much hate in the world. People should focus on what they can do to make a difference in things that are important to them and not put so much energy and anger into things other people do that they can't influence or control. I think most conflict is unnecessary and avoidable.
When people try to argue with me I usually just respectfully bow out. If I feel like someone has said something really horrible I will say so but I really don't have any interest in continuing most conflicts.

This isn't directed at anyone in this thread or on this forum specifically either, this is just my two cents on whether or not I would try to convince someone to eat the same things as me (or insert whatever other personal opinion here.)
Hope I explained this in a way that made sense.

 

[Luca]

Oh, will add one thing though since I didn't make it that clear in my last post... it is healthy and reasonable to have some level of anger and frustration towards things happening in the world that are harming people, animals, the environment, etc. We SHOULD be angry about a lot of those things.
But instead of going the route that some people do, and like, yelling at people on Facebook or something, we should make a lot of our life's mission to support the causes we believe in and to help others.

 

[Polchinski]

Why not live by your own standard?

Something else just occurred to me. Maybe its the difference between two issues. One is morality, and the other is compassion. In case of a moral standard, yes, it is hypocritical to say "the moral standard that applies to others, does not apply to me". But, in case of compassion, it is only a problem if it actually has impact on anyone alive.

So, if you take someone like Ted Haggard, then I agree he is a hypocrite. Since in this case you are talking about morality.

But in case of vegetarianism, I was justifying lying because I was viewing vegetarianism from compassion point of view.

I suppose, its possible that some vegeterians view it as BOTH about compassion AND about morality. Thats probably why they disagree with me. I view it strictly in terms of compassion, thats why my opinion differs.

Or the other option is to view vegitarianism in terms of compassion BUT view lying in terms of morality. And then again one would be pushed to be vegeterian: this time in order to avoid the immorality of lying while at the same time satisfying the compassion need of saving animals.

In my case, I guess I am high on compassion and low in morality (at least as far as lying is concerned). Thats why I lied to my mom (lack of morality) in order to save those duck face and monkey face from her using them for the soap (presence of compassion).

And that is also why, HYPOTHETICALLY, I could imagine myself pushing others to be vegeterian (compassion) while lying about my own eating habits (lack of morality) (and by the way I am not lying about my eating habits -- I am open that I eat meat -- I was just talking about hypotheticals).

But then again, it is one of those things that are easier said than done. If I were to picture the situation where I would in real life lie about my eating habbits, I don't think I would like it too much. So I guess maybe you are right.

As far as voting, if you think of it as "means to an end", then the compassion analogy would work and then the solution would be "don't vote, just tell others to". If, on the other hand, you think of voting as "the moral thing to do", then the solution is to vote.

Now, what happens in practice is that people are voting for the candidate that would benefit their specific socioeconomic situation. This suggest that their voting is motivated by "means to an end" as opposed to "morality". And thats why it doesn't make sense that they actually proceed to vote.

What would be more logical is for them to vote for the candidate that makes them morally feel better about themselves, while at the same time trying to convince others to vote for the candidate that benefits them. Thus, a poor person who morally leans Republican, would vote Republican while trying to convince everyone else to vote Democrat. While rich person who morally leans Democrat, would vote Democrat while trying to convince everyone else to vote Republican.

Well, the "moral leanings" would probalby stop taht person from trying to convince others to vote against their leanings. So I guess htey would have a big conflict as to what to convince others to vote for (for their best interest or for what they regard as moral). HOWEVER, in terms of their own, individual, voting, they won't have any conflict. They know their own vote would not affect the actual outcome. So their only motivation for their own personal vote would be strictly what they see as moral.

So how do we then make sense as to why people vote for their personal interest rather than for what is objectively more moral? I think of at least four answers to this question:

1) They do vote for what they see as more moral. An evidence for it would be people down south voting Republican (despite being poor and democrats supporting poor) while elite voting democrat (despite being rich and Republicans supporting rich)

2) There is that psychological phenomenon where a person ends up seeing something as moral simply because it suits their interests. And they might not even recognize it since it happens on subconscious level rather than conscious

3) People don't view voting a certain way as immoral. But, instead, they view lying as immoral. Viewing lying as immoral forces them to vote in agreement with their personal interest -- in order not to have to lie about the way they voted.

4) Maybe they do lie as to who they vote for. Since we aren't allowed to actually watch them voting, our only evidence is the word of their mouth. And of course its to their best interest to TELL US that they voted for the same person they want us to vote for. But whether they actually did or not, who knows?

Anyway, those are some of my theories. What do you think?

