Non-Human Animals: Crash Course Philosophy #42
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 8 фев 2025
- Today we are taking all the things we have learned this year about doing philosophy and applying that to moral considerations regarding non-human animals. We’ll explore what philosophers like Peter Singer and Carl Cohen have to say about their use, including the concept of equal consideration of interests.
--
All other images and video either public domain or via VideoBlocks, or Wikimedia Commons, licensed under Creative Commons BY 4.0: creativecommon...
Produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios: / pbsdigitalstudios
--
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Tumblr - / thecrashcourse
Support CrashCourse on Patreon: / crashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
This reminds me of a quote about a sentient horse having an opinion about its rider: (Source: Dirk Gently by Douglas Adams)
It is difficult to be sat on all day, every day, by some other creature, without forming an opinion on them.
On the other hand, it is perfectly possible to sit all day, every day, on top of another creature and not have the slightest thought about them whatsoever.
great quote! never read the book but the netflix show was good.
I just read that book two weeks ago after watching the netflix show. The show and book are quite different, but I loved both ^_^ Very appropriate quote there, too.
Douglas Adams wrote the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. Great author and spokesman for atheism.
It always fascinated me how people (mainly of Western culture, which I'm a part of) lament eating dog meat in some Asian countries while discussing it over a burger. The thing that fascinates me it that most of them are so convinced and comfortable in claiming that it's something totally different, because cows are cattle and dogs are pets, and not even realizing that it's a human construct.
I wonder how many in the West would agree to go vegan if the Chinese would agree to also go vegan. It would mean that they would no longer eat doga.
Yeah why don't they leave them alone.
people actually believe that alll Chinese eat dog... the power of media. You can only see what they want you to see.
@@sweetwins5054 I could have worded my comment better. I know that most Chinese people do not eat dogs.
"opting out of rational discourse altogether" is such a great line
I love that he didn't need to mention the word "vegan" at all and the message went through so smoothly. This was perfect.
Im seriously considering some of my lifestyle choices now. Philosphy makes u scrutinize yourself and feel good about that even if u come out on the wrong side as it appeals to your reason instead of "pointless taking sides compatmentalism" that prevails everywhere among ppl nowadays.
I like the fact he said non-human animals instead of just animals
Well humans are animals so there is that
Yeah, kind of dumb
Why do you like that?
@@smurfmemez4112 i think it reconnects us to the animal kingdom.. sometimes humans are so disconnected from the fact that we too are animals, and it gives us a sense of power over other animals, and reinforces this whole concept of speciesism.
@@LydiaCross good reply
"If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals."
- Sirius Black
Sirius Black? So clever. So so clever.
People feel less shame in abusing the powerless because there often aren’t consequences for it
"You can judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him."
@@Scorch428 yes, but it can be connected to this philosophy.
If a man considers someone else as inferior, then why should i take a look at him at all????
Being vegan is so much easier than I thought it would be. I really thought it was this scary impossible thing before I went vegan, but it turned out to be really pretty easy. I feel such a relief -- I was carrying around so much cognitive dissonance before, thinking that I was a compassionate animal lover, but still using animals as a mere means to my own ends. My only regret is that I didn't go vegan sooner!
Piss off.
@@davidfortier6976 Chill man
But plants feel pain too
@@davidfortier6976 People keep saying they get mad at vegans for their toxic personality, but I have been noticing a recent rise in toxicity from meat eaters against vegans(honestly more so). I'm not a vegan myself, but this is some BS. If its about choice, then live and let live. If its about morality, I can't see how veganism is morally bad in any way. If its about other vegans being annoying, then you are partaking in generalization(which most would consider to be a bad thing). This person is just telling their own story, if you don't care, don't comment.
I have been having problems with deciding if I should be a vegeterian/vegan for months tipping from view to view, messig with my own morals, ethics and definitions. Then this video came along and presented every part of my mental process as well as the arguments of my friend and family. It's like this entire course is the collectionof all my countless existential crisises listed, with words for everything, and all the details I was looking for. The feeling of having your thoughts confirmed, and explained throughout history. CrashCourse is awsome!
Bruh... animals give you existential crises? Seriously? Impossible!
but animals want to live and meat production is polluting the planet
What have you decided?
Yes! So many of these videos were like reframing stuff that bugs me all the time!
Sanne yea but meat tastes nice
He presented the most common pro-meat-eating arguments and countered them with reason. But it seems like a lot of people in this comment section are not satisfied because it's "pro-vegan". I want to hear some solid arguments from the pro-meat-eating side that he didn't tackle because it seems to me that this video is more about being pro-reason and logic than pro-veganism
Arnaldur Ingi Jónsson
Agreed. I'm an omnivore and I liked this video very much.
This is a link to a great website that is a very good source to answer many health questions pertaining to a plant based diet.. nutritionfacts.org/?fwp_search=omega+3&fwp_content_type=video
koseq7 hemp is dirt cheap. And complete bs about no plants are complete protein sources. Soy, mycoprotein, quinoa and many seeds are complete proteins and there's no reason why you can't combine plant sources
I'd like to point out first, that: ''Omega-3 fatty acids are formed in the chloroplasts of green leaves and algae. While seaweeds and algae are the source of omega-3 fatty acids present in fish, grass is the source of omega-3 fatty acids present in grass fed animals.'' In other words, those are basically formed in plants. Secondly, to lack proteins in a diet one must either not eat anything that contains DNA or starve to death... both are pretty similar in fact. Any plant contains proteins, it is simply a false dichotomy to assume one must eat meat to get sufficient amount of proteins or lack in them by not eating meat.
Garton, G. A. (1960). "Fatty Acid Composition of the Lipids of Pasture Grasses". Nature. 187 (4736): 511-12. doi:10.1038/187511b0.
I feel like this video jumped straight from "Animals are not simply at our disposal, their suffering matters" to "Go 100% vegan"
If I'm raising livestock via traditional methods (lots of space, natural diet, etc, none of that cruel industrialized farming stuff) Then am I not entitled to eat that animal, just as I'm entitled to eat any crops that I grow?
If I did not raise livestock, the animals would lead a (probably short) life of hunger and fear, constantly scrounging for food and being chased by predators. Is it not more humane to give the animal a safe, comfortable life, and a quick, (nearly) painless death?
Thank you so much for making me and so many others to think about animals. Since animals cannot speak for themselves, people should speak up for animals exploited in human society.
After watching this I understand why someone would become vegan
Try it! Start with vegetarianism it's easier and a good start.
Tehila Tulkoff I cant go vegan or vegetarian because protien
VeoSkrill there are plenty of plant based protein sources. Edamame, tofu, tvp, tempeh, quorn etc
obesity whale 100g of tuna is 114cal and has 25g of protein and it’s easy and less time consuming to eat
@@Jahnos tuna probably isn't the best thing for your body
It's very difficult to talk about these without making people emotional and sort of mad. You did an amazing job in bringing up these arguments in a way that I think if I wasn't vegan already I would have started considering it right after this video!
Thank you!
Damn, I'm actually thinking about being a vegetarian after watching this. I always figured it's the way of the world to eat meat. How am I different from any other carnivore? And plants are living creatures too afterall. But dismissing this conversation doesn't say much for my ability to be a deep thinker. Alot to consider here, thanks crash course
You seem to be able to grasp deeper subjects and distance your initial instincts from your actual interest in finding out what's true or not, what's moral or not, what we ought to do and what we should stay away from. That's the difference.
Pete in general people would probably be better off pulling back in the sheer amount of meat products they eat. I am not vegetarian or vegan by any stretch of the imagination but I enjoy many meatless meals without having to try hard at all.
Look up the anatomy of carnivores and herbivores and omnivores and you'll have it figured out. For one thing, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to catch another animal that you normally eat and eat it only using your teeth and nails (and stomach) xD
That's exactly how I made my mind. I was constantly trying to give myself different reasons not to go vegetarian, because I so much enjoyed bacon and thought that it would be worse giving up on it, than on water xD
But, after some time, you realize that it's just you trying to hide from facing your own guilty reflection. I'm still not quite there yet -- I eat some types of seafood, but I will be soon enough:)
I am thinking about being a vegetation rather than a vegetarian
Plants are living creatures too, but just because they don't feel pain, can we treat like rocks and dirt?
Can we kill a living creature, just because it doesn't feel pain? Are plants lesser creatures than us and animals? What about insects that doesn't feel pain? Can we eat them?
