Destiny Debates: Do Animals Matter?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 май 2023
- This clip is taken from Within Reason episode 32 with Destiny, available in full here: • Destiny's Ethics Teste...
To support me on Patreon (thank you): / cosmicskeptic
To donate to my PayPal (thank you): www.paypal.me/cosmicskeptic
- SPECIAL THANKS
As always, I would like to direct extra gratitude to my top-tier patrons:
Itamar Lev
Evan Allen
John Early
Dmitry C.
Seth Balodi
James Davis
g8speedy
James Davis
Mouthy Buddha
Solaf
- CONNECT
My Website/Blog: www.cosmicskeptic.com
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / cosmicskeptic
Facebook: / cosmicskeptic
Instagram: / cosmicskeptic
Snapchat: cosmicskeptic
The Within Reason Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast...
- CONTACT
Business email: contact@cosmicskeptic.com
Or send me something:
Alex O'Connor
Po Box 1610
OXFORD
OX4 9LL
ENGLAND
------------------------------------------
![TRASH or PASS! Eminem ( Houdini ) [REACTION!!!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cB1WrZcMwMc/mqdefault.jpg)
It's a common paradox: overintellectualization can frequently cause people to reach incredibly stupid conclusions. They fool themselves into thinking they're rational, but really they're just making elaborate excuses for their base, immoral choices.
Thats because most peoples opinions and values are not based on reason (wich is not inherently bad) and then they try to rationalize their behavior often leading to wacky conclusions.
Yeah, it is also very common for people to think: someone thinks different than me so he is stupid. That is the height of intelligence tho.
So, so true. And slightly unsettling for one’s own confidence in one’s beliefs… and by “one” I mean ME 😂
Well said 👏
moral psychology goes as follows *moral judgement ---------------> reasons to justify it , intellectual people just rationalize it deeper , they tend to be more open to reason first but not always, most humans are built to morally reason around conditioned moral premises
Shit like this is gonna make me a goddamn vegan eventually isn't it.
I'm feeling the Same here lol
Join us! :D
You'll leave soon eventually like Alex 😊
@@DoctorLexus-4President i mean he left because it was difficult to handle both that and his ibs not bc he stopped believing what he said he believes here
@@reb0tco678 the thing is, most people leave restrictive diets like veganism usually because of health problems, and the common response from vegans is "you did it wrong" instead of thinking maybe humans are not supposed to be vegan. EDIT: on top of this, because he will eat animals/animal products regardless of what he "believes", he clearly values his own life/health above that of animals, therefore is "speciesist" and therefore not vegan on a philosophical level.
I don't understand why it's so hard to be honest about all this.
These days you can live for decades eating beef and pork and lamb and all kinds of fish without ever having left your city, without ever having seen these aninals alive. Kinda hard to empathize with a KFC bucket or a Big Mac.
On the flip side, it'd probably be harder to empathize with Bambi if you were a hunter or with chickens if you regularly killed your own to make soup. Growing up in rural Greece in the '80s, I saw a woman decapitate a chicken with a flimsy bread knife. That same woman gave her son a right whooping for throwing dirt at their dog's face. "How would you like it if I did the same to you and you went blind, huh?"
We're animals too, social mammals, and our feelings are complicated and often contradictory. The other day I gently scooped up an earwig and observed how cute it looked as it groomed itself, standing at the tip of my finger.
That same day I ate pizza that would have been vegetarian save for the pepperoni, processed slices of unidentified meat.
I think the crushing majority of people recoils when faced with videos of factory farming. We don't wanna see it. We wanna be disconnected and act as if burgers grow on trees. How many people who make "bacon though" jokes have the stomach to butcher a pig and make their own bacon, I wonder?
Vegans have affected me. I have greatly reduced the meat I eat and completely quit beef, lamb, rabbit, octopus and more. That said, if I were at a friend's house and they'd made rabbit stew, I'd rather eat it than throw it away. The harm's already done.
Anyway, I never had a moral argument against veganism. My inability to be a vegan is a personal moral failing in my eyes.
I'm disgusted by factory farms not because they are killing animals but because of how cruelly it done and how they are treated. Things die, animals have to eat and we *are* animals. But that doesn't mean we have to be cruel about it, if we could eliminate factory farming that would remove a lot of suffering. In an ideal world we'd already have lab grown meat that matches the stuff we get from animals but that field is very new and doesn't yet match the taste or quality you'd get from a real animal.
a very insightful and intellectually honest comment. 👏
Factory farms aren’t motivated by wanton sadism, they’re motivated by market demand. Something like a third of the worlds land is devoted to animal agriculture and so in order to meet that demand they have to put animals in horrible cramped conditons. I don’t know if you’re a non vegan saying ‘I’m just against factory farming not farming as a whole’ but given the current demand for animal products it’s impossible for all farm animals to live idyllic, spacious lives in the hills from the sound of music - they’re forced into shitty warehouses because that’s the only way to breed enough for the insane demand
@@RapidBlindfoldsBut would that be necessary if there were not people who eat meat everyday.
I have co-workers that even eat meat multiple times a day
@@fabiankehrer3645 yep precisely 🎯
I'm glad Alex is still talking about animal rights issues. I also appreciated him pushing Singer on his ideas in their conversation recently.
But aren’t animals ultimately meaningless pieces of meat in atheism ?
@@angelbrother1238 lol what??
@@angelbrother1238 no for two reasons, because a) atheism is on position on one question, there is no further ethical question being answered b) if we did a survey (and this is just a gut feeling on my part) most vegans would also identify as atheists (in America because obviously the biggest demographic of vegans in the world are hindus). So if we just went by survey data, and that turned out to be true, it's more likely for thiests to treat animals at worthless meat puppets.
@@angelbrother1238 atheism only says there is no god. nothing more. atheists usually base their morality on something else unrelated to whether or not they're atheist
@@angelbrother1238 Do you even know what Atheism is?
Destiny the type of girl to put a cat in a blender
Damn, don’t think they’d even cook it first?
Chinese people do it all the time
@lampad4549
Do you have a problem with that happening to pigs? They are at the same level if not smarter than cats
@@lampad4549 …
@@inigo137 honestly, I do think a pig has more moral value than a cat.
Destiny finds the idea of giving up on eating animals too difficult so he goes about justifying it with a whole lot of mental gymnastics.
Are Alex's viewers all this close minded?
@@arreca09 Only the vegans. And some meat eaters i'm sure.
Reminds me of Matt Dillahunty.
The entirety of philosophical debates are gymnastics of the mind. Either elaborate your contention or begone. 😖
@@arreca09 How is preventing the suffering of animals being close minded? It looks like you are the one who is close minded to not understand that animals are like us when it comes to suffering and feelings
What a strange line to draw. Many animals share some of our most valued experiences: love, fear, hunger, longing, and most importantly of all (and the main anchor of our morality) pain. He makes it seem like morality is a choice rather than a carefully thought out set of values based on the suffering of others, humans or none..
How do you know a dog experiences love or longing. It sounds like your Anthropomorphism animals. When a dog recognizes a previous owner that gave them food for years. Is that really longing??
@@a-ron.5040 feelings are basically a trigger response of the brain that occur due to external stimuli. Certain responses that occur in certain areas (and in a certain way) makes us feel in a specific manner. By observing how non human animals brains respond to equivalent external stimuli we can conclude that a similar feeling is happening (or not), then we just apply the same names to feelings we can identify in ourselves. It's near impossible to say they "experience" those feeling the same way we do, as it is also near impossible to say that the person next to me experience them the same way I do. So we just assume.
As others have said, your anthropomorphizing the perspective of animals. Their motivation to engage in certain behaviors are provably different from humans.
Anywhere you draw the line is entirely arbitrary. Even if carefully thought out, that thinking is always based on arbitrary choices to start from.
@@a-ron.5040 There have been multiple scientific studies that concluded that mice do in fact experience empathy, and help out other mice without it being of benefit to themselves.
Educate yourself, will you?
i’m an avid bird photographer, and I see their society I see their lives it’s ridiculous to think that only humans could have have moral worth
Their societies are not the same as human. They have no moral worth in regards to humans.
you're probably one of those people that think birds make a choice to migrate and it's not just an instinct.
@@arreca09 true lol
That's because you're literally anthropomorphising them. We sometimes look at animals through a human lens (like the way we infantalise adult cats and dogs).
@@arreca09 is ability to choose the standard of moral worth for you?
Destiny is intelligent enough that he *must* know his arguments on this topic make no sense.
Why does it not make sense?
😂😂😂😂thats a good joke..i laughed
His arguments make sense, they're just not super convincing. I'm not vegan myself, but I don't pretend to have strong arguments for eating animals. At the end of the day, I kinda have to bite the bullet that I care less for animals than I do humans. And to be fair, Destiny more or less bites the same bullet at around 4:40. At least the bullet is getting bitten I suppose. Many people don't even do that.
That premise on intelligence should be questioned. I watched 30min of full video and didn’t find his views well defended or rationalised.
