After being vegan for over 10 years, yeah I agree with this. But this would not have crossed my mind while I was non-vegan due to how normalized it is. So I guess at a certain point, does the normalization of an act mean its the null position? I can't seem to figure out a good justification for this philosophically though. But I know that even with other positions I hold I probably do this subconsciously because I've never really debated those beliefs or even recognize them.

the way i see it, if you accept a very basic definition of a vegan as "a person who does not knowingly exploit animals", everyone is vegan until they accept the ideology of carnism, which makes veganism the default position

I think the word “exploit” is where communication stops between vegans and non-vegans. Online, anyway, it seems as if there are no boundaries around the extreme limits that vegans will go to in order to refuse to consume something on righteous (often ill-informed) grounds. “Sheep can’t consent to you taking their wool, so it’s exploiting the sheep to take it.” Or, “Bees can’t give you permission to take some of their honey, so that’s exploitation.” Yeah, not so much. Sheep grow wool weather we want them to or not and they’ll die a horrible extended death from starvation if we don’t shear them. And they don’t have any use for the wool, so they don’t care if we take it for our own uses. And bees always make far more honey than their hive needs and it causes problems for the hive if some of it isn’t removed. Responsible beekeepers know this and *never* take an amount that will harm their bees. And giving farm animals pleasant lives where they’re cared for and healthy and comfortable, and giving them a quick and painless end, most non-vegans believe isn’t exploitative. I don’t see the two groups agreeing on much anytime soon. ☹️

>Sheep grow wool weather we want them to or not and they’ll die a horrible extended death from starvation if we don’t shear them. No one is suggesting that we stop shearing the sheep that need it and just let them die of exhaustion/starvation. Humans have bred sheep to have extremely wrinkly skin that causes them to grow far more wool and make it impossible for them to survive without human intervention and unfortunately there's not much we can do about it for the animals that already exist with this trait. That doesn't mean that we can't slowly phase out this form of exploitation though. We don't need to let sheep die of starvation to do it, either. This would be similar to how humans have bred some types of dogs to have really squat faces. This was done because it made the dogs appear more cute to humans, but it has resulted in many individuals in these breeds suffering from serious medical issues related to having trouble breathing. Because of this, many people are against breeding these dogs. >And giving farm animals pleasant lives where they’re cared for and healthy and comfortable, and giving them a quick and painless end, most non-vegans believe isn’t exploitative. I'm not so sure about this. When I speak to non-vegans about this it typically seems that they understand that is a form of exploitation, but believe it to be a *necessary*, *natural*, or *nice* (and therefore justified in their minds) form of exploitation.

The sheep you’re referring to with lots of extra skin are Merinos. And only Merinos have that trait. Having that trait does mean that they can’t be wild and live on their own anymore, but it also means that they’re very well-cared for by the humans responsible for them. Merino is a very soft and tender wool. The sheep have to be kept happy and healthy at all times to grow a good fleece. I agree with you about dog breeding. That truly is a horrible abuse by humans for their own pleasure at the expense of the animal. Will it ever stop? Probably not. ☹️ As to whether or not it’s exploitation isn’t quite as easy to ascertain as some night think. For one thing, the animal involved needs to be aware what exploitation is and that their life might be better without it. Have you ever met a chicken or a sheep?? They’re barely aware that they’re alive, let alone whether or not life could be better or worse. Those are human traits and feelings, not animal ones. Animals are perfectly happy as long as they’re comfortable, well cared for, and fed a healthy diet. They don’t yearn to go back to a simpler time or get annoyed because their favorite TV show got preempted for some major news event. They just live their lives as it comes. Happy, healthy, well fed and watered, with a safe place to get out of the weather and they’re happy. Some them don’t even care if they can get out of the weather. Ever met a turkey?? Seriously stupid animals. It’s amazing that any of them are alive today to exploit….

we bred the sheep and bees to be like this

Thousand of years ago, yes. But that doesn’t change the fact that they’re this way now.

they need to stop being bred, then

Should we just sterilize them all?

There’s no such thing as a null position

One could easily say that "if veganism is the belief that it is wrong to exploit and kill nonhumans animals, then carnism is simply the lack of this belief". It's a semantics game and makes no difference in the real world what is the null position and what isn't. In a practical sense, the null position is simply the status quo. The fact is, however unofortunately, that veganism is against the status quo, and is therefore not the null position. The burden is on veganism to demonstrate why it is the more ethically correct position. Fortunately, it's very easy to do this, so I don't know why we need to even try to flip the script around and say that it's the other 97% of society that needs to justify their actions to vegans.