I'm probably going to become a vegan or a vegetarian when I go to college, or start living on my own. The arguments against meat eating are pretty solid but I don't want to be a burden to my parents by denying meat.
nahuel mendez If stopping capitalism would hurt us significantly more than if we kept doing it, by definition the arguments against stopping capitalism are stronger than the arguments for stopping capitalism.
Noah Fence
well if you believe in scientific studies...uncontrolled industrialization will harm us more than stoping the industry.
so there's no harm in stoping the animal farming industry....and there's more harm in stopping the modern farming industry is that what you're saying?
"well if you believe in scientific studies...uncontrolled industrialization will harm us more than stoping the industry."
One: False dichotomy. You can regulate the industry without stopping it. Two: I don't know what you're trying to argue here. You are literally saying that uncontrolled industrialization will hurt us more than another alternative while simultaneously saying that we shouldn't stop it. What is your point here?
"so there's no harm in stoping the animal farming industry"
There will be difficulties, but my position is that the benefits outweigh the costs.
"and there's more harm in stopping the modern farming industry is that what you're saying?"
I never contradicted myself. I was using your premise and challenging it with your logic. I never said whether or not capitalism is a good thing.
1st of all: you dont speak spanish right?...just to know, it would be awesome, but its not that necessary if it isn't your 1st language or you don't speak it fluently
"One: False dichotomy. You can regulate the industry without stopping it" in theory its true, in practice the power of wealth crushes the sense of responsibility.
"we shouldn't stop it." actually i think we cant
"There will be difficulties, but my position is that the benefits outweigh the costs"
to me it dosent seem like that
["and there's more harm in stopping the modern farming industry is that what you're saying?"
-----------
"I never contradicted myself. I was using your premise and challenging it with your logic. I never said whether or not capitalism is a good thing."]
i wanted to know if you think that and try to convince you why that ...considering uncontrolled industry,could not be truth
You can always dabble before going all-in, eat what your parents give you and experiment with dishes for yourself without having to finance it on a college-kid's grocery money. It would give you a better feel for what works for you and what (if anything) you'd want to cut.
Also, the commends make me very happy! I am really proud of all of you guys going vegan, even if we live in a society that mostly looks down on veganism, ridicules it and tells you to continue eating meat (at least, this is what I experience in the Netherlands)
I... almost want to cry. To see such a big youtube empire say these things. It means so much to me.
Although to be fair, I don't think it will change much. On this issue in particular, people seem to shut down and refuse to think about it or possibly consider changing their mind.
P.S.
Non-vegan comments:
"Vegans are going to have a field day with this one."
"Watching this while eating a delicious roast beef sandwich. The cows death was totally worth it."
"If non-human animals weren't meant to be eaten, then why are they so delicious?"
"ANIMALS AREN'T CONSCIOUS. furious vegan fanatics and animal supremacists in 3..2.."
"I WOULD go vegan but meat just tastes SOOOO good XD my pleasure and convenience is more important than the pain and death of another organism"
Still looking for those furious vegans, by the way. :P
I'm not an absolutist, nor would I kill myself to save another human, let alone another animal.
I'm not crazy, I don't believe in doing 0 harm to animals. That's impossible, just by existing as humans we harm the environment with every step we take. I'm not arguing for 0 harm to animals at all! You're completely right, the only way to completely reduce our harm would be to kill ourselves. Why would I worry about the impossible?
I'm really unsure where you even got this idea from. I never said what my own beliefs are. So.... who are you really arguing with? lol
Certainly not me!
***** "I... almost want to cry. To see such a big youtube empire say these things. It means so much to me."
Strongly suggests that you are pro-vegan.
***** He asked me where I got the idea from that he's a vegan; I gave him the bit that I found strongly hinting at it.
Or is there something else you're not seeing the point of?
Or did you not even bother readin a 3 comments long discussion before opening your mouth?
*****
_I never said what my own beliefs are._ Suggesting that my conclusions about his standing were wrong.
***** That was a general statement aiming at the videos original message of staying consistent, and not explicitly aimed at you.
I love how educational channels are actually starting to talk about this! People need to hear this and stop being so hypocritical
Peter Rabitt that's why more people have to learn how to adopt a vegan lifestyle
godjamGODJAM I know where you're coming from, because a lot of people are against the vegan diet before doing some research. But trust me when I say that little kids can be vegan just like any other human being. I know of some people who were vegan since birth and have a perfect health.
Before, when we actually needed to eat animals, because it was a question of survival, I could have understood people, but now, we could live perfectly well without eating them. The conditions in which they are kept are monstrous and I don't believe in "humanely" slaughtered because there is no way that killing a living and sentient being is humane. And by the way, you say you hunt your prey and eat them, but you mean that other people farm your prey, and then kill them for you. Half of the world would at least go vegetarian if they had to kill their own meal; and even if you do hunt your pray, don't you feel any remorse? The only thing that animal has was its life, and you took it away from them.
Oh, and before I said SENTIENT beings, because plants are not. They can't understand pain, and surely they can't even feel it. They don't have a nervous system, therefore it's highly impossible that they can actually understand (also because they don't have brains), what that feeling is.
If we hold the life of every living thing as equal we are presented with some very large problems.something that is never brought up in these conversations if that plants are by definition living thus if all life is equal why do animals get better treatment than plants which are certainly living.I mean if we are not allowed to be specious why are we allowed to be kingdomist(not giving creatures from all parts of the kingdoms equal treatment).At the end of the day it comes down to this,should someone who forgot to feed their cat be given years in prison because that is what someone who forgot to feed their child got.(also note that humanity would not have been able to produce the device you typed this comment on if they were not specious.)
+Bibi I don't know what type of farms or ranches you have been to but its clear you have only the idea of feed lots, and not open-pasture grazing with people working hard to give them as much alfalfa as they will come to get when they aren't feeling lazy. And as for the slaughtering process, it is the most humane way that can be done while still keeping up with demand. And I don't know if you have though about how we would grow enough fruit and vegetables to supply 50% of the nation. There is already a massive strain on arable land and fresh water resources which wont be getting better any time soon.
Hayes Bartlett, you do realize that feeding animals is a massive waste of land, don't you? You're worried about growing plants for about 8 billion humans, but not perplexed as to how we're currently feeding hundreds of billions of animals that will be slaughtered each year for human consumption. Odd.
I loved it. You made the point that we (including me) meat eaters are devoid or moral justification, but you did it softly. Well done. I have thought about this to death. Even though I continue to eat meat, i have concluded that it is terribly wrong of me to do so. I need to stop.
Stephen Smith, making that ethical connection between animal cruelty and food is the most important part.. Here is a link to a great website that has sound nutritional information given by a Vegan Dr it is a good place to start....Again I would like to congratulate you for making the ethical connection between animals and food. Here's that link :) nutritionfacts.org/videos/
Stephen Smith TBF there really are plenty of people who cannot live on a plant based diet only. I think American culture is pro meat to a degree that is a little crazy and we would benefit from pulling away from that but I also don't thing a vegan diet is realistic for everyone. Even plants have their cost. Namely the underpaid labor that goes into getting them to your plate.
he assumed that plants are just non sensory beings and it is ok to eat them.... today due to modern science we know plants can see through photo receptor... all plants can smell as studies show they ripen due to whiff of certain chemicals... they have sense of touch .many studies say plants respond to sounds.. and they feel happy and cry.so they have less senses than humans and animals.. does this means it is ok for you to eat beings who have less senses then animals? if yes then ... would it be ok for you to eat your brother who is dumb blind and deaf.....so i eat animals to survive same like if i would eat less sensory species of plants.
Stephen Smith I'm sorry, but as an omnivore, which us humans totally are by nature. So, it's not "tradition" why we do eat meat, that is a completley biassed idea. Also, must species we eat, like cows and pigs, are animals that we DESIGNED through centuries precisely to fullfil our eating needs, they woudnt even exist if we didnt need them for that. So, I found this episode quite biased and acually outside it's own recomendation of having to think about things rationally to do philosophpy. I think the must rational approach to meat eating would be that we are absolutley designed to do so, we have done it as a species BEFORE we were even human, and althought things have sadly gone out of hand and we should be the must humane possible in using animals for food (and clothing, and a good deal of industrial uses, and beeing killing them by thousands to have almost any commodity we have in this industral age ;-) ) The fact stays that we need them to stay alive and eating meat is not just something about "taste" in principle, although it can be at another level.
All these plant rights activists! (should we tell them that the cows they consume eat A SHITLOAD more plants than vegans do?)
Thought about going vegan for a while now, this might settle it.
Do it! Be awesome!