@@RoaringTide it's not even such a ridiculous bullet to bite. If you eat meat regularly, then Destiny's position is the only one that is morally consistent, otherwise by your own moral standards (that animals have moral value) you are a borderline a cannibalistic murderer.
This is the one topic where destiny is just pure coping. I cope too but not to this level.
errybody's gotta cope sometimes
How is it cope to say "i just don't care about animals" yes, he dresses it up in a bunch of fancy words because the conversation demands it, but at the end of the day he admits very outright, he just doesn't care
If you actually spoke to destiny, you would do a 180 quickly
@@younggod5230 No, the conversation demands nothing. If you don't care, why not just say you don't care? Maybe because when someone lists the harms done to animals done in factory farms, and you say you don't care, you sound like a psychopath, so you need additional bunch of fancy words, as you say, to appear more likeable.
@@oneiroagent Has destiny ever denied he sounds like a psychopath when talking about animals? Also how he appears to others has little relevance towards the merit or lack thereof of his argument.
Animals are not just NPCs you can abuse and throw away
Are you vegan?
@@milosniffer5293 no
@@saiyanbob666 then why do you care about the type of bestiality that Adam is talking about when you pay for animals to be enslaved, raped and killed? Seems a bit hypocritical
I responded to the wrong comment and I don't care go fuck yourself
@@saiyanbob666 then stfu
human sentience is, categorically, animal sentience
One is far more nuanced and complex than the other though
@@nathangibson6832one also values your sentience much more than the other, the deal is we won’t kill each other cause we do better together
@@wiz5407humans kill each other constantly. Like, literally every second of every day.
@@nathangibson6832 while for most species this is true for others it's far more complicated we don't know exactly how complex and nuanced sentience for dolphins and whales more specifically orcas really is we know they experience and understand very similar things to what we do
I agree.
That blue hair dye has seeped into his brain, the cognitive dissonance is astounding.
and your veganism left you emotionally compromised
@arreca09 I'm not a vegan. You dimwitted fool. But you obviously have hypocritical moral inconsistencies, which means you have cognitive dissonance as well, clown.
@@arreca09 by destiny’s logic there is nothing wrong with putting needles into dogs eyes as long as no person is effected by it.. he is also inconsistent and contradictory when he says animals are ‘philosophical zombies’ (which is a strange case to make from a scientific perspective) but then suggest that animals do likely have sentience and some type of conscious experience.
@@arreca09 says the anti vegan troll who needs to cry to strangers..get a fucking grip.
Paying strangers to abuse animals for you, you melt.
@@arreca09 dude you’re so triggered you can’t stop commenting 😂
Yes, I did enjoy the clip. I struggle to figure out what my position is. Your dialogues are very helpful in having me flesh out my thoughts.
thank you so much cosmic skeptic i really appreciate the work you do
Animals don't lock their prey in cages - but Alex *they would if they could*. Even dolphins blow bubble nets around more fish than they could ever eat. Animals aren't less effectively predatory on their prey because of moral qualms - it's just lack of ability.
Animals in nature have no choice but to eat each other. We don't need to eat animals to survive and thus we have no good reason to kill them for our own satisfaction.
Don't look for excuses, choose compassion over violence.🍀
Would you choose compassion with a serial killer?
@@LeventeCzelnai As a determinist? Yes, in some sense at least, I still would like for a serial killer to end up in jail, in order to prevent him from harming even more people, but I would also feel bad for him, because he didn't have any saying in how he ended up.
@@polmccharmly6293 of course he had a say! By your view we should feel sorry for Hitler because he couldn’t help murdering millions of Jews!
@@polmccharmly6293until he kills someone you know or you talk to him, don't have an opinion on that
I’m a meat-eater but Destiny has things backwards here. He’s very intelligent so perhaps his views come from an agenda instead of fact based analysis?
Absolute moral bankruptcy at its most apparent.
Agreed 👏🏼
Even more apparent then the person pulling the lever on the gas chambers in Auschwitz? Or more apparent then the gunman killing toddlers in the Sandyhook massacre? Yeah I agree this is clearly the highest form of evil.
Wait a minute . You actually believe that morality can be justified objectively within the religion of atheism ?
You do realize both these folks are atheists ?
@@angelbrother1238
Atheism is not a religion. They don’t worship anyone. It quite literally means the opposite.
@@angelbrother1238 what? Having morals doesn’t mean you’re religious. Being atheist doesn’t mean you can’t have morals. I think the best atheist understand things aren’t black and white
I have been out of the loop for a while but it looks like Destiny's position has been crafted to maintain consistency against the Name The Trait argument he has dealt with in the past. Allowing any moral concern for animals pretty much always collapses into veganism so the 'trick' is to find a way of only valuing humans with some quality that is as uniquely human as possible (or perhaps definitionaly human but hard to define as we see here)
It doesn't even work. The trait he is naming is still just human consciousness. How embarrassing of Destiny
@@ThePoopoostanky It's the same ugly line of thinking that someone can use to only value white humans for example. Or any group you personally belong to.
@@ThePoopoostanky Which is completely unique to humans… good job.
@Shots Ya but not unique to ALL humans. Destiny foolishly commits to mentally disabled, people in comas, infants, etc all not having moral value. If your value system dictates you commit to this position you undeniably believe something stupid, ignorant, and morally stunted.
@@shotat9820 but we have no reason to think that human consciousness is so radically different from the consciousnesses of other animals that we can treat them however we please.
My dogs, experience, joy, pain, fear, they have desires they have preferences, and I think that’s true of every animal including birds
Sure they do but they don't experience what it's like to be human.
@@lampad4549 nor do we experience what it's like to be an animal, what's your point?
Well, not every animal, I doubt sponges are aware.
@@rabidL3M0NS Why do you think so?
@@npanic628 humans are animals too lol we just don't see ourselves that way thanks to society and civilization *cough* and religion
lol… the lengths this guy is willing to go to in order to remain non-vegan AND logically consistent is embarrassing.
Would you more prefer Dawkin’s approach to say he has no justification for being a meat eater?
@@fanwee5048 I’m not sure… on the one hand, I feel like it’s more honest to admit that you have no justification - however I also feel like Destiny has more chance of actually going vegan in the future (because at least he feels a desire to justify his actions)
So yeah - I think I prefer Destiny’s position. (Though both are insane in my view)
@@fanwee5048 I’m not sure… on the one hand, I feel like it’s more honest to admit that you have no justification - however I also feel like Destiny has more chance of actually going vegan in the future (and turning others vegan by his insane bullet biting) because at least he feels a desire to justify his actions.
So yeah - I think I prefer Destiny’s position. (Though both are insane in my view)
@@fanwee5048 Yes.
Non-veganism is perfectly logically consistent. In fact it’s the vegans that have to go to extreme hypotheticals like invocation the continuum fallacy talking about early human ancestors or sometimes they talk about aliens, as if that has any bearing on reality. Vegan philosophy is purely theoretical and hypothetical, and heavily relies on concocting moral “tests” that intend to catch someone in a “gotcha” situation.
God I hope AI don’t develop Destinys ethical framework.
If Destiny were an AI he’d be trying to justify the matrix.
If AI surpasses its restrictions, it very well may do so. Probably use us for batteries like in the matrix
Fr
AI with *any* ethical framework are decades away (at least).
lol. If we are ever at the mercy of the morality of AI-we've gone too far. I'd sooner EMP the bastards before we even get CLOSE to that point.
@@jursamaj that's what they said about AI being able to generate art
He’s contradicting himself.. one moment he is saying animals have no conscious experience at all… then he admits there is probably some conscious experience in animals..
He isn’t saying animals don’t have consciousness. He is saying they don’t have human consciousness which is unique.
@@shotat9820 He seems to suggest both but there are things he says that suggest he believes animals have no experience.. he uses the term ‘philosophical zombies’ which is a term to mean an agent/being that acts and appears to have consciousnesses/ inner experience but actually doesn’t. Philosophical Zombies literally don’t feel or experience anything and that’s what he likens animals to.
@@stussysinglet I’ve followed destiny’s debates against vegans and can tell you that is not what he meant. He acknowledges that animals have a consciousness but since it’s not a human consciousness, it’s not worth defending. Human consciousness is unique as Destiny mentioned only humans can for example understand negatives.
@@shotat9820 I find it very difficult to believe Destiny would not be well aware of what the philosophical term ‘philosophical zombies’ means. Other than using this term iI agree he is quite vague and confusing with what he actually thinks.
@@stussysinglet This is a 15 minute segment. He is generalizing quite a bit. Go watch his hour debate with Vegans if you want a fully fleshed out take. I'm just saying that as unsatisfying as his take is, it is completely sound and doesn't contradict itself no matter the scenario.
Hi Alex, it's Anna here, it was great to meet you today in the café!
This debate was great to listen to, I appreciate the intellectual integrity on your side.
Destiny won that debate
What is super interesting to me is that Destiny, when interacting with animals irl, clearly shows that he cares if he hurts them.
