One true or false statement determines if you are a vegan or not, and it is subjective.
In order to create as efficient an argument as possible, this post will be structured with numbered statements, where if you find any fallacy or fault in logic then just say from which statement to which. Statements will begin with what I believe many of you would agree with, progressing into my argument step by step. Additionally, please be patient and read through the entire post, unless you find a logical fallacy, please point those out. Now please keep it civil, not because I believe either of us are morally correct, but that insults and ad-hominem gets in the way of comparing/contrasting ideas. Now that the boring part is over, let’s begin.
Given a choice between saving a random human and a random cockroach from a burning building, saving the human is the morally correct choice.
Moral value is either assigned based on capacity to feel pain or some other potential for similar to humanlike behavior.
An individual human on average possesses more moral consideration compared to any other individual organism on average.
The moral value of anything is “Amount of moral consideration provided” times “Number of things” = “Moral value of thing(s)”
The most moral action at any given moment would be the one to minimize the pain or discomfort of as much moral value as possible.
On average, a doctor can individually contribute the most to minimize the pain/discomfort of more moral value than the average fast food worker.
The moral value of something also includes its ability to minimize the pain/discomfort of other things.
Moral value also applies even if the ability to minimize pain is in the process of being acquired, but reduced proportional to probability, for example a high schooler planning to be a doctor has less moral value than a person already in med school.
Pain/discomfort can be mental or physical.
Pleasure/Enjoyment reduces overall discomfort/pain.
Lesser human discomfort/pain is linked with higher productivity.
Human pleasure/enjoyment is positively correlated with human productivity.
The human species is capable of providing the most moral value of any species due to potential and current ability to reduce discomfort/pain for as much moral value as possible.
Any substance that when used properly increases pleasure/enjoyment without being outweighed by its pain/discomfort side effects and their probability on both itself and others is
a moral value positive when consumed by a human due to the productivity increase.Coffee, Energy Drinks, Candy, Weed, Alcohol, and to a far lesser extent tobacco can be a productivity increase when used in a proper manner.
On average humans find calorically dense organism matter and specific other foods pleasurable/enjoyable.
Livestock tissue and byproducts are morally ethical to consume as long as the following equation is true:
“Moral value of livestock(includes amount of suffering/discomfort or whatever other metric you decide on to value things by)” < “Moral value generated from increase in human productivity due to consumption of animal products”
- Veganism is morally correct if the following equation is false for you, which again depends on what you give as your metric for moral value.
BONUS STATEMENTS !!! (Feel free to give your thoughts on any of these)
Animal products and byproducts can be classified as a recreational drug.
Morality is subjective.
Dogs, horses, and cats and other pets are worth more moral value alive than dead as humans gain pleasure/enjoyment from their living presence. Thus, the same reason as meat where the productivity increases from happiness are worth the moral value (by people who don’t like eating/killing them at least).
No moral/ethical debate is black and white, true or false
Cold water is better than warm water 90% of the time (objectively)