Ok. We will have even more meat then
@@szilveszterforgo8776 wtf?
Szilveszter Forgo
Heard about capitalism? Supply and demand?
Nice! If it's too hard they being vegetarian
Eating less meat reduces carbon footprint too!
HKO2006 Nightcore&Trance
I always respected the environmental argument more than the animal welfare one.
eating no meat meat does that too
This isnt necessarily true, if we ate mostly chicken and pork it would be better then all the land clearing that would be required to eat an entirely plant based diet.
But our carbon foot print actually saved million of plants and animals. If you think that CO2 is a pollutant you are miss informed. Don't believe the TV and main stream science, learn to think for yourself... I mean it has been proven long time ago... anthropogenic global warming is a TAX scam and pseudo science.
1. We have increased the levels of CO2 in favor of the planted. They are now close to optimal for plant growth.
2. Warm is better then cold. But the global temperatures have no significant change for the past 20 years contradicting and destroying the climate change computer models.
3. Human global warming thesis claims that our foot print is going to rise the ocean levels and endanger the collar reefs. Every single marine biologist will tell that the rise of ocean levels is extremely good for the collar reefs.
I think that Atheists who believe in the anthropogenic climate change thesis are a sign of a something terrible.
If a pseudo science thesis like human made climate change can get so popular and accepted, by the people who claim that logic and the scientific method, nullifies the need of religion because of lack of empirical evidence... The we are fucked big time I say. You are idiots and this is really SAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
Mastakur ummmmm as someone who has been studying biology and climate sciences for 5 years now, I can say your argument is a load of bologna. Warmth can kill creatures to, several plants prefer colder weathers, more violent tropical storms are created with warmer temperatures. The sea acidifies, coral bleaches and dies, the poles melt and the cold water seeps into warm currents, disrupting them and destroying whole populations of tropical wildlife. Please, leave this whole "thinking" department for those more apt for cognitive functioning....
I cried...seeing for the first time a non-vegan, unbiased channel discussing this issue with amazing clarity and objectivity.
I wish I could love this video instead of just liking it
same, feed me to my cats when I die. lmao.
Reading the comments under this video make me so happy to see the advancement of Veganism. Keep it up y'all! :D
Ikr sameee
Pigs are actually more intelligent than dogs
Yelling Hayfire That may be true (I can't say since I have very little dog experience), but let the record say that the majority of pigs I've ever encountered are catastrophic morons.
Intelligence shouldn't be a factor - would you eat someone who's mentally disabled?
I'll eat you if you can't defeat me in mortal physical combat
AbsoluteGuppy WHat
Manaphy Colours What?
What a great video, simple to understand, it shows how veganism is very rational.
(ive never been the kinda guy to care about other peoples diets or lifestyles for the record, theres nothing wrong inherently for eating meat lol) that said
this video helped me make a rational decision to stop eating meat as soon as i can, which id considered for *years* but never got to because of my familys lifestyle and my own hesitation. ive always loved crash course philosophy but this was the first video to make such an immediate change in my actions and not just my beliefs. ty!!
This is so important!! Most people just ignore this, but it matters so much. I am very much on the Peter Singer side of the debate, human mistreatment of other sentient is such a huge problem. Intelligence should not matter because you don't need to be smart to feel pain or happiness. Another often overlooked topic I'd love to see covered in a Crash Course Philosophy video is the treatment of young people by adults, and the philosophical foundations, or lack thereof, around them. Young people are often discredited and discriminated against for completely irrelevant reasons.
Thanks, Crash Course Philosophy! :)
FINALLY someone talking about the truth.
Vegan for the animals, before anything else!
And then become an efilist
@@boysteacher3818 there so relation between efilism and veganism.
I've always wanted to be vegetarian
Good for you, thats not so hard to do)
sadiq Mungus it's better to be vegan and stop all suffering caused by you
sadiq Mungus Why not do it? It isn't really that hard. It's a bit difficult at first, and then it's just like second nature to avoid meat.
+palidine champion that kind of giant change in lifestyle is very difficult though. Becoming a vegetarian is a good start.
... but I guess eating veggies all life didn't seem so appealing to you
Thank you for talking about this subject! Non-human animals are commonly ignored in this discussion. We are just one species among billions of others. Sure we're smarter but that doesn't make it ok to harm others.
And that's why I am going vegan.
first last
Im eating vegan taco. Check mate
I've been vegetarian/vegan for eleven years, and it's a fantastic change. I'm glad for the step forward, Ira!
Liar just saying that for more likes
Plants feel pain
@@smurfmemez4112 Nope, they just respond without having any mental capabilities.
Just like you did (sorry couldn't resist)
I do think there's a difference between animals and humans. The capacity to suffer is what's relevant in moral considerations. That's why we care more about people than rocks. There is also clearly a scale of suffering. Insects or fish seem to be quite limited, while mammals can suffer more. Next comes interests, as you say. A cow possibly has the same capacity for pain as me, although I'm not sure. But even if we share the lowest lows, we don't share the highest highs. This makes owning a person evil, while owning a cow is fine, because the cow has an extremely limited ability to care about or enjoy freedom. I think you actually make a strong argument that primates require a great deal more moral consideration, perhaps comparable to mentally impaired humans. Overall I agree with Singer to a certain degree. The future will look back at factory farming in shame and disgust. The lives of animals _are_ important (if not quite as important as human's) and we should strive to alleviate their suffering.
If you're not aware of pain, I don't know in what sense you'd be feeling it. But that could be an argument for cows feeling diminished pain, sure.
so we shall care to alleviate the pain of others species before our own?(that not what you said i know but its the argument of many herbivores)...cause i think we live around the globe in such a good society that pain in all kinds of levels does not exist
what do you mean with "before our own" here?
why not just try to do the best in all of the cases?
Hey Hank,
Have you quit meat yet? I know this has been on your mind for a while now. I remember when you put out a vlogbrothers clip on this a couple of years back.
As a non-animal eater, I really appreciated the way you didn't deny the reality of meat, even though you still ate it.
Knowledge is power and with power comes responsibility, soooo... you can do it!
Wow, this must be the best video recently! Thank you so much for your work.
This is precisely why I went vegan in 1973 and have never regretted it.
Wtf? How are the people who do this to the rabits not being arrested??
Ritalin Popper
Well, rabbits aren't people and I don't see what makes using them so terribly different from the mice and rats used in medical experiments. Is it just because rabbits are bigger and cuter?
Just because "rabbits aren't people", doesn't mean we can torture them by hurting their eyes and blinding them. The same applies to mice and rats.
Oleksiy
So you're against using rodents for medical research experiments?
Marlon Moncrieffe I'm against unnecessary animal testing, for things like cosmetics, which was what Hank talked about in the video. Medical research is more nuanced. As a consequentialist, I'm not categorically opposed to it (or anything really), just so long as the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. Most people agree on that point, except they don't take drawbacks (animal suffering) seriously and only focus on the benefit for humanity. At this point, I'm somewhat reluctant to believe that it's worth it, especially given the difficulty in extrapolating research data between different species. But yeah, if we're actually reducing a greater harm, by causing a lesser harm, then I'm in favor of that, whatever it is. Those are my values, but I'm ignorant on where the cost-benefit analysis would actually lead me.
Oleksiy so how about we make YOU suffer instead of the poor rabbit? To prove how righteous you really are
Omg! In India, we have all sorts of Godmen, holy men, monks and missionaries who appeal people to become vegetarian but none of them has affected me nearly as profoundly as this video!
hmm. really? what part are u from?
This shows how your brain is limited by the shackles of science , my fren
This is the third time I am watching this video. Every word resonates with me. Thanks for making it . Wish I could like it more than one
@crashcourse I've been watching your philosophy videos and I just wanted to say "thank you" for all of this hard work!
So if I understand the position correctly: It is immoral to eat anything that can feel pain. Does this mean that eating animals without a brain or developed central nervous system (jellyfish, clams, oysters, sea cucumbers etc.) would be acceptable?
Quite a few utilitarian vegans are ok with eating bivalves. From what I understand, Peter Singer doesn't have a problem with eating oysters. Usually their reasoning is that there's a gradient involved according to the probability that an animal can feel pain. In this sense, the utilitarian position is more nuanced than that of the deontological vegans who would argue that the taking of animal life is immoral regardless.
interesting
Brandon Hall some vegans would say so, but strictly from an ethical standpoint. A reason not to eat them is the environmental impact of the fishing industry on the health of the oceans and planet.
Brandon Hall yet I've seen some reports along the lines that some plants have signs of feeling pain.