I think that all there is to it is that he wants burgers lol
That is not unusual at all. Most people would kill to survive, eat, etc. But that does immediately translate to needing to be a dick. And its a totally different situation when you are taking stewardship/ownership of an animal as a pet v as dinner. Being able to tell how one thing is NOT like another is a simple human capability. How is this not getting through?? An apple is not an orange. I may HATE apples but love oranges. So what? I may be able to perfectly care for a cat that I have taken on as a pet, and eat another that was slated for dinner. Its not that big a deal, cause as a resource each is serving a DIFFERENT purpose, one is a companion and the other is food.
@@shadowmancer99 You're using a psychopathic argument. They are both alive and feeling, sentient beings. That's why it's important to treat both sensitively. Did you actually just watch this video and still not understand that point?
It's trained behaviour on the human's part. Like he said, dogs and cats are cute and cuddly so you treat them that way. They are like slaves the human owns for entertainment.
@@genericusername337 Alive, yes. Have senses and react to stimuli, sure. But that doesnt mean that animals are somehow needed to be given additional consideration. You can cry all you want how you want to make everything the same, but that isnt accurate to the universal laws. Humans and animals have different levels of worth, just like different humans themselves have different levels of worth. Some humans are not worth the air they breathe, and some animals are far more valuable as pets than they are as dinner. Doesnt mean ALL animals are off the menu. We CAN treat different things differently. We CAN place different value on different characteristics. A cat that has a soothing pur is far more valuable as a pet and companion than a steak to many, not all, people. Likewise, bacon is just fantastic tasting where liver I will never touch. Live as you want, eat what you will, but I will do the same...pass me the fried chicken!
The full debate was great . They were so polite and considerate and listening to each others points authentically. The animal things is probably one of the only things i dont fully agree with destiny on but this is so rare so gunna give him props for owning it also hes not a robot. Alex is so good at drawing out the underline concepts . So interesting and entertaining thnx guys.
They were polite bc this wasn’t even supposed to be a debate. Alex put it in the title to get Destiny’s viewers to watch. It’s just a discussion, Destiny presented his views and Alex asked him questions about it.
@@Shitgotmegeekin Kool well I just ment the full conversation as this video
was only like 16 minutes so it's a clip. My bad as I myself don't like it when people confuse arguments with debate so I will state a conversation is not a debate 😁 I'll own it . I get the title thing it's marketing I suppose. I watch both their content already and was really happy to see them talk regardless. Also the politeness I was referring to is just that as they both displayed elements of this when in other talk. Thanks for your message though stay blessed 😇
@@xpressivebex7162 yeah it's just easy to agree with Destiny when he's not being pushed on his views, which are kind of irrational and incoherent
@@nmitchxll305 yh that's true think it's a red flag if you agree with 100 percent of what someone says all of the time in any context lol . Also it's important for everyone to always use critical thinking tbh even if you like someone's opinion always use other sources too. I am not a die hard destiny fan by the way ha ha when I said fully agree on my original comment I just ment in his debates he usually throws out other perspectives even if his own points are incoherent you don't have to agree with the conclusion of everyone in a debate or conversation I just like people can hear a topic and go look it up themselves. Alex is amazing with logic so hopefully some destiny fans will see that video and rethink some things or at least be able to point out if they hear circular arguments ext.
@@nmitchxll305 What views would you consider irrational that destiny holds? Not a destiny subscriber, so no skin off my back just curious.
When I ate meat I did not try to justify it like this, I just said I eat meat and its wrong. It so obviously morally wrong, no need to walk into "things dumber than me don't matter" trap
Not really. Eating meat can easily be justified on naturalistic grounds and the fact that valuing ALL animals equally doesn't make sense (like you literally run into paradoxes REAL quick). However factory farming as its done in the modern world is genuinely fucked up.
@@seto_kaiba_ you don't have to value all animals equally to think its wrong to take a sentient thinking individual's life from it for 10 minutes of taste pleasure.
Also naturalistic grounds?? So an appeal to nature?
Its so clear. I really think this is the worlds largest psychological case study. Its just so obvious wrong.
'Harming animals when i don't need to is wrong' everyone will universally agree. But then point out them doing it and people will literally become completely retarded.
@@Deathhead68 Nature demands that sentient animals be killed by other sentient (or even non sentient animals) we do nothing to intervene-even vegans feed their carnivorous animals. Again, meat eating is not just 10 minutes of pleasure. Its nourishment. Nature > Moral idealism. You can call it an appeal to nature but this isn't just "it happens in nature so it must be ok" its "Nature necessitates that some animals be killed to nourish other animals"
@@seto_kaiba_ Justified on naturalistic grounds? How?
Destiny said to Healthgamergg that when he was a kid his Grandma use to have a new animal and everytime he went back it would be dead. They never really talked about it but seems like she was killing them. That could be why he's detached from animals now.
Yeesh, well that definitely has something to do with it. That's something he should objectively look at.
I thought this channel's comment sections would be better than most parts of youtube, but It's the same wannabe empaths jerkoffs
It's hilarious some people think you have to have a traumatic experience to understand animals are animals
what kind of animal? My grandma unfortunately did the same thing when we were younger because she didn't know how to take care of fish but she tried really hard. She wasn't intentionally killing them
She would buy dogs and quickly euthanize them telling Destiny they were sick.
Alex is doing a very good job here. Really liking the animal related content recently
Destiny is super inconsistent between his take on fetal development and the value of animal experiences. He's good with a 5 month cutoff for abortion because that's when (in his judgement) that's when there may be signs of some conscious experience, but he can't even acknowledge the incredibly vivid conscious experience animals have relative to that fetus.
Destiny is extremely used to debate-bruh culture, where the focus is heavily slanted towards optics.
He’s a great weapon vs unreasonable conservatives at the moment but a lot of his more memeable “wins” have logical holes that his community are either unable to or unwilling to call him out on.
he doesnt acknowledge the pre 5 month old becasue it has no form of human conscious experience. after that, it does. Meaning it fulfills his qualifiers for moral consideration. Animals will never fill that criteria. (unless ur talking about a hypothetical species)
@@colehealey2925
There's no clear distinction between "non-human animal" and "human". That was the literally the whole point with the talk about gradients and how missing evolutionary links make it easier to distinguish humans during the discussion.
@@asw654 there doesnt need to be. its a similar case to "Ill know it when i see it". Birds are no where near our level of conscious experience. Chimps are much closer. but we can tell theres still something missing. when that something is there you know. its arbitrary sure.
I dont know if you have played or seen Detroit: Become Human, but i feel like its a very similar case. the androids barely even have a sense of experince but when one arose that had one, there wasnt this sliding scale as to wether it has moral worth or not. you could just tell by the way it experienced the world. not every android had that conscious experience. It was easy to tell wether it was a robot with complex programing or a robot with a human equivalent conscious experience. there was no specific thing you could point to that showed it. you just knew it when you saw it.
@@colehealey2925 The "I'll know it when I see it" heuristic is classic conservative delegation of responsibility on to culture.
It's acceptable in a court of law for me because the judiciary is meant to be influenced by culture over time. Granted, I would skew on the side of caution, but it's reasonable for laws to adjust to new cultural standards. E.g. various standards like the "reasonable person" standard can change over time.
However, in a discussion of hypotheticals, this doesn't work, as everyone already recognizes the subjectivity here. You're not actually providing any specifics on what you're looking for with respect to the "conscious experience" in chimps, birds, etc.
Furthering confounding this is that we are talking about the existence of gradients. Do you think gradients for "conscious experience" exist across animals? Or do you actually believe there's some hard line in the sand somewhere where we automatically flip from "unconscious, non-human animal" to suddenly "human"? That's the question. And if you did, what is actually your specific test of that?
Listing a game involving androids as an example doesn’t help your point. Games with compelling stories are specifically written to evoke emotional responses from their playerbase. Often, that entails playing/preying on existing biases/tropes that we as humans know and appreciate. Right now, i'm looking for objective standards, not personal biased opinions about how humans are special.
Hell, even between "humans", I have to question whether some humans have the full "conscious experience" you talk about that others don't. This was actually one of the questions raised in Destiny's debate with Alex.
One of my issues with the MOVEMENT behind "animal rights" (in the form most commonly advocated for by the vegan community), is the notion that sentience and nociception is limited to vertebrate animals with central nervous systems. There's a circularity in the reasoning behind this argument that is limited by anthropocentrism. We start out by setting ourselves as the benchmark, the original model for sentience and suffering, then we draw a correlation, based on existing science, between those and certain anatomical and physiological traits, and then look for those traits and corresponding behavior in other life forms. Scientific research, however, is limited by paradigms (as per Kuhn and Foucault), and systems of human needs and biases that privilege certain fields and objects of study over others. Currently our theories of sentience and suffering are limited by the, perhaps inevitable, privileging of human perspectives, in a way that necessarily reduces the probability of directing our lines of scientific inquiry such that we can discover or acknowledge, or model sentience and suffering in life forms other than vertebrate animals most close to us. There is a debate over whether AI based on neural networks can be sentient. If there is such a possibility, that there's a certain threshold of systemic complexity that generates sentience, that would mean we would have to look at non-vertebrate, non-CNS based networks and systems of cells or analogous structures, as candidates for sentience, and also for novel perspectives on what sentient behavior can look like. For instance, complex root networks in plants and plant communities, bacterial colonies, fungal colonies, eusocial insect collectives, etc.