 

[Rodafina]

It's okay to disagree.
Sometimes disagreements and differences of opinion can turn into incompatibilities though…

Well said! I never thought of it this way. Incompatibility is a good word for this. I’ve always sort of assumed that because I think it’s okay for people to disagree that that also says I have to accept them at some level. But the way you described it is a little different and although I can accept their choices and accept them as a human being, it can still be incompatible with either my thoughts or the way I want to live my life.

Very interesting.

Also not directed toward anyone in the thread! Just thinking about myself.

 

[Kalinychta]

Here is the difference. When you own slaves, you are hurting people that are alive. When you eat meat, you are eating the meat that is already dead.

So after your slaves are dead, you’re no longer a racist?

 

[Rodafina]

So after your slaves are dead, you’re no longer a racist?

https://www.riotmaterial.com/factory-farming-not-chattel-slavery/amp/

And it is utterly inexcusable to use slavery and racism, still so resonant in the lives of millions, as an intellectual talking point for animal rights and to argue in favor of the consciousness of animals. If these animals could talk, they might speak solely to their own horrific conditions — and ways of correcting them immediately — and steer clear of the more profoundly immoral horrors that preceded them.

 

[Kalinychta]

https://www.riotmaterial.com/factory-farming-not-chattel-slavery/amp/

Parallels. It’s about parallels. People (supposedly) care about racism, so I ask them to consider about speciesism the same rational arguments they make about opposing racism.

It’s also interesting that you posted an article with no comments. Would you like to tell us what you think, or just post a link?

 

[Polchinski]

So after your slaves are dead, you’re no longer a racist?

If you, personally, killed them, then you are.

Similarly, if you, personally, killed the food you bought, then thats bad too.

But if the food came to the store already dead, then you didn't really kill it did you? Thats why you can buy the food thats been already killed.

On the other hand if hte food is sold alive in the store -- like some fish is -- then no don't kill it. INSTEAD, buy it, and then keep it as pets. That would save it from other people killing it.

And by the way, this is the other area of my disagreement with vegeterians. Most vegeterians won't buy alive fish. Thus, by "not buying it" they would allow someone else to buy it and kill it. But I say you SHOULD buy it in order to save it from other customers -- and keeping them alive after you bought them.

So our scores are even:

--- Vegeterians seem more compassionate than me in that they don't eat meat and I do

--- I am more compassionate than vegeterians because I would save the alive fish in teh store from being eaten by others, while vegeterians wouldn't

But the underlying issue behind both of those differences is one and the same. Namely, vegeterians are focusing on morality while I am focusing on compassion.

From morality point of view, even if the animal was killed before, eating it is immoral. From compassion point of view, its fine to eat it since it was killed before you, anyway.

From morality point of view, it is okay to leave the ALIVE fish for others to buy and eat since you, personally, won't be engaging in said immoral behavior, so you can still feel moral. From compassion point of view its not okay since that ALIVE fish would get killed. From compassion point of view you have to buy it to save it from getting killed.

Or to put it in yet another way, vegeterians are focusing on behavior, I am focusing on the outcome. Vegetarians don't want to engate in "behavior" of eating meat -- regardless of whether it would affect the outcome. Buying meat that is already dead constitutes this behavior while leaving alive fish for others to buy does not. On the other hand, in terms of outcomes, buying meat that is already dead has no impact on an outcome, while leaving the alive fish for others to buy does.

Or maybe the other issue here is people are just wired to do what they heard/seen others do, and unconventional things just don't occur to them. Thats why it never occurs to anyone to buy alive fish and keep it as pets -- simply because nobody else does it. And likewise it doesn't occur to them to lie, since nobody else does it either.

 

[Rodafina]

Parallels. It’s about parallels. People (supposedly) care about racism, so I ask them to consider about speciesism the same rational arguments they make about opposing racism.

It’s also interesting that you posted an article with no comments. Would you like to tell us what you think, or just post a link?

If one reads the article, one will understand what I think, and I highlighted a quote that is most salient to me.

 

[Kalinychta]

If you, personally, killed them, then you are.

Similarly, if you, personally, killed the food you bought, then thats bad too.

But if the food came to the store already dead, then you didn't really kill it did you? Thats why you can buy the food thats been already killed

So if an African slave trader sells a slave to you, you’re off the hook, right? Your slave was already sold into slavery to you, he was already a slave, so you’re not actually a racist.

 

[Kalinychta]

If one reads the article, one will understand what I think, and I highlighted a quote that is most salient to me.

One would actually prefer to read what you think, in your own words.