They dont have brains so they can't feel pain, they can however react to things like being cut and grow in different patterns or release chemical reactions as a result. Besides, what do you think animals eat? Plants. By going on a plant based diet, there would be lower consumption of plants.
Still don't understand why you aren't vegan or at least vegetarian, Hank. You could send such a powerful message by going vegan!
Especially since you obviously know about the issues and have made multiple videos about it in the past.
I like that you bring up important/hard topics. Best channel on RUclips probably
High quality. I remember what you said though, Hank. It went something along the lines of "Some times it causes more suffering in our own life to fight against the grain, and though it's self-interested, It's the best I can do."
From a utilitarian perspective, if we're counting all animal suffering as equal, what of carnivores? Would it not be preferable for the population of lions to go extinct rather than have the many more animals be killed and eaten to sustain them? As for hunting a carnivore, wouldn't the suffering of the one carnivore that was killed be outweighed by the many more animals that were spared by removing the carnivore from the environment?
Yes. Wild animal suffering is an awfully important and neglected topic. Contrary to the idyllic view of nature, life in the wild is cruel and inhospitable to its inhabitants. This is especially true because most species are r-selected, which means they produce a lot of offspring, most of whom die well before they reach adulthood, often in painful ways. Predation, hunger, thirst, injury, parasitism, cold, heat... None of us would want to endure that, so it makes sense to feel bad for animals who have it imposed on them involuntarily.
Now, removing carnivores is a little risky because it may result in an overpopulation of herbivores, who will suffer quite a bit in their lives, even if they're not killed by a predator. A better solution is to reduce the amount of primary productivity (plant life). That way, less herbivores would be able to exist because there would be less food and, consequently, less carnivores will be able to exist.
Ideally tho, we can wipe out the whole damn thing eventually. It's not like there's any grand purpose to the whole consumption-reproduction cycle, other than its own perpetuation. But something tells me environmentalist lunatics will oppose it because "nature is sacred" or some other crazy woo. +Mgb 360
+Oleksiy I think there is more to be valued from the environmental cycle than simply an argument of nature as sacred. There are many scientific discoveries we would never have made were it not for the animals that exist in our world. As one example, lets say pigs were not nearly as tasty as they are in reality, and as such were wiped out in the 1800's because they were decided to be a nuisance. Because they have not been wiped out in reality, we now have them and can use them for some very beneficial things. We may, at some point in the future, be able to grow replacement human organs inside a genetically modified pig so that those organs can be transplanted into the human to replace failed organs. Obviously, we aren't there yet, and it leaves a potential for a lot of issues, but it is possible that, in the future, it may be worthwhile to do so. Likewise, if we decided to exterminate all life that wasn't immediately necessary for our survival, it may turn out to be a poor decision later down the line and the consequences of those actions could very well be irreversible.
Mgb 360 Killing the lion would cause an overgrowth of some populations that would lead eventually to death of many other plant eating species because of less and less plants to eat :p
+
Szkotu Szkocki There always has to be a balance to minimize death, but it's entirely possible that the balance was shifted in a way that killing the lion would be useful. Either way, lowering the total number of creatures so that the balance is lower would be preferable.
I love watching all the meat eaters in the comments regurgitate the exact arguments Hank dismissed in this video. The fact of the matter is that eating meat and animal products which require suffering is morally inconsistent. Philosophically, eating meat makes no sense for a human.
***** I did not mean "meat eater" as a derogatory term. Forgive me if it was interpreted that way.
A vegan society kills more animals than a carnivorous society.
Plainly, by the numbers, we kill far more animals and insects just through growing crops than we do by slaughtering cattle and other animals for meat, leather, and other products.
Poison, Irrigation, harvesting with heavy machines, all these things kill animals and insects, and on a far greater scale than any slaughter houses.
If we are looking at this from a Utilitarian Perspective, then we have a moral obligation to choose ranching over farming. This is simply because the suffering of a few animals to provide food, in the form of meat, for us is less than the suffering of a great many animals to provide food, in the form of plants, for us.
Going beyond that; without a need to maintain many of the animals we now use for food, we would stop taking care of them, and in many cases their entire species would be wiped out. This comes about as a result of the selective breeding that leaves many unable to even procreate without human intervention.
Micheal Goode That's a good point and I'm glad you brought it up. What you seem to be forgetting is that a large majority of all crops are used as food for livestock. Because fewer crops would be grown, fewer insects and other animals would be killed. Cutting down on animal agriculture would result in fewer animals dying in slaughter houses and fewer animals dying because of poison, irrigation, etc.
We'd still have to add to the farmed vegetables as much protein and such as we would lose from not having meat. That would still leave us killing en masse more small animals like mice, voles, snakes, and insects than ranching.
Micheal Goode I don't think you understand just quite how much of our farmland is used to feed live stock. For every pound of meat someone eats, that animal had to eat 16 pounds of farmed crops (it's somewhere between 13 and 16, you can verify yourself). If everyone stopped eating meat. There would be enough farmed crops to end world hunger many times over.
Why is everyone down here comparing living breathing animals to vegetables?
Because vegetables are also living and breathing?
Strygger all of you carnist are being so literal to deflect from the fact that you pay for murder. None of you actually think plants can feel pain like the innocent animals enslaved by the meat, fish, dairy and egg industries. No one on this earth actually thinks that way, its just a last ditch effort to stay in denial about your destructive lifestyles.
types10000 but then beef is responsible for one third of the green house gases in the atmosphere >.>
Kiwi Um. That's very closed-minded...
Why should I care about animals at all? The video itself said why: beliefs and positions need to be philosophically justified and consistent or there's literally no conversation to be had.
So why bother talking about plants? Because of the *exact same reason*. Many of the claims made in the video apply not only to animals, but also to plants or even more primitive forms of life.
Clearly you think there's a *morally relevant difference* between plants and animals. Ok, what is it?
Here's an example: maybe you think the *MRD* is that plants have no developed nervous system and therefore can't feel pain. That would be a good argument, but it has implications, because the same argument applies to pretty much all non-vertebrates. Do you think it's ok to farm jellyfish and bugs? Because if you still say no, then you're going to have to come up with a different MRD.
Kiwi Um. That's very closed-minded...
Why should I care about animals at all? The video itself said why: beliefs and positions need to be philosophically justified and consistent or there's literally no conversation to be had.
So why bother talking about plants? Because of the *exact same reason*. Many of the claims made in the video apply not only to animals, but also to plants or even more primitive forms of life.
Clearly you think there's a *morally relevant difference* between plants and animals. Ok, what is it?
Here's an example: maybe you think the *MRD* is that plants have no developed nervous system and therefore can't feel pain. That would be a good argument, but it has implications, because the same argument applies to pretty much all non-vertebrates. Do you think it's ok to farm jellyfish and bugs? Because if you still say no, then you're going to have to come up with a different MRD.
I double take’d so fast when he asked “why not eat her” lmao
Name the trait present/absent in animals which if present/absent in you would cause you to reject your right to non-exploitation. Untill you do so you hold a double standard by denying animals their right to non-exploitation.
Julian W Hee-ayy! it's the Ask Yourself fan again.
BlackMetalCrusader We meat again.
Name the trait that gives animals, or humans for that matter, their right to non-exploitation.
Jontman42 Sentience. Well, it is not like the trait does. We give objects value. I'm just checking if you are consistent.
Why does sentience give this right?
that was very interesting indeed, made me think about my choices a lot..
NUMBERS. That is what decides whether hunting is okay or not. And there are NOT enough lions to be going around hunting them, or bears, or giraffes, or wild cats!
i don't think that's the case, humans have been responsable for the extintion of any number of species over their history, hunting animals regardless of their numbers. Moreover, there are a shit ton of cats and dogs around the world, why it wouldn't be okay to eat or hunt them?.
But there are plenty of humans around, so is it ok to hunt them?
NUMBERS? Really?! Interesting... I like the way you think. Quick, someone get me the latest human population numbers.
8-9 billion really isn't that much when you compare it to insects.
So it's okay to murder them, as long as they're in abundance... got it!
What's this?... '7.5 billion humans', you don't say?
Well, this video just saved me from failing my philosophy exam tomorrow! Thank you.❤
Alright. Going vegan.
Welcome! May I suggest /r/vegan as a resource?
Yay :)
I'm impressed! Very few people are willing to turn the critical lens onto themselves and make changes that would go against the mainstream.
LOL that's all it took to convince you? I expect you'll go right back just as fast.
Reina B congrats!
Glad you raised this topic up in your content👏🏽.