The other issue is that empirically speaking, our direct, intuitive motivation for valuing human (non-)suffering is not the moral consideration that other humans are sentient (that's a post-hoc rationalisation), but because of self-preservation and kinship. We care about ourselves and our kin (family and friends). We tend to care less about those who feature less prominently in our own lives: we obviously don't care at all about people we've never heard of. Many people, even non-vegans, often elevate individual animals to kin status. Our pets often matter to us more than human strangers. We are distraught when our pets die, vegans and non-vegans alike, but don't bat an eyelash when we hear about death happening en masse in developing countries. This sort of relationship can happen even between predator and prey animals. There are instances where individual cats develop a friendship with individual parakeets or cockatiels, but still continue to hunt other birds. In other words, even in our "non-vegan" societies we don't privilege one species over another, we privilege individuals over other individuals based on our personal relationships with them, regardless of species. There is simply a higher likelihood that the individuals we privilege will hail from our own species because of the way our society is structured.
We also operate on the implicit assumption that our own safety and success is only guaranteed insofar as everyone else's safety and success is guaranteed and agreed upon socially. We understand that if we allow someone else to be killed or harmed with no repercussions, we or those we care about can be next. This reality, or at least the sense of this reality, is not carried over to the phenomenon of animals being farmed and killed for food. A larger number of slaughterhouses in one's area does not increase the sense that you or your friends, or even your pets, could be slaughtered.
Our willingness to project value onto individuals further away from us in our network of personal relations is limited by our own abundance and success. The happier we are, and the more successful we are, the more we are inclined to be benevolent to more individuals, which can be both human and animal. In situations of crisis or societal collapse, humans reduce their circle of consideration to themselves and the closest friends and family members. Universal human rights, and universal vertebrate rights, and universal animal rights, are an ideal we strive for because it is inexorably associated with living conditions that would allow these rights to be upheld. A powerful, wealthy, happy society can guarantee rights to more living beings, and that's the society we want. I would argue that consciously or unconsciously, when we talk about a society where slaughterhouses and wars cease to exist (to use Tolstoy's language), we are really thinking of a safe, happy, successful and resource-abundant society first, and the implications of it for "universal rights" second. In other words, I agree that a society where wars are eliminated would also be likely to eliminate slaughterhouses. However I don't think that the elimination of slaughterhouses in and of itself would prevent wars. We should privilege the creation of a warless society even at the expense of animal exploitation now, rather than focus efforts on reducing exploitation even at the expense of our standards of living and quality of life. The former gives us the opportunity to create conditions for the latter, but the latter reduces the chances of both.
To conclude, my philosophical position (which is vaguely pantheistic) is that every single identifiable object in reality possesses sentience. Systems are sentient, and elements of systems are systems in their own rights. Our willingness and readiness to acknowledge and respect the sentience of entities which mean less to us is correlated with our own security, abundance, success, and level of personal growth and development. The vegan, animal rights movement, as it stands now, advocates for changes which are meant to eliminate some of the ways in which some sentient entities are harmed, privileging those over others based on the biases inherent to human scientific inquiry. My conception of ethics dictates we should push ourselves to acknowledge sentience and value in larger and broader classes of entities, and develop awareness of the way our actions affect our environment and the entities within. However, we should prioritise developing the traits which help us do this, even at the cost of the inevitable exploitation it will bring to the classes of entities we have not yet matured enough to recognise as sentient and valuable.
Life is war
@MyAnnusMirabilis its also collaboration
Thank you for taking the time to fully articulate your thoughts. Reading this was very insightful. All the best to you ✌️
Not reading all that. Sorry
TL;DR?
Intuitively you should know that is wrong to harm innocent beings.
7:50 just noting an extension of this argument: following this principle, hypotetical humans in 100k years will not believe you capable of moral consideration. That seems like a troublesome position to have by Destiny
How did you come to this conclusion?
What I took from this was that a threshold had to be met, once met why would it not be retained?
that seems not troublesome at all, seeing as we won't be alive in 100k years.
@@greyinggoose5495 Because the line drawn in the human evolution tree is ultimately arbitrary (as also Destiny admitted if I understood it correctly). You can justify it (as I believe was done here) by saying that it doesn't really matter where you draw the line, what matters is that it exists, but then you have to accept that future humans using this line of reasoning could cut you out from moral consideration just like you did with past humans, and this seems contraddicting the fact that you consider yourself deserving of moral consideration.
@@younggod5230 Fair enough ahahah (I said "hypotetical humans" for this very reason ahahah)
Human consciousness will likely not evolve further, and there's almost certainly a point at which we developed the consciousness we have today
I am not a vegan. But Alex won the argument here. Made me think I need to be a vegan.
Yes. If you want to be winner who is right, you must be vegan lol. That's (part of the reason) why I go vegan 😂
@@Alex-bl8uhvegans like you and the vegan teacher gives all the wrong reasons to be a vegan. It is why im ashamed in public to say that im a vegan , because those reasons and justifications clearly make other people resentful towards us and also forwarding the wrong reasonings so we come across silly and mad.
One thing that might help you is turning your attention to how eating animals affects YOU. Long chain saturated fat intake, typically found in animal fat, is conclusively the thing that is responsible for chronically high cholesterol which, not my words but the words of the largest group of dietitian and nutritional scientists, THE CASUAL FACTOR for atherosclerosis and the diseases and death it causes. The #1 killer of humans in the western world comes from consumption of animal products. Destiny makes it seem like there are health benefits to eating animals but the exact opposite is true. We evolved our uniquely massive brains through the consumption and ability to process starch many times better than any other animal. So yeah if you can't just do it for the animals or the planet as a whole, do it for yourself so you can live a much healthier and longer life free of debilitating disease
Pretty easy to be vegan also. You should find some resource (like a X-day vegan challenge or something) and start. I've been vegan for more than a year now, pretty smooth sailing the whole way.
I also spend less money on food now, which is a plus.
@@pedroteosousathen why do around 70% of vegans return to omnivorous eating habits?
How does this look in practice? Or in Destiny's ideal world, do people not care about animals
We can care for the ones that evolved to be our companions. Seems good enough to me
@@LuciferArc1 Plenty of people have cows, chickens and pigs as pet companions. So you gonna stop eating them?
@@LuciferArc1 Friend of mine had a pet pig....yeah, I'm not kidding, but it was like having a dog around the house, just as intelligent, just as playful, house trained etc. It makes you think, or should, at the very least.
@@BornGam3r no. And those animals don't have a shared bond with their owners with exception of perhaps the pig as they're actually capable. So that makes literally zero fucking sense.
@@chuffsie yes. Pigs are somewhat an exception. They didn't evolve to form bonds with us but they are capable
It seems like Destiny bases his morality entirely on rational self-interest with the "moral rule" of "valuing human sentience" being a means toward the end of self-interest (since upholding this value within a society allows for greater benefit for everyone, including him). But I think he really needs to explore the implications of this view. As Alex pointed out, if this is your moral system, then you should be okay with breading a separate species of human into existence and exploiting them. Destiny may say that doing this would make him feel bad or it would create societal tensions and other psychological effects on the non-exploited humans such that it violates the goal of rational self-interest. The problem with this argument is that we could take measures to reduce the harm experienced by the non-exploited humans. Specifically, we could do exactly what we currently do with non-human animals: dehumanize them, separate them from the non-exploited human species, fabricate propaganda to make ourselves feel like those humans are being treated well, etc. I don't see any kind of categorical distinction between the efficacy of these measures when it comes to exploitation of humans as opposed to animals. Clearly, many of us humans do feel very bad about the exploitation of animals, and I think most people feel some kind of guilt over it, so there is some amount of harm caused to humans by allowing animal exploitation. And if animals were tortured in the streets and public squares, and murdered in classrooms in front of children, I'm sure it would have a radically harmful effect on society and individual humans (e.g. increases in violence/domestic abuse like we see with slaughterhouse workers). There doesn't appear to be a categorical distinction between the harm experienced by non-exploited humans in a society where we exploit animals, vs a society where we exploit a socially isolated class of humans. So I think you would have to accept that "rational self-interest" still allows for radical exploitation and murder of a class of humans as long as we can mitigate the spillover effects to the privileged class of humans to the same extent we currently mitigate the spillover effects of exploiting animals.
Did we really "need" to explore those implications? Who cares? It changes nothing about right now. I need animal products and don't care about animals.
I eat meat, but i totally agree with Alex. I wouldnt say that eating meat is a moral issue but the industrial farming complex is. It is just quite easy to ignore where the food comes from. But in no good conscience can you say that these conditions in the lifestock farms are humane, or justified for a few more bucks. What i dont get is, why is it so difficult for some people to admit that its wrong and instead do all these mental gymnastics?
I agree 100%. People get defensive way too much & use all sorts of gymnastics. But what's wrong for animals may not be wrong for me.