Personification, pure and simple. Humans like some animals more than others. We like dogs, cats, and other traditional pets because we attribute them to being fun, innocent, loyal, caring, etc. Essentially, we project or notice certain qualities about them that we value. By contrast, we rarely think of cows, chickens, or pigs outside of their purpose as farm animals.
When Cecil and Harambe were shot, people were offended because of the circumstance. Harambe was in a zoo, would have lived a long peaceful life, if not for the child that fell in and the reaction of the staff. Cecil was in an animal in a national park, and was hunted purely for sport. He was also a member of a species which was declared endangered later that year.
As the video pointed out, you might consider self defense and/or other factors to be justification. However that doesn't apply here. Cecil was killed for a trophy and bragging rights. Harambe was shot, because an irresponsible parent neglected to stop their child from climbing into a gorilla enclosure.
As I said, we like some animals more than we like others and it shows in the manner with which we treat them.
Jon Leary personification of humans and cats over farm animals etc. in other words, speciesism
But why is speciesism bad Sundar? We can't use the way we feel as the root of our morality.
Judah Davis because you are putting your commodity before the life of others. There's no justification and you are just being tremendously hypocritical if you are against racism, sexism, but not speciesism. Sorry bout it
@@ivaaferr8141 Yes but you see that is your opinion based on how you feel about other animals. The reason why sexism and racism is wrong is because we humans are of equal value (not on a invidual basis but certainly on a global basis). You assume that animals also are of equal value but why do you think that? You have no God so what do you base your morals on?
I'll be really glad when we can grow meat in a lab cost-effectively.
Me too. I would not eat it for health reasons, but it would help more people stop eating meat.
go vegan
that solves what? the distinction is not quite that clean, even then.
but they cant SUFFER. that was the whole point-- they have no way of feeling pain and that's the distinction.
Marco Onyxheart that's an easy question, the moral differentiating trait between animals and plants is sentience.
Most of it has to do with sentience. Animals, even ones without fully developed brains tend to have neural tissue and the ability to suffer and feel pain, as mentioned in the video. Plants cannot feel pain, although they may have the ability to react to stimulus, something called noceception, this is not the same as the ability to experience pain. And anyway, if your idea is to reduce suffering (operating under the hypothetical that plants could feel pain), going vegan actually means you're killing fewer plants because the extra plants you eat barely compare to the amount of plant food that is grown and used to feed to animals that are used for meat, milk, and eggs.
You can't prove that plants don't suffer.
So glad you made an episode on this subject. Great info and go vegan!
Ah! So much truth, perfectly delivered. Thank you Crash Course
The intelligence/sentience gap between humans as a species and any other is a qualitative difference that defines all. The edge cases don't disturb this judgment, they just benefit from the deference and respect we have for humanity as a whole.
Question: Is it morally justifiable to kill animals to feed to other animals, especially when the animals we are feeding require meat to survive?
You can do that in a number of different ways. If you kill a calf and feed a tiny piece of it to your cat and throw the rest away I'd say it's not OK. If you feed it road kill or hunted invasive species I'd have less of a problem with it. So there's no black/white answer here.
I often struggle with that. I have to feed my rescued and neutered cats a bit of meat in their diet. I think the moral imperative here is to prevent species depending on meat from multiplying due to our own impact - like street animals, who tend to multiply very quickly in man-made environment, often because previous generations had been looked after, fed etc. by humans. In fact that's even true for cats, but not dogs, who can thrive on a meat-free diet. In that case I think all you can do is neuter the population, feed them as little meat as possible to allow them to live healthy lives if you look after them, and lobby for the quicker development of affordable lab-grown meat for pet food... but I'm not convinced that there is a good answer. I think the less we interfere with nature, the better, but when we have already done so, we have to try and minimise suffering in the most effective ways possible.
@Spongebob Squarepants You have my sympathy and I too can't wait for lab-grown meat to be available for cat and dog food! It'll save so many lives. I feed my kitties as little meat as I need to, they have a healthy diet altogether but it wouldn't be healthy without a bit of meat (mostly it wouldn't be very palatable to them - most of the taurine etc in meat is added as supplements rather than actually being part of the nutritional content of the meat itself, which really makes you think! I think for dogs you have a bit more leeway though, they can synthesize what they need from a broader diet, can't they, especially with well-designed veggie pet food that's available nowadays....? I'm not saying I know about that as an expert, you should definitely research it, but I have friends who've had very healthy dogs for years on a mostly vegetarian/vegan diet - but those people did really do their research to make sure their dogs were getting everything they needed, and give them a bit of high quality meat). I'm not advocating taking meat out of cats' or dogs' diets altogether - but it doesn't need to be the bulk of what they eat, by all accounts, which at least reduces demand somewhat...
Absolutely. If you are the animals keeper it is under your control, and it would be unethical to force your lifestyle upon it.
No, because they rely on meat to survive, and we don't and we also torture them, they don't.
I'm watching the previous video on discrimination.
Hank: Please share your views - *kindly and respectfully* - in the comments."
I scroll down. The comments are turned off.
Me: "Yikes."
Watching this while eating a delicious roast beef sandwich. The cows death was totally worth it.
I think it`s exactly the point. You are given a new perspective on aspect of consuming meat, and you just basically saying "i don't give a damn about morals or philosophy, I just want to write a stupid comment to get some lol's". Somebody is skipping his philosophy homework.
Сашко Дмитренко Nope, just giving an observation of my dinner and a conclusion based on my enjoyment of it.
The video doesn't condemn meat eaters, it just asks us to be consistent and question our motivations. Nothing wrong with eating meat. So probably it's you who didn't do his philosophy homework)
Sean Drum And opting not to actually engage yourself with the challenges that come with your decision.
Yaroslav Nechaev What is the morally relevant difference then?
A written transcript to accompany this video for high school students would come in very handy and make this an awesome educational tool for all learning styles
I'm a speciesist. I do however, think that we have gone too far with favoring humans, and I'd like to see a gradual shift towards a more harmonious existence between us and nature. But when push comes to shove, I'll pick humans over other animals all damn day (all else being equal).
It's not between choosing a human or a non-human animal though. It's between hurting the animal, or hurting neither (unless it's a life or death situation.) Animal agriculture is also one of the most destructive practices humans engage in
www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969715303697
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212371713000024
www.fao.org/newsroom/en/News/2006/1000448/index.html
of course you would, it is your species. but push has not come to shove, there hasn't even been a tap.
it benefits us in every way not to eat animals, so it is the logical choice to make. if a house is burning, i will save the baby before the puppy. but that hasn't happened, and no one puts a gun to someone else's head so that i'll eat meat.
Thank you both for your respectful replies. The key phrase is 'all things being equal'. Stephanie, you are right, it has not come to that (baby vs puppy). I consider it a reasonable reality that you guys are way ahead of the curve when it comes to balancing humans in nature. I lack a lot of understanding in this. I hope we can share more knowledge some time in the future.
Carson Barlow a lot of people say to watch forks over knives, then cowspiracy, and then earthlings (the first two are on netflix). while those a great documentaries and great sources, they can be a little much to digest at once. i recommend bite size vegan on youtube. she is a sea of knowledge and nonjudgemental.
stephanie santos Thank you so much for the thoughtfulness of your suggestions.
Place your bets: who's gonna be more obnoxious, vegans or non-vegans?
non-vegans,because MEAT IS GOOD ps.I'm a non-vegan
Vegans are always obnoxious... especially when they fart.
Daniel F. da Nobrega Non vegans. Vegans are harassed so much already. I never see them shouting about it anymore.
Non-vegans are more obnoxious, because of their insistence on not using reasoning.
Which one are you?
Thank u for this! I love all your videos but this was the most enlightening, interesting and bold one! ❤️
Probably my favourite video on this channel. Thank you.
I would probably eat any clean, healthy meat served to me, regardless of species. I wouldn't eat the animal if I had a bond with the individual in life, because I wouldn't personally be able to eat something I'm grieving. My issue expands from my inability to even touch uncooked meat, the texture repulses me. I couldn't kill the animal, or cut up a dead one. But if it was cooked, I could eat it. Dog, cat, whatever. So long as it's not going to kill me...
Would you also eat a factory-farmed human?
So you're okay with paying someone to kill an animal for you and you're okay with paying someone to cook an animal for you, but you can't do it yourself
+[Subjektnamen hier eingeben]
Real talk? I'm kinda curious how human would taste, ya know, properly cooked and seasoned and all that.
Not saying I'd kill someone to find out, but, ya know. Still curious.
we used to have clean, farmed dog meat
until these people started being specesist and hating on the farms
so now we get unclean, captured stray dog meat being served
the results turned out great, didn't it
ernietessein 👌🏼 hypocritical, right?
Loved it. Animals are even much more important than us for the world, without bunch of them the world would die, without us it would be perfect again. Animals are the best♥
David Rojas, if the world was void of humans then who would track down and kill all the animals that MURDER other animals. Some really sick, twisted and demented animals (yes, I am referring to cats) kill solely for the satisfaction of watching innocent animals suffer and die.
Haha yeah, the animals which hunt doves or pretty birds just for leaving them roting out there. But well, you know the world worked perfectly without us for a hundred of years, it has its order and the animals themselves are the regulators of the animal population.
David Rojas "Natural selection sure isn't brutal in anyway.
Is it wrong to kill insects too?
Adrian Duran the replies to this comment are deafaning.
i haven't read anything about the ethics or nutritional hazards/benefits of eating insects. i just know a little about all of the studies studying the huge benefits of a plant based whole foods diet
I would say there obviously becomes a grey line at one point. You have to kind of decide what's your line in the sand.
Many people go by the development of the central nervous system and the ability to feel pain. So a jellyfish has neither of these, and therefore you'd be HARD PRESSED to find someone who could defend a stance on not eating them (morality wise).
So then you'd have to look at insects and make a judgement call with the science we have.
Ara Mahar
insects have brains and a nervous system.
who cares about eating them, the wholesale slaughter of them for inconveniencing people should put the vegans in a truly ambiguous moral dilemma.
does insects have a brain and nervous system?
I am a vegan since 3 years. Its a beautiful way of living life without causing any harm to the most innocent being. And its very important to spread this message. Its important to stop animal breeding and all stuffs to save our EARTH.
what about insects?
Gerardo Rosa second comment about insects I have stumbled across and again the only response is crickets.
Insects are not a main source of food (at least in my culture). And as far as i know, it's still debated whether they feel pain.
They TOTALLY can FEEL PAIN. Why shouldn't they? They have the same Central nervous system as we. There is no question about it.
They have such a short lifespan, it seems that the learning behaviour associated with pain avoidance would not be effective. Admitedly I am not an expert on the subject. I strive to avoid hurting insects too, just in case.
James Fox
cicadas live up to 17 years, how much time do they need?
Good stuff. Very thought-provoking.
5:00 Tis but a scratch
I love the arguements you chose to fit into 10 mins.
Go vegan!
:)
Álvaro Sendra González +++ :)
Vegan Geezer yes!
No, YOU go vegan. And leave everyone else to decide for themselves. It's not for everyone. :)
LOL, nope.
This hurts my heart.
I'm so happy I do not eat meat.
I love all animals.
Veganism isn't about saving animals, it's about not killing them.
Also if she wants she can save animals too, have you ever heard of an animal rescue farm?
Christopher Murray My idelness... ? Excuse you, you do not know me and I'm extremely involved with helping animals on the streets. I do my part to be a better human, to be kind to other living beings.
oh, so it's irrational to be happy about causing much less harm to animals, polluting the enviroment in a much lower scale, and eating much healthier? please
www.countinganimals.com/how-many-animals-does-a-vegetarian-save/
here is the article
and also not counting the animals killed to make eggs and milk, another not-quite-so-small sum
and why would the scientists create lab-grown meat if there isn't a demand for it? vegans create demand for it, not meat-eaters.
also, most people who work in those lab-grown meat are VEGANS themselves!
and excuse me but I really doubt your assumptions that the "meat that is laying in stores go to waste", "because of me", allegedly, is hurting the animals more than the person who actually keeps buying meat and thus creates more demand for it.
Amazing video, so much needed information
And great that it's coming from such a big channel too :)
This the best one I've seen, and I love this show
The Answer? Nothing. All life is equally meaningless.
just a boi Now you're catching on.
Cody Sprigg You're overthinking it. Just roll with the anarchy.
Sartre would you just chill out?
Cody Sprigg That argument says nothing about why things should be objectively meaningful. Complexity does not mean objective, meaningful existence/function in the universe.
You can make arbitrary conparisons to asymptotically degrade the meaning of something.
But this is only a perspective trick.
You know there is meaning in YOU not suffering.
I will see you running from what BAD IS.
awww this is my favorite episode of Crash course ever!
Reaching back to the video on personhood and similar one's, our taxonomy and biology are different. Yes, I eat non-human animals and I see no reason to cease
Pain, suffering, death, environmental destruction, negative health effects. No reason?
The argument at the end was so spot-on for so many people I know who bash on "vegans" or "vegetarians" in saying that eating meat is justified because the animals being eaten don't matter because meat is meat. But, with that same statement how could anyone say that eating dog (like in many Asian countries) is a justified thing to do.
I would argue that you and I can only be responsible for things we can do. For example, I cannot slaughter a pig because I own no pigs nor, if I were to steal or buy a pig, have experience in proper butchering. However, I can buy bacon as I have bought other things.
The way I see it, there are two defenses against this (though if there are more, please correct me). First, the obvious "This is no better than the but that's how it's always been done argument". Second, "You could just as easily come into possession of vegan objects".
To counter the first: There's a reason it has always been done this way, because we cannot take actions we are not capable of taking. Let's say I make 2000 a month, rent is 1000, utilities are 200, and bills that ensure continued employment are 600. I then have 200 dollars to sustain myself with until the next month. I can buy 2 burgers for 2 dollars, knowing that I will not risk hunger, or I can risk 2 dollars on greens hoping that they will sustain me. As I cannot afford the risk, the risk is not taken.
Which leads to the second: The reason greens are a risk is because not all are readily edible, and those that are generally are more expensive than an equally priced fast-food product. Were I to stockpile potatos and chives, the potatos could last maybe a month, but I'm not aware of a wholly potato diet. Lettuce is a dollar, sure, but it's not filling.
I personally believe the case for the first is pretty strong, as otherwise you would be asking people to risk their livelyhood on switching diets. The case for the second I make based on my experience. I did try to eat lighter, but not everyone starts at 70 lbs, and if you drop too fast you're going to do some serious damage.
I suppose an argument could be made about the worthwhileness of one's livelyhood, but I think a fundamentally good thing is a plethora of experiences. There are plenty of sorrowful and untimely experiences that can be learned about to sustain life longer, but as current experience holds that obtaining wealth would lead to continued life and production of more experiences, sacrificing one's livelyhood would not be justified.
/tldr : Going vegan is expensive, experiences guide "life" and more is better, wealth allows for more experiences.
I can definitely support the notion that, let's call it vegan food, is not as readily available as going to a diner/fast food restaurant and purchasing a quick meal.
When I was living in Boston, attending college, I was a flat broke 22 year old with barely enough money to make it out of the month. I was definitely not vegan then. I was interested in enjoying food that tasted good, that was quick to find and buy, and that didn't put a hole in my pocket.
In my opinion, I could argue now that this was a selfish, but survivalist way of living. I didn't care about saving animals, protecting the earth, or trying to be healthy. Occasionally, I did try to eat as well as I could, but it was never a priority.
My point here is that I agree with your statement that a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle requires more wealth than just eating whatever one needs to make it through the week. However, I can just as easily argue against that saying, that if I used my current state of wealth to live a much more luxurious lifestyle, I could forget my vegan mentality and resort back to a cheap food/ quick meal diet. I could get a better apartment, lease a much more expensive car, and take my girlfriend out to dinner at least twice a week. I could be living under the same conditions as I was when I was vegan, but instead of using my money as a tool for better health, I would now be using it to upgrade my present state of self-worth, luxury, and materialism.
But now, let's go back to my current vegan state, with all of my current living standards. If I was to get fired from my job, with a significant pay decrease, I would have to seriously plan out each week what food I was going to buy, when and how to cook it, and make sure I was getting the proper nutrients to sustain myself. This would be a very stressful lifestyle because I would also have to balance paying for living expenses, and there wouldn't be much room for free time or spontaneous activities. However, I think that with the proper strategy and positive state of mind, I could make it happen. I could plan out monthly budgets and activities to fill up the month. And, with extra money leftover sometimes, I could take a Saturday just doing whatever I wanted.
So, I would like to hear your thoughts on whether you think living healthy could be something that all people could do if they focused on balancing all aspects of their life with the proper education, or if you think that human beings have an instinctual tendency to look out for the self and live a survivalist lifestyle thus ever preventing us from moving on past a single-minded existence.