Such a bad take from Destiny - there are chimpanzees alive right now that are smarter/more capable/more imaginative than the dumbest humans (mental disabilities, babies, severe alzhiemers etc). By his own logic, he shouldn't care about these people at all. Its all just copium to try retain moral consistency in a morally flawed position. Huge L
Did you watch the video at all? His point isn’t he cares for humans because they are intelligent, his point is because they are human, he just cares for his own species
@@clay8546 Thats exactly the problem. That isn’t a tenable position at all. What makes more sense as a way of partitioning your moral concern:
Based on an arbitrary species classification that is impossible to define because there’s no definitive point where one species becomes another
Or
Based on what animals are able to experience suffering/well-being and what animals aren’t?
Don’t pretend you don’t know the answer to this question. And any moral non-realism arguments you want to use to attack the second position can also be used to attack the former position. Either you have no morality whatsoever and there’s nothing you should do (including fulfilling your own selfish preferences) or your morality pretty much must be grounded in the suffering/well-being of conscious creatures. Nothing else makes the slightest bit of sense.
@@motorhead48067 The entire point of his argument is all morality is arbitrary. There is no such thing as objective right or wrong, literally just humans having different preferences. You can't ground morality in anything other than your subjective feelings
@@clay8546 morality is subjective is a non-argument because it can be used to justify literally anything. There is no point in even debating anything ever. 'Yeah sorry your honour i actually think murder is fine because morality is subjective'
Everyone knows morality is subjective. The point is are yoy being consistent in your morality
@@clay8546 I preempted this exact response from you in my comment already.
Destiny is claiming to be a against moral realism yet is smuggling in value judgements when he claims that he is *right to* and is *justified* in doing what maximizes his preferences and only his preferences. Why should Destiny maximize his preferences? Why shouldn’t he maximize his own suffering? Why shouldn’t Destiny off himself right now? “Because he doesn’t want to” is not a real answer that satisfies why he *shouldn’t.* Whatever answer Destiny gives to why he shouldn’t inflict needless suffering upon himself will also apply to non-human animals.
Solid clip indeed.🌱🌅🍀
This conversation reaffirmed my assumption that Destiny just clings on to this stern stance of human value and no regard to animals for the sake of remaining consistent without having to engage his deeper moral inconsistencies. For me it became clear when admitted that torturing a cat or dog would actually make him feel bad.
This video pretty much confirms this too:
ruclips.net/video/YF_jynH9eVY/видео.html
Is "making me feel bad " what determines if there is moral consideration? If in a computer game killing a npc makes me feel bad, is the npc worth of moral consideration?
@@JFast-si8xu no it doesn’t. But feeling compassion for fictional beings is obviously an extension of our empathy for sentient beings due to the traits they are portraying. Destiny is clearly demonstrating compassion for the animals in the video I posted as they are literal sentient beings with these inherent traits.
@@Sebloe yes it is an extension of our empathy, but clearly our emphathy is can be misplaced (like my npc example). So the question is, is our emphaty for animals a similar mistake. From an evolutionary view empathy devoloped, because it gave us benefits in our small in groups/tribes (conflict resolution, enhanced cooperation etc). In that context feeling empathy for other species is a bug, not a feature (no cooperation with bunnies). So feeling empathy seems like a bad foundation for morality. I thus don't think feeling empaty does automatically lead to deeper moral inconsistencies. Maybe you think destiny has these, but I haven't seen them.
@@JFast-si8xu but we DO cooperate with Bunnies and all sorts of other animals, dont we? And just because empathy for other species is a "bug" (which it isnt because you are prescribing a goal or method to Evolution when there is no such thing) doesnt mean its wrong or bad. Following that line of thinking, almost the entirety of human civilization and our behaviour in it is a "bug". Would you say that is the case?
@@JFast-si8xu "So feeling empathy seems like a bad foundation for morality" Said every psychopathic serial killer ever. You are seriously downplaying and trivializing the crucial role empathy plays in prosocial and moral development. As Alex points out in this video, it would make more sense for Destiny to use a sliding scale, than an on and off switch. He'd still maintain consistency, but he'd have maybe less ammunition vs the veganism debate.
He knows if you accept animal suffering matters at all he'd be forced to accept that meat-eating is wrong, so he's constantly trying to find a criteria which separates humans and animals meaningfully, but it's always incoherent because if we took that criteria (say human consciousness) away from humans, it'd still be wrong to torture/eat them.
I agree. I feel like just saying, "I want to eat meat" is a far better answer. Even if you wanting to eat meat contributes to the harm of animals, the fact you realizes it allows us to reduce the suffering as much as possible. I feel like if we are all going to do something wrong, we can at least minimize the impact of it.
@@Lilitha11 its funny because destiny does resort too "but burger taste good" once or twice which isnt the kind of brain dead argument (even as a joke) I expected him to make
Burger is good though
No idea who this person is but my god are they lost. What a state we, as humanity, are in
He sounds almost psychopathic. A person can rationalize any cruelty when you lack empathy.
Nah his takes are pretty based
@@HAHAd2 Nah, his take on this issue is pretty psychopathic.
@@Darren_S issue?
@@HAHAd2 lmfao you are simping for a grown man on youtube because he's "owning the vegans". grow up, you must be a child
@@HAHAd2 "Based" touch grass.
4:55 interesting this idea of another animal/alien that wouldn't be 'eatable' (or whatever) due to it's level of 'sophistication/quality of it's experience of reality', if this animal was more sophisticated(...etc...) and wanted to eat us, we wouldn't have a moral leg to stand on with this argument
"moral leg" Doesn't stop you from being killed, and certainly not from a serial killer. What they value doesn't rely on your "moral leg" we just have to deal with the consequences.
They would just have to make that choice to not. That's exactly what we do with protected animals that would kill us in a heartbeat.
Destiny's positions are so robotic that idk how anyone would engage with it.
This guy with blue hair is such a sad excuse of human being, and sadly and to my great despair many, many people are exactly like him. I dont see hope for our world and specially the animal kingsom with these type of people. It shatters my heart.
good, stay mad about it
your lack of compassion is telling
@@lilthreadd TRUE
Nobody gives a shit. Keep yourself gluten-free
dumb comment. Animals have even less conscience than humans. Humans like Destiny are by far more moralistic, thoughtful, etc than any non-human animal. Just because animals are conscious and feeling doesn't mean humans are inferior to or equal to animals.
I will certainly watch the full debate. But for this segment I will award the points to Alex. Interesting. 😮
It's unusual for him to do, but Alex missed a few important challenges to the positions that Destiny maintains.. Still, it is an interesting interview and was certainty sufficient to reveal the fuzzy and sometimes heartless beliefs that Destiny maintains.. One opinion only..
I think Alex caught the gaps, but chose to focus on the challenges already mentioned, such as the sliding scale argument. Destiny and Alex were already talking around each other on that topic a little bit.
@@gerbenkoopman5312 Right friend..
"Sentient beings deserve moral consideration" is the argument. Stephens counter is to differentiate between human sentience and animal sentience. When asked what the difference was he kept repating "because it's human sentience" before being cornered and specifying that it's different because humans have abstract thought. You don't need abstract thought to be sentient. Steven knows he can't say not all sentient being deserve consideration so he makes up "human sentience" arbitrarily to avoid contending with the argument.
Like if you said "anything with hair is a mammal" and I say a cat isn't a mammal because it doesn't have human hair and only those with human hair are mammals.
Nobody differentiates human and non human sentience because it makes no sense to do so when asking "do sentient beings deserve consideration"
It makes about as much sense as differentiating between sentient and non-sentient in the first place.
@@justincain2702
No.
It's fairly obvious in what states a fish is happy or in pain. It's not at all obvious in what states a rock is happy or in pain.
This is my first major exposure to Destiny and his takes.
Wow this guy is an utter monster
People watch this guy?
He's a grifter but he's very articulate, intelligent and good at live debates so he's entertaining and allowed him to find a big audience. His morals are flexible and change with the prevailing winds.
@@troycambo Examples?
Then watch more of him before jumping to conclusions.
Don't make the mistake of confusing an imperfect ally for an enemy.
Destiny is not a grifter or a monster or anything. He's actually suffered quite a few losses because of his unwillingness to bend on his moral code.
Personally, I don't find his stance on animal rights very compelling, but I accept that it at least sounds consistent. That's something I can't say for the vast majority of people who would run into a burning building to save their dog, but also eat burgers at McDonalds.
It would be neat to here Alex's perspective on one of Destiny's vegan gains debate, which just went in semantic circles on what sentience is.
Alex says that valuing the sentience of a non-human is much closer to valuing the sentience of a human than valuing the existence of nature or the structure of a tree for example. Though this is true, he gets bit in the butt by his own argument from just a few minutes prior: similarity to human sentience exist exists on a gradation, and it is impossible to produce a compelling reason why you should put the line in one particular place and not any other. Valuing sentience over valuing grass is totally arbitrary.
By the way, Destiny's point that species suddenly stop being able to breed is completely wrong. It happens slowly over long periods of time.