It really makes me think that human beings need to evolve again. We need to overcome our small group-think cultures and adopt a more full-species way of living. This, I think would make us similar to the honey bee, and then I guess somewhat robotic. But in my opinion, having all humans working together toward a humanist lifestyle that benefits ourselves and the earth would be an incredible thing. Maybe not in my lifetime, but I can hope.
Thanks for bringing up this very subject, this problem kept me occupied for a long time now.... Though I'm vegetarian and soon will become a vegan, I don't necessarily feel moraly superior to someone who eats meat just for that reason. I mean, as a biologist I get the idea that some species have to eat other species for survival and that they just can't treat those other species the same way as their own kind in order to surive as a species. Ok sure, people don't have to eat meat in today's western societies for survival but there are some nutrients that are really hard to come by with a just vegetarian diet, like omega-3 fatty acids which are an essential part of human brain development. Of course there are some ways to get them artificially but is that really the right way to go? Although I know that our prehistoric ancestors were mostly vegetarians, meat was a crucial part of their diet nonetheless. There's even a well-grounded theory that many of our phsyical traits like our upright walk and our wrinkling fingers derive from an ancesstor who specialized in fishing with his hands in shallow water. So is it ok to justify eating meat on a regular basis because nature "intended" me to eat like that or because it's my biological identity?
Barello, I love that you are asking questions. I want to thank you for having an open mind and ask yourself the difficult question.. Do I NEED to kill a living sentient being in order for me to survive.. This is a HUGE question that has many interesting sides.. enjoy your journey :)
Barello Smith Buddy science is the right way to go about this if it means it can cause less suffering. And you have any right to feel morally superior than the rest of us because you are if you're vegan.
(No need to be offended, non-vegans, I'm not a vegan or even vegetarian too.)
The question is, why is it ok to kill and eat plants, but not animals?
Because of pain and suffering? So, can we mutilate plants into funny shapes of food, just because they don't have pain receptors? They are living creatures like fluffy, so, what if Fluffy didn't have pain receptors? can we kill and eat fluffy because he won't suffer? Are plants inferior creatures?
Solitude--- My brain just exploded. I'm just gonna go eat some dirt, k?
DISCLAIMER: As written text lacks the ability to put *emphasis* (as exemplified there) on words and phrases which is so important in the conveying of meaning in spoken text, I use *bold text* as a substitute for that ability. Therefore, any abundance of bold text in this post should not be viewed as any emotional instability or otherwise as an indication of irrational behaviour on my part, but instead as an attempt to convey as much meaning as possible with my words in this limited format.
A difficult topic, certainly. But nonetheless, here is my attempt at a response.
Equal Consideration of Interests, as you call it, should of course go all ways it can. You rightly pointed out that owning or eating a Human Being _[or Fluffy the cat, for that matter -- but I'll get back to her]_ is seen as morally abhorrent, and thus owning or eating a non-Human Animal should be seen the same way according to the Principle of the Equal Consideration of Interests.
However, you neglected to consider the case which goes the other 'way round: if, say, the consumption for culinary or nutritional considerations (i.e. "eating") of non-Human Animals by Humans is seen as morally abhorrent, shouldn't the eating of non-Human Animals by *other non-Human Animals* seen the same way? After all, isn't the point of Philosophy, in your words at least, that we should be internally consistent? Why should the catching (and often *torturing*, no less) and subsequent consumption of the flesh of a mouse by Fluffy the cat -- there she is again -- be OK when we view similar treatment of Humans and non-Human Animals alike by Humans as morally abhorrent? Or, alternatively, if we are OK with Fluffy doing what she does to the mouse, why shouldn't we be OK with what Humans do to non-Human Animals?
Speaking of that line of thought, the thing about _"This is the way it's always been."_.... Not only has it been this way for the life-span of the Human Race, but it has been this way for the *entirety* of the existence of *Life on Earth*. You could say it's the "natural order of
things", in a way, and that there is no reason to change something which has *literally* been the case *for as long as there WERE cases* to consider. I'm not sure whether I'd say this is a good argument myself, but it is certainly one to consider. And, most importantly, to not misrepresent by saying it only applies to the time Humans were on Earth, as supposed to the time Life Itself was on Earth.
My own, personal answer is that, just as I wouldn't want non-Human Animals to be tortured by Humans, I'd stop Fluffy _[or Munky, for that matter, who was my cat who died a little under a year ago]_ from torturing mice if I knew of a way to convince them. However, as I am perfectly OK with Fluffy, Munky or any other cat *eating* _[and catching, for that matter, if the kill would be instantaneous]_ mice, I also have no trouble with Humans eating non-Human Animals.
I do, however, think that the use of non-Human Animals for needs *other* than consumption of the flesh for eating purposes -- say, testing Cosmetics -- should be moved away from with utmost haste as soon as humanly _[he he]_ possible for the moral reasons discussed in this video and above in this post. I also think the ownership of Animals for the purposes of doing something with them that would kill them should be moved away from as much as possible as soon as possible, and not just for the Philosophical and Moral reasons that apply -- owning and feeding a cow, for example, to the point of raising it so that it's meat may be consumed or new cows can be born is equivalent to many, many miles of driving a really old and heavily CO2-emitting car. Not sure how many miles anymore, but I do remember it's a lot. On the other hand, we are perfectly OK with Humans working for other Humans, as long as the working conditions -- and, should they be housed by the Company, living conditions -- are of a high standard and they get payed for what they do. Similarly, it could be argued that, say, keeping a Cow for the purposes of extracting her milk is justifiable, as long as the "working conditions" and living conditions are of a high quality _[so the Factory Farms are, indeed, completely and utterly unacceptable and should be banned with utmost haste]_ and they get rewarded in some way for their "work" of producing and giving milk.
Post was too long, so I am replying to myself in order to cut the post up into post-able parts.
Going back to Fluffy and Munky the cats and why we shouldn't eat them:
it's true that most people would have little trouble shooting an assailant in self-defense. However, the troubles -- at the very least for the person who has to actually shoot the gun -- become significantly higher if the assailant happens to be a close friend. That's why, in the U.S. with it's frankly insane Gun Laws _[but that's a discussion for another time]_, the shooting of unknown criminals breaking into one's home is significantly higher than the shooting of drunk friends who attack in a fit of rage; even though I doubt the chances of the former occurring to any given person are significantly higher than the chances of the latter occurring.
I also doubt many people see anything wrong with this discrepancy. Personally, I do see something wrong with the discrepancy for shooting someone dead, but not, say, for a discrepancy that also exists when it comes to calling the police with regards to violent behaviour. We simply care more _[in the sense of the actions we take to protect vs. harm them]_ for people we.... well..... care more about _[in the sense of emotional attachment]_. Going back to the Equal Consideration of Interests and how it should apply in all cases: if we conclude that treating a Human friend with more respect than a Human stranger, it becomes clear why should not be surprised or feel it's unjustified when people want to give a proper burial to a non-Human friend, but are perfectly OK with eating an anonymous cow, or pig. Though, yes, the refusal to eat an anonymous dog or other "cute" animal is totally unjustified and should be argued against with utmost fervour.
Speaking of dying non-Human Animals, though, here's an interesting aside for thought-bubbles of anyone who might be reading this: my cat, Munky, was Euthanized. And while I was not entirely comfortable with it, the Veterinarian convinced me that she was in so much suffering that it was better this way. However, unlike me, most people see *no problem whatsoever* in Euthanizing Animals.
Now, I, personally, also see no insurmountable problems with the Euthanization of Humans who are suffering. I also think that, as Humans are perfectly capable of communicating their own suffering, it should be entirely up to the person themselves to decide if they want to be Euthanized, possibly with some consideration time _[say, a day or three]_ to make sure it isn't a "spur of the moment thing". Then again, this could also be due to the fact that I'm Dutch, and we were, like with many of the more recent advancements in rights of people _[go the Netherlands!]_ the first to instigate proper Euthanasia Laws and are still one of the most advanced when it comes to the right to end one's own life in a dignified manner. However, many other people are considerably less comfortable with Euthanasia of Humans. For those among that group of people who *are* comfortable with the Euthanization of pets and other non-Human Animals, here's my own personal Thought Bubble assignment: how do you justify this discrepancy in the moral assessment of Euthanasia between Humans and non-Human Animals? I'd love to hear some answers.
Let's, lastly, discuss Cecil the Lion. As I recall _[though I could be wrong]_, Cecil was part of an Endangered Species _[actually, I learned that his species was added to the list a relatively short amount of time after his death -- which makes this argument still apply unless the addition to the list was done solely _*_because_*_ of Cecil's death and the outcry it caused]_, so killing him and others of his species endangers the species as a whole. I personally think that, along with the Principle of Equal Consideration, one of the *(several)* things that should be taken into account when considering whether something is morally right or wrong, and in exactly *how* right or wrong it is, is in the __ that an action causes. When the action causes *irreversible* loss, the action should be deemed almost completely unacceptable in almost all cases, due to the sheer danger to the world the action causes. When the action *threatens* to cause irreversible loss, the actions should be deemed highly unacceptable in almost all cases.
On top of that, Cecil was part of an important study done by several researchers. The actions of Walter Palmer, dentist and recreational trophy hunter, severely damaged the research of those people. So not only was Lion-kind harmed, but so was Human-kind's understanding of Lion-kind. And, if you decide to be speciesist, you should at the very least consider the harm the killing of Cecil did to the advancement of Human Knowledge. Not that I argue for being speciesist, mind you, but it's useful to consider arguments that appeal to those who hold different views from your own -- it makes it a lot easier to convince more people of doing or supporting the right thing.
Thus, in conclusion: I think that the difference in outrage over the killing of Cecil vs. killing a cow for food was justified because his death caused considerably more harm, both to Cecil's species and our own, than killing a Cow -- or a Pheasant if you want to limit yourself to Wild Animals, which considering the considerations above and in the video is entirely reasonable -- does to the Cow or Pheasant species. Or the Human species, for that matter, but that should be obvious.
Finally, I have a question for you and other Philosophers, and I'd *really* like a good, carefully considered answer to this from a Philosopher who has given it some serious thought -- which, I know, is hard, given that it's about the very core of what you guys do.. You said _"Philosophers want you to be able to justify your actions."_, and you have given arguments based on the same premise in the past.
Why, though? Why do Philosophers *require* that we'd *always* be able to justify our actions. Maybe someone says _"In general I want to be rational, but when it comes to eating non-Human Animals I have no problem being irrational. I also believe that I can both desire to be rational in the general case and decide I am OK with being irrational in specific cases"_. Why is this line of reasoning so objectionable to you? Do you have proper Philosophical / Rational / Logical reasoning for why unjustified actions are *always* wrong _[as opposed to _*_usually_*_ wrong]_? Or is it just because _"That's the way Philosophers have always done things"_ or something similar?
despite what vegans claim, humans are naturally omnivores. despite that
one graphic, you cannot identify an omnivore by looking at it's teeth or
claws; omnivores as a rule always look like either carnivores or
herbivores. because of this it is very difficult to have a healthy diet
in the absence of meat, and genuinely impossible if you live somewhere
like kenya.
the issue with this video and veganism in general is that it insists on
lumping all animals together.
the fact is that a gorilla is not at all comparable to an insect. I
feel that it's a pretty straightforward standard to measure whether it's
okay to treat an animal like that is if the animal is intelligent
enough to object. that is, if it has the capacity to understand the
concept of rights. so elephants and apes? no cigar. but chickens and
cows? fair game.
even if the way animals are treated in factory farms could be considered
cruel, all that would mean is that we need to reform the way animals
are treated in factory farms.
lastly, you should know that a lot of the ideas you vegans have about
cows and milk is just wrong. yes, the calves are yanked away from the
mother, but only for as long as it actually takes to milk the mother.
additionally because of the way we've domesticated cows, when we go without
milking them, the milk builds up within them and starts to hurt a good
deal. I should know, since there are a lot of farmers where I live.
I am thus rather skeptical of the other acts attributed to farmers by
vegans, not the least because a lot of them seem to serve no purpose
other than to inflict pain.
Best episode thus far I’ve seen on this channel.
this is the justification:
A) i want to live as well as possible.
B) i need people around me to live well so that i can be well, because. we coexist.
C) for them to live well, and develop the potential that makes it possible for all of us to live well, we should all care about each others well being.
D) animals dont contribute to our well being beyond the utility that we assing them.
E) therefore, i cant reasonably discriminate and opress other humans, because that would hinder my ultimate goal of universal human wellbeing that is needed to ensure my own, but i can do whatever i want with animals. although since they are a resource, they should be treated and used responsibly and not used to test makeup or other unnecessary stuff.
There are millions of vegans who live well on a plant based diet. They actually love it more than animal foods.
How is testing makeup (and its far more brutal than putting lipstick on pigs) on animals any different than causing them tremendous amounts of suffering just for our pleasure as food?
I like totally get caught up on the value of my own life all of the time, the amount of plants, I have ate and animals. I question the value of my own life over any other existence of anything... Also intelligence is a human made up word, definition and standard... Are humans even really the most intellectual... :( smh It's human-centric ideologies..
If intelligence does not reference a meaningful organization in reality, then what is the thing we call intelligence? By that, I mean the mechanisms whereby an entity is better suited to projecting hypothetical realities and selecting whichever is deemed most beneficial, given the entity's goals.
I think human's do posses the greatest ability to do the above. Consequently, The rest of nature doesn't give the slightest care for your quandary. Value, on the other hand, is a bit more abstract and arbitrary and is contingent upon intelligence existing, in that, without some form of intelligence, it is pretty darn hard to value anything. A simple ant can be said to have a set of values, but no where is it considering value in the abstract.
According to nature, and by the rules of its game, the only entity patterns worthy to progress to the next slice of time are those that preserve themselves. Energy accumulation for the purpose of information preservation and expansion is the only value that matters at this level. If creating a set of values helps you to not die long enough to reproduce and ensure offspring success, or if it helps you more broadly ensure your species success, then your pattern is acceptable to nature, and is likely to be repeated.
At a different level, if you can use intelligence and agency to preserve yourself and also safeguard others in the process, well, that is unique.
PETA's going to have a field day on this
Num Num Tasty is this a copy and paste? Or did you edited the comment from "vegans" to "PETA"?
what are you talking about? why would I c-c c-v another comment ?
Num Num Tasty Because there is another comment exactly like yours under this video.
7:22 yes it is about harm... to *me*. Eating an animal that is on top of a food chain is a bad idea. Toxins of all their prey will have accumulated in them. Furthermore the only valid reason to eat meat is pleasure. I don't expect the meat of an old sickly cat to be any good. But if you reframe it to a younger kitten that was driven over and died under your porch. I'd guess the meat would be more like a nice rabbit (plus some extra toxins).
I mostly eat a whole foods plant-based diet, but mainly for selfish reasons. My health comes first, and that using agricultural area for food instead of animal feed is more efficient and sustainable comes only as a nice byproduct. That my diet puts me in the same category as the moral vegans (that only come off their high horse for the horses sake, and not to be any less obnoxious) in the views of many, I find a unfortunate evil.
One of my argument is the argument of self-awareness. Suffering means nothing if the one suffering is just a non self-aware biological robot. That means anything around octopus and above are not to be harmed or at least that is my version of self-awareness. Now who determine which species is self-aware since we can't even legitimately prove that any other human beside ourselves is self-aware. It is us, we agreed to agree that human is self-aware with no exception. The agreement to agree is a social contract so the animals we determine as self-aware is the one we as a society choose.
What about "Non-Animal Humans?"
Sometimes I can swear my sister is a vegetable, and I think it would be okay to kill her.
I hope you are kidding
Alexander Nasonov Yep, it's a joke.
That is being discussed in Europe right now. Artificial Intelligence Laws. Cutting edge Philosophy.
Don’t choke on the wheelchair
Hey Therion just wanted to say 93, 93 93/93
Powerful video. Thank you for this!
I absolutely love this! Thank you, Hank!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Points to consider:
1) One of the possible candidates for "morally significant reason" for justifying different treatment between animals and humans are those related to religious beliefs, such as Christian doctrine that humans are special for having a spirit and been made in the image of God and having direct permission by him to use animals for adequate reasons (feeding e.g.);
2) Singer's principle won't hold because we experience suffering in a different way than animals do (what philosophers would call 3rd level suffering compared to first and 2nd levels by animals).
I think you should have talked about economical arguments.
LOVE THE VIDEO! 🌿💕
Vegan for 10 + years. This is a great video. Shared it with my friends :)
I am very much split on this subject. On the one hand I totally agree with the arguments in the video. The industrial torturing and slaughtering of animals is one of the worst things humans have ever done and not justifiable in the end. On the other hand, humans have not invented meat-eating. Hunting other animals for food has been around for almost as long as animals exist. People say "that's nature" when a cat brutally murders a mouse even if it's not hungry, yet a human is morally questioned when doing likewise.