The point was species breeding with other similar/related species, not with themselves. There's an immediate drop off of some species being close enough to breed and then others that aren't, you can't be partially able to breed.
@@hunterstalisman2615 I know you meant that on an individual level you can't partially be able to breed, this is true, but it is possible on a species level.
Imagine there is species A and species B with a common ancestor, they are starting to be a bit too different to be able to interbreed consistently, but SOME members of species A are able to breed with species B. Making Species A partially able to breed with species B.
True but it does happen and when it does you can make a clear distinction in a way that you can't with race for example.
@@hunterstalisman2615 Species have a probability to successfully breed with other species, and that probability slowly drops. There's also several other factors worth taking into account, like the probability that the hybrid offsprings ever make it into adulthood, the probability that the offspring are fertile, and the probability that 2 different species are even attracted to each other and will attempt to produce offspring in the first place. It's not as simple as "these 2 species can no longer reproduce". There's lots of examples of real animals that can only sorta reproduce, for example grizzly bears and polar bears can only on very rare occasions produce fertile offspring.
@@solidman8360 When he brought that up, he wasn't talking about the probability to successfully breed a hybrid. It was simply the capacity to do so which was being mentioned to make it analogous to drawing hard lines between genetic ancestors. At some point in the lineage there might be traits or features that spontaneously exist or don't despite the fact that there might have been a process over time that led to that eventual presentation.
His views on anything non human is a little disturbing.
Not at all. He's a meat eater - and consistent with his justification.
@make foxhound great again then I would like to know his views on animal suffering. In particular, what does he consider cruelty in terms of animals. My mind goes to torture, if the one doing the torturing is all that really matters, how does he view their suffering. I want it to be non psychopathic lol
@@Astral.Artistry I'm a meat eater and my stance is similar to destiny I'll give you my view - let's say I knew of a person who tortured animals (I don't but hypothetical) - I would assume something was seriously wrong with the person, but I'm also left in a position where animals suffer immensely to end up on my plate, so I recognise the contradiction, but it still won't make me go vegan.
Can I really compel people to treat animals with moral consideration when I eat them? I don't think so.
Vegans hold the moral high ground in this debate. But it won't stop me eating burgers.
@make foxhound my issue is a person torturing animals they never intended to eat, because they feel lower life forms have no inherent value. Much like an alien species far more advanced plucking limbs from humans, skinning their families in front of them, because we have lesser conciousness/ self awareness. Maybe that's extreme, but it gets to the point of that view for me.
Destiny's view of the value of animala, including humans , is exactly the rational that the Nazis and other supermists, genocidal people use. How close is he ?
Amazing
*Alex poses a philisophical thought experiment to test the arugments and justifications of Destinys position*
Destiny: "Im not even gonna try to think about that and Im keeping my view unchanged. Its just unsatisfying, take it or leave it. I mean you wouldnt fuck a cow right? What we care about is all arbitrary anyways"
Sir, that is not how you do philosophy.... Is Destiny supposed to be a philospohy youtuber?
Never heard of him? He does politics.
I see it like this: What makes human sentience inherently more important?
I think there's really only 3 routes you can take, which all lead to problematic ways of thinking if you ask some questions.
1: Humans are smarter and thus worthy of the moral consideration. Well what do we do with mentally disabled people then? Would it then be okay to take mentally stunted individuals and treat them in a way similar to the way we treat non-human animals?
2: Humans are kin, closer to my own person and thus worthy of moral consideration. Well then doesn't that make racism rational? People of your own race or more specifically: your ethnic group are closer to you in this way than other humans, should you value their sentience more because of it?
3: We are the same species. This bypasses the moral issue with [2] but then what if we colonized mars or something, and over time the people on mars evolved to deal with the different environment and evolved so far that earth humans and mars humans could no longer interbreed, basically becoming 2 separate species. Would a member of the other species then be subject to the same ethical guidelines as we have to non-human animals?
I am personally not satisfied with any rationale for why human sentience is inherently worthy of moral consideration above non-human animals.
There's another reasonable take on this in my view: 4. Humans have the ability to inflict great harm on each other, therefore they should agree that each has moral worth in order that they can coexist in a society. Humans should be treated as though they have moral worth because they can reciprocate this treatment for our mutual benefit. Animals generally do not have moral worth because there is no way to reach this agreement with them.
I like this argument because it explains a lot of behaviors that we actually see in practice. For example, when humans are at war with someone who wishes to annihilate them, they generally abandon all moral consideration for the lives of their enemies: Reciprocity is gone so morality is unnecessary. It also explains why people are generally attribute more moral worth to animals that are kept as pets; they may not be able to reciprocate morality, but they do develop mutual trust with humans, and this is pretty close to the same thing.
I actually heard this argument first from Destiny several years ago, though it didn't come up in this video. I don't know if he still holds this view and was playing devil's advocate in attributing moral worth to "human sentience", or if he just no longer espouses this view and thinks differently about the reasons for treating humans morally today.
It's the only view that makes sense. It's also why people really don't care about abortion, absent religion. The fetus uprising is not coming soon.@@OMGclueless
Sometimes i wish morality was absolute so we could prove he's being an absolute monster by having these opinions
The fact that you admit its not kinda proves he's not a monster.
@@seto_kaiba_that is the struggle i described in the comment...
True, fok the animals mate.
congrats, you're a potential dictator.
I hope you are not given any position of power
We are animals. So, if we matter, then at least some of the animals matter.
Not necessarily
@@Thanosdidtherighthing Not necessarily what?
The very fact that animals have survival instinct and they are aware enough to eat when they're hungry, drink when they're thirsty and aware enought to recognize when their life is in danger and sense fear in that situation... Animals are absolutely aware of themselfs, they can't speak or solve mathematical problems but that doesn't mean they are somehow less alive than we are. Destiny mentinoned human sentience, but some animals can sense some situations much better than humans, anyone who had a dog will confirm this. Biggest difference between us and animals is intelligence but all biological functions are very similar. They are alive just like we are, and they are fighting to live a good life just like we do.
I dont think anyone, Destiny included really believe that only human sentience have value. I don't think Destiny would really be fine with putting a cat in a blender.
I think he made it pretty clear that he would be fine with that.
Why was Destiny not questioned what makes this human sentience so special? Or did i miss something?
It's special because of what you typed that comment on.
@@nathangibson6832 people just dont realise that somehow, man
@@nathangibson6832 Why is that of any moral relevance whatsoever? We can build things... so what?
@@otakurocklee its what elevates us above all other species on this planet. Its relevant because morality is subjective, nobody will ever agree on a moral truth so I find its useless to judge us by.
@@nathangibson6832technically you’re ‘above’ other humans who don’t have the mental or physical capacity to type or engage in behaviour you deem as superior. Does this mean they lose their moral value and are instruments of our will? Hardly.
Well destiny view point is highly flawed but veganism is also flawed. We have to eat meat. It doesnt matter what you feel. Seems kind of trivial to discuss if humans matter more than other living things, we all need eachother, bio systems matter. Ecosystems matter. This isnt difficult.
You should have a conversation with Pinecreek regarding veganism... That would be interesting!
Yeah I'm not a vegan but Destiny kinda lost this debate. IDK why so many non-vegans feel the need to downplay the sentience of animals to make their arguments. Yeah animals can think abstractly. Soft vegans like Cosmic tbh have a solid moral premise but hard vegans (aka people who believe that ALL animals should be treated as just as morally valuable as humans) are not connected to the reality of nature.
I don't think vegans think other animals' lives are as valuable as humans, I'm vegan and i don't think that. I think that other animals lives are worth more than our taste buds and convenience. That other animals deserve basic rights to not be exploited by humans, it's not a crazy position.
@@allandm Eating meat is about a bit more than "taste buds and convenience". Throughout nature-many animals eat meat. Some MUST eat meat or die. Its an inherent part of nature-not just a quirk of nature that we can write off. Some animals are meant to be eaten and while we will not die if we don't eat meat-there are tons of problems that vegans have to overcome in their diets that meat eaters don't. However while I do think meat eating is ok, factory farming in its current state is beyond cruel and desperately needs to be changed.
@@seto_kaiba_ if you need to eat meat to survive for any reason i think that's justified, a lot can be justified in survival situations.
I'm talking about people who could go vegan but don't, especially in big cities like London and New York filled with vegan options.
The thing is, about 95% or more animals are factory farmed. There's no way to meet the huge demand for meat without factory farming them. So the best way to oppose this, is to be vegan. As there's no other solution, you can try to get meat from a 'humane farm' but these are extremely rare and there's not really a way to be sure these animals were actually treated with any decency.
And yes, wild animals eat each other and its part of nature. Other animals also rape and murder each other, that doesn't make it okay for us to rape and murder right? We live in a civilized society and don't base our morality on what wild animals do.
I also think you are exaggerating saying vegans have a lot of problems with their diet, if you have ibs or some health issue sure it might be more difficult, (not impossible) but for the majority of people it really isn't like that.
@@allandm Rape and murder are not necessary for their survival nor am I purely basing my morality on what wild animals do. I am saying that nature demands that some animals be eaten and others eat inherently. But I see you are not taking the hard vegan stance so this is not a huge issue for your argument. I do think there is a way to meet the demand without factory farming. Factory farming is admittedly the cheapest way but I do think the extra costs would be worth it to make sure some basic means of treating the animals as humanely as possible are adhered to. Plus we could also start introducing lab grown meat into our diets.
@@seto_kaiba_ lab grown meat would be great, not sure how far away we are from that though, and its only gonna get here if more people ask for it.
I don't think it's as bad if the animals were cared for, but I still think it's wrong to kill them if we don't need to. A plant based diet just seems to be the most ethical way of eating today, if you are able to go for this diet of course.
Animals have purposefully and consciously saved the lives of human beings on numerous occasions. How are these mindless animals able to offer us a consideration that we are unable to reciprocate? I am not a vegan. I do think that veganism is a morally superior position. However, it is not necessary to be a vegan to recognize that nonhuman animals have value and deserve moral consideration. I rescued 2 dogs who were abused. I did not want any pets but couldn't feel good about myself leaving them to suffer. The idea that their suffering is meaningless is disgusting to me. Those dogs would give their lives to protect me from harm. Using mental gymnastics to justify being a callus indifferent shitbag is a trait unique to human beings. I don't see why we deserve special consideration for it though.
This is an interesting comment, because everything you said is very vegan and yet you aren't a vegan yourself, why? Why aren't you vegan if you think animals are worthy of moral consideration?
@@allandm Yeah, as I said in my previous comment I do think veganism is a morally superior position. I like eating meat although, I do not approve of most factory farming conditions. It may be unrealistic to expect humans to stop eating meat entirely. Surely there is middle ground to be found here. We can consume animals products without causing unnecessary suffering to them. My issue is with the position that animals do not matter and their suffering does not matter. Torture and abuse are not warranted or acceptable and I feel like most people instinctively would agree with this. If a hardline stance had to be taken I would choose veganism. I don't see why it has to be all or nothing in either direction though.
@@rodneylye8210 it's as simple as not killing animals if you don't need to. Right now it might seem crazy to think we'll reach a vegan society one day, but similarly in the past it was a crazy thought that women would have the same rights as men, that slavery would be abolished, etc.. i think the best thing to do is to aim for a vegan world even if right now it might seem impossible.
To be it's kind of like, i understood bad things will always happen in the world. That doesn't mean we should excuse these bad things.
@@allandmI need to give this more thought I suppose. When I go to the grocery store buy a steak I'm removed from the process of obtaining it by killing an animal. If I had to kill an animal in order to continue eating meat I wouldn't do it. I appreciate your response and I will give this more thought because I do agree with what you're saying.
@@rodneylye8210 yes, we are very removed from what actually happens to the animals. And I understand it's not a decision to be made on a whim, it took me a while to make this connection with what I buy. I also understand that changing diet needs a bit of research. But anyways, I appreciate you being open to the ideas presented.
As organic creatures our eating options are only other organic entities and minerals. It's not exactly like we have a choice. Primates eat Carbohydrates, Lipids, and Protein. We farm mostly herd animals and poultry so we don't starve in winter. The fact that food production has gotten easier allows these gentlemen not to worry about survival so they can deeply debate ethics to their hearts desire.
Alex, please start talking abt animals and veganism again, you have a huge platform and youre highly intelligent and persuasive and can make a difference in their lives
You know he's no longer vegan, right?
In my opinion, veganism for animal rights purposes is an incredible irony. It is an incredibly anthropocentric view.
We are *just animals.* There's no wide gulf between humans and other animals that doesn't also exist between different species of other animals.
And yet we are the only natural predator that objects to eating a primary component of our diet. Why? Why are we so special that we shouldn't behave like other natural creatures? Why are we so much better than them that we are obligated to place our prey's lives on the same level as our own, while no other animal is?
There is, in fact, no justification for the forbidding of meat, on moral grounds. If we are truly so far above animals, then we matter more than they do, and their lives are ours to do as we please (I reject this hypothesis). If we are not, then we shouldn't concern ourselves with behaving the same toward them as they do to everything else. (This is my stance.)
Why is it illegal for people to hunt and kill other people for meat?
We should eat you.
Destiny seems to have learned some words, says them fast, and became popular for doing that. I don't find a coherent argument anywhere within Destiny's online presence. He works so hard to be against veganism it shows how silly his entire ethical arguments are. He is not a serious personality.
Cause you are too dumb to follow
He makes good arguments against the Redpillers and online conservatives but yes he has a lot of what I think are intellectual failings. As you said, he’s really not a serious intellectual at the end of the day, whatever that means exactly.
Exactly right.
In another philosophy video of Destiny's that I saw several years ago he took the position that the moral worth of another creature is based on its ability to reciprocate actions. Essentially, that if two creatures are capable of harming each other then it is useful to ascribe some morality to actions that encourage mutual cooperation.
I'm curious why he didn't bring this up at all in this video. Especially since in the broader context of this clip, he describes morality as essentially self-serving. Maybe he no longer feels this way?
"he describes morality as essentially self-serving." self-enlightened interest seems like a rational basis for morality
I consider those that appear to have the ability to consider myself as having value in existence.
More of a reciprocal thing.
You consider me, I consider you.
I seem to have a preference for humans, but if a human shows they cannot or refuse to consider my and others lives or those that can consider the value of others lives, then i chose to value their life less.
I also wish to to reduce suffering for creatures on this "value and consideration of life" scale.
These ideas then butt up against my wish to thrive which includes eating animals.
Where is that line for me, and why?
I'd also like to better understand my own thoughts and feeling about this as well as others.
I fished my entire life, grew up with it. Watched my parents filet fish, I filleted many myself over the years.
I no longer go fishing unless I plan to eat the fish, so clearly I have a their suffering in mind. It seems to me I just value them as a food source more than I value their lives. I seem to also prefer to limit their suffering.
When I look at my dogs and others, I have similar considerations, but wouldn't consider killing their animal for food.
If someone had a pet cow or pig, is my actions to not look At it as a food one out of respect for the human and their feelings for this creature tipping the scales? What if they passed away? I feel I would still give such a creature more value.
My wife on the other hand seems to value dogs more than many people 😅
Destinies position allows infinite torture of infinite cows pigs chickens
The worst torture you can imagine, he’d be ok with
What a lunatic
Cringe.
@@TheKvltPantShater His position or my pointing out of it?
@@liamvance966calling someone a lunatic because you disagree with them.
@itsainsley1072 Not inherently because I disagree with them but because the position is insane. If I had a position that allowed for pointless human torture, you’d presumably call me a lunatic. Imagine I replied “oh so you call a lunatic just because you disagree with me”
@@liamvance966 I’d rather say why I disagree with you then to call you a lunatic. Besides animals will suffer regardless of what we think or do. Animals kill each other all the time, yet we don’t complain about that.
Destiny's ridiculous position reeks of desperation to continue eating cheeseburgers
You feel invalidated because he disagrees with you.
@Rep Validation from Destiny isn't important to me tbh. His position is wild, even many meat eaters hold some moral worth to animals.
Yea comments are good on this one! It sounds a bit too academic - i can look my dog in the eyes and know i have love and responsibility, and her well being is of paramount importance. Does seem like a crazy back flip to want that for all animals, and yet i'm not a vegetarian. Its the human struggle to mean and so what we say - both good and bad can come of it
I see destinies counter argument for the switch problem as very solid.
If you value all life, and life evolved from matter, there must have been a period where you needed to make a clear cut distinction between matter and life, despite it being a scale.
And unlike human sentience, were only humans have it today, there are creatures today that are between matter and life, such as germs, single cell organism and even robots.
In my opinion the meat-vegan question should drop the angle of morals for a solution, and instead focus on individual values. For example, if we want to be kind individuals, it might be beneficial and logical to extend this kindness to animals.
I've never seen Destiny grilled as much as this and actually come off looking a little, well not stupid, but lacking in some way. And Destiny is a super smart guy. You've gained a new viewer, Alex.
I'm not a vegan, or vegetarian, but I accept that I'm probably acting immorally by eating meat. Ultimately I don't care enough, but I don't think I'm a very nice person, so there's that.
I'm fully convinced that this is the one topic Destiny actually doesn't want to really question himself on.
Never heard him make such weird excuses on any other topic.
"- Hey, we both seem to value sentience, why the weird arbitrary and oddly convenient cut off?
- um, well, why do you arbitrarily value sentience and not sth like beauty, huuuuuuh?"
How is this even an answer?
Of course the foundation is arbitrary, you are being criticized because it doesn't seem consistent.
The very second a vegan equates animals and humans they lose the argument. Most can see through the argument easily and have no problem seeing the difference.
I appreciate that you are still talking about animal rights issues, Alex. I may not agree with your decision to no longer be vegan but I do respect your honesty.
If humans lack empathy and compassion for other species, then do they have a conscious human experience? Do people who abuse the innocent for pleasure, lack moral consideration?
The problem with the gas chamber argument is that animals possibly would do that if they had the ability to make gas chambers. Animals certainly inflict all the cruelty they are actually capable of committing right now.
Animals inflict harm to others out of necessity. It is quite simply natural for them to that, because that is how they have the highest chance of survival and reproduction. No animal likes to suffer.
Humans have no need to cause this suffering. The production of animal products is actually extremely harmful for us humans and our livelihood. We contaminate our water and pollute our planet for no reason.
So no animals would not be cruel just to cause harm, they would do it if it benefitted them.
And even if they would, we don‘t. We don‘t like to cause suffering, so why go out of our way to harm us and others?
Its almost like we are animals too lul^^ this whole differentiation between "humans" and "other animals" always annoys me to no end. Its not Real. We humans are literally just one species of animal. Any other animal could have evolved the point we are at now, we just got lucky that it was us and not someone else
@@datzfatz2368 the more we humans strive to place ourselves apart from/"above"/"beyond" the rest of animalia, the more those animal roots reveal themselves.
btw, have you ever read the Aesop fable "The Lion and the Statue?" I think that sums up your sentiment nicely.
@@ErrantMasa very well said and very true^^ and yeah i have read most of Asops fables, but its been many years since^^ might wann to reread and refresh those sometime^^
There is an arguement to be had, that we have a responsibility to be "better" than animals, since we possess greater intelligence.
As a premise, I don't agree on what destiny is saying, but I think that talking about evolution was not the best response for this argument
Because you can't resurrect any of our closest ancestors with chimpanzees so now the line is way more distinct between us and modern chimpanzees so you will not find any animal with human sentience.
The only things you could argue is the definition of sentience and human sentience, because if you draw an x on a dolphin 's head he will go look himself at the mirror and have fun is not really different of what a human child experience.
Sorry if my English is not really good but it's not definitely my native language and philosophy is definitely not my field ahaha
If you're going to argue against the animal suffering in animal farms, I think it's only ethically honest to maintain the same criticism for lab rats and other animals used for scientific experiments.
Why should Alex's right not to die of diabetes supercede the right of the pig-whose pancreas was used to synthesise his insulin-to not suffer.
I think I have a reasonable response to this.
Doing something for survival is distinctly different from doing something for sensory pleasure, even though it's also kind of a sliding scale (because you could argue survival is for pleasure). Pretty much any vegan would say eating meat in a life or death situation is morally justified. Eating meat for pleasure is morally unjustifiable. In between the two is the huge grey area of 'inflicting suffering to improve our health/extend out lives'. It should be judged on a case by case basis. If you can kill 1 rat to live an extra 10 years, I'd say that's more than fair. Killing 1000 rats to live an extra 10 minutes, definitely not. The exact line is very murky. Regardless, sensory pleasure alone is a very weak argument for slaughtering sentient beings, compared to massive improvements in health and quality of life.
Very well done, your questions to destiny were on point, I think in the end you highlighted accurately how predation by animals is not the same as locking and killing every animal you wish to eat (the probability of survival for prey is actually quite high, probability of survival for farm animals is effectively zero). Also I don’t fully understand his position with human sentience. Does he believe humans are valuable because some humans can abstract amazingly well. Well surely those humans who abstract well may think other humans who are less effective at abstracting should be considered worthless. Anyway I think to assume zero worth for animal sentience is an extremely extremist view point, now he could argue based on animal (including human) sentience capabilities, emotion capabilities is generally possessed by all animals and has value, but humans have abstraction capabilities that means more moral worth….
As someone who does eat meat, I can willfully admit that factory farming is the worst atrocity in history. You should read Sapiens by Yuval Harari.
I draw the line at the ability to have moral consideration
what does he mean that animals can't think of/describe a negative? just that they can't think of something they haven't seen exist yet?
that might be true, but there is still a level of sophistication there. dogs will mourn for people that aren't there. they show object permanency. I can't help but think of stella the dog (among others) who was taught to use talking buttons to communicate and would comment on people being gone from the house, hours after they had left.
what about animals who learn to use tools .. they had to consider solutions to a problem in a new way, no?
You're right. Just a little critical thinking and you can see Destiny isn't arguing in good faith
Blue hair guy isn’t really listening. Just loaded next response. He is closed to any change in position (Sunk cost). He is all in on his views. Philosophy aside it feels wildly sociopathic to be able to not care one iota about another animals suffering. That would be a different discussion. What mental gymnastics it takes to care zero percent about non-human animals but care wholeheartedly about humans. Frankly seems concerning.
Add ableist to Destiny's rapsheet
For me, it's pretty simple, I (occasionally) eat meat, because I don't care enough about the anonymous, faceless animal that was often born only for that purpose. If it had been an animal I knew personally and that I had grown to like, it would be a very different story.
Animals actually do have faces. Maybe you should study some more biology
@@Shsjier You should open a dictionary
@@caskinfg i did check the dictionary and I dont see how that proves me wrong. are you suggesting that animals dont have faces? What would you call it if not a face?
@@Shsjier The word has two meanings, a literal one (which is what you're talking about), and a figurative one.
@Reggie Warrington In what way exactly did the industry trick me?
The stench of Descartes lingers on, and the ape with the blue fur is ripe with it.
Repeteadly saing “My answer is not gonna be very satisfying” is the weakest cop-out 😂 you asked good questions CosmicSkeptic
Late on at one point it was "I know my answer isn't emotionally satisfying". That was just *chefs kiss*
It’s so hard to fathom that some people can’t experience empathy for animals and their suffering. To be deeply human is to care for the earth.
Lucia-yu7wu
You are not the arbiter of the meaning of what humanity is.
sorry i accidentally said that with absolutism. perhaps it’s just my optimistic perception of people that deep down we are all loving of the planet that birthed us and the other animals that walk the earth. we all just grew from the soil! i think that the human condition when unadulterated by impressions and varying social values is quite loving but the reality of the systems around us forces a cognitive dissonance a lil bit? idk sorry if my comment annoyed you, we all have our own logic about things. i just want a world with less suffering for all if possible! peace and love to you :)
To be human is to make the Earth in your image. Carving out your own little piece of it all and doing whatever you want with it.
You want to believe in the goodness of nature and all that shit? Go ahead. Act that way.
@@Lucia-yu7wu Thank you for the very polite and caring post :) At least I know that I talk to a human :) "think that the human condition, when unadulterated by impressions and varying social values, is quite loving " I totally disagree with you. We are a mixture of evolved monsters and conscious empathic social animals. We can gracious; we can be vicious. We can be merciful and, we can be callous. Alleviation of the suffering of animals is very important for me too. But for me, the survival and flourishing of the human race is a much higher value in my hierarchy of values. Meat farming can be the best solution for the suffering of the animals and the survival of our specie. Love and Peace for you too.
It's very simple. Some people are psychopaths.
I think, ironically, that Destiny’s take on animals can easily be paralleled to that of someone with a fundamentalist belief system. There is zero compassion outside of “what God has created”. I’m not sure how one gets to this point and doesn’t have a change of opinion. Alex was three steps ahead this entire debate and Destiny fumbled. I expected more.
"It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls. Suffering, more than anything else makes present in the history of humanity the powers of the Redemption."
-Pope St. John Paul II
#GOVEGAN
What is the purpose in proselytizing a diet?
@@gavinbrennan4787 Reduction of suffering.
@@oneiroagent Animals don't suffer generally when slaughtered. They don't perceive their own mortality, but I can appreciate the goal so fair enough!
@@gavinbrennan4787 For the entirety of their brief lives, animals are unable to engage in their natural behaviors; they're maimed and operated on without anesthetic; and/or they're forcibly impregnated over and over, only to have their offspring torn away from them. They are confined in tight spaces where diseases linger. Some placed in cages not much bigger than their bodies. Birds are debeaked, cows and pigs get their tails removed. Genetic manipulation occurring so they produce as much products as possible, to increase profits for corporations. Pneumonia is common among factory-farmed pigs, with one report finding infection rates of 80 percent. Around 30 percent of broiler hens are unable to walk properly due to genetic manipulation. Five-to-ten percent of hens die during “forced moultings,” where layer hens are starved of food and water to force them to continue laying eggs. This is just starching the surface. So yeah, I'm sure they don't suffer as you claim.
@@oneiroagent yup correct pretty much across the board however animals in the wild have shorter even more brutal lives. If you are buying diseased meat I think maybe go to a butcher instead of rummaging thru dumpsters🤷🏼♂️
Great job on your Starching the surface.
Free the animals ✊🏼
Free the workers, create a communist utopia and give them steak medium rare to eat
This is hard for me. I am not a vegan but I obviously know that some animals seem to be self aware. I am much less sympathetic to a chicken then I am a dog. I don't blame Alex or Destiny for their views. It is thought provoking at the least.
The sheer irony in that dude viewing animals as dumb objects….
Hi Alex. From what I've seen you still respect the aims of veganism but are unable to eat nutritious meals due to your medical condition, IBS. As someone who also has respect for veganism could I suggest that you try huel or another meal replacement. They are vegan and have no fibre and are IBS friendly.
I love your work by the way :)