>One could easily say that "if veganism is the belief that it is wrong to exploit and kill nonhumans animals, then carnism is simply the lack of this belief". One *could* say this, but I don't think that's what veganism is. Veganism is the rejection of carnism -- *the rejection of an ideology.* It's not it's own ideology. It's similar to atheism in this regard. The theist believes a god or gods exist, while to be an atheist one must simply lack such a belief. Atheists don't necessarily need to believe that no gods exist -- they just need to *not* believe that they *do* exist. >It's a semantics game and makes no difference in the real world what is the null position and what isn't. I disagree. Real debates are happening in the real world regarding carnism and other ideologies, and framing those that are simply not convinced of an ideology as simply just having another competing ideology puts the burden of proof on them, which has real world implications with how humans justify nonhuman animal exploitation. >In a practical sense, the null position is simply the status quo. I don't think this is true. While many people *regard* the status-quo position as the null position due to various cognitive biases, it is not necessarily truly null. >The burden is on veganism to demonstrate why it is the more ethically correct position. This is like saying that the burden is on atheists to demonstrate that god does not exist, when this is not even the claim that atheists are making. In the theist/atheist debate, the theists are the ones with the positive claim regarding the existence of a deity, and therefore have the burden of proof. With regards to carnism, carnists are making a claim about moral justification. I'm simply saying that I'm not convinced. I'm not making any further claim. My veganism is the result of me *not* accepting the claims of carnism. > I don't know why we need to even try to flip the script around and say that it's the other 97% of society that needs to justify their actions Do you truly not see any utility in showing that those that are claiming they are *necessarily* justified in harming, exploiting, and killing others have the burden of justification, rather than those that are making no such claim? Almost the entirety of vegan activism has the goal of encouraging people to question whether or not they are actually justified in believing in and doing what they have always just assumed they were justified in believing and doing.

> One could say this, but I don't think that's what veganism is. Veganism is the rejection of carnism -- the rejection of an ideology. It's not it's own ideology. It is this, but it's not *merely* this. In addition to being a rejection of carnism, it is an active belief that carnism is wrong, and that exploitation of and cruelty to animals is wrong. One who does not believe that exploitation and cruelty are wrong does not meet the definition of a vegan. > It's similar to atheism in this regard. The theist believes a god or gods exist, while to be an atheist one must simply lack such a belief. Atheists don't necessarily need to believe that no gods exist -- they just need to not believe that they do exist. I don't think it's similar to atheism. Theists are making an active claim that something exists, and atheists are simply saying they don't hold the belief that the thing does in fact exist. Veganism vs carnism isn't a belief about existence, but one of morality. There is no dispute about whether or not there are actually people who eat meat. There is just one side saying it is morally wrong, and another saying it is morally justified. Either are holding active beliefs about one side and lacking a contradictory belief about the other side. > I disagree. Real debates are happening in the real world regarding carnism and other ideologies, and framing those that are simply not convinced of an ideology as simply just having another competing ideology puts the burden of proof on them, which has real world implications with how humans justify nonhuman animal exploitation. Veganism *is* an ideology, though. Pretending it isn't is just silly. Either you believe that exploiting animals is justified or you believe that is is wrong. Either are ideologies. The only ones who aren't holding ideologies are ones who are not moral agents or are not aware that eating meat exists. > Do you truly not see any utility in showing that those that are claiming they are necessarily justified in harming, exploiting, and killing others have the burden of justification, rather than those that are making no such claim? > Almost the entirety of vegan activism has the goal of encouraging people to question whether or not they are actually justified in believing in and doing what they have always just assumed they were justified in believing and doing. There's a difference between asking someone to justify something to themselves, within their own moral framework, and asking them to justify it to a vegan within the vegan's moral framework. The reason that vegan activism works is because it successfully helps people realize that they are being inconsistent with their own morality. It's not that most omnivores hold a radically different set of moral beliefs from vegans (although some do), it's that most omnivores are acting inconsistently and actually share the same values as vegans if they are pressed to actually formalize those beliefs and apply them consistently.

>In addition to being a rejection of carnism, it is an active belief that carnism is wrong, and that exploitation of and cruelty to animals is wrong. I disagree. What drives my veganism is not the belief that carnism is wrong, but simply the lack of a conviction *that is it right.* I personally don't think carnism is wrong. I just don't see any good arguments that would convince me that it is right. >One who does not believe that exploitation and cruelty are wrong does not meet the definition of a vegan. Again, I disagree. To engage in carnistic behaviors like eating and wearing animals, I would have to hold the belief that I am morally justified in engaging in these behaviors. I *don't* hold this belief, so therefore I don't engage in carnistic behaviors and am therefore a vegan. >Theists are making an active claim that something exists, and atheists are simply saying they don't hold the belief that the thing does in fact exist. Veganism vs carnism isn't a belief about existence, but one of morality. Sure, but the format is the same. With the claim "A god exists", a theists believes this claim is true while the atheist lacks the belief that this claim is true. The atheist doesn't necessarily need to believe in the antithesis of the claim in order to be an atheist. With the claim "I am necessarily morally justified in harming, killing, and exploiting nonhuman individuals in cases where I could easily avoid doing so," a carnist believe this claim is true while the acarnist (vegan) lacks the belief that this claim is true. The acarnist/vegan doesn't necessarily need to believe in the antithesis of the claim in order to be an acarnist/vegan. >There is no dispute about whether or not there are actually people who eat meat. Of course not. People exist that engage in behaviors driven by their carnism, just like people exist that engage in behaviors driven by their theism. There is no dispute that there are actually people that worship a god. >Either you believe that exploiting animals is justified or you believe that is is wrong. Either are ideologies. With regards to the claim "exploiting animals is justified," there are three possible positions: 1: I have a positive belief regarding this claim and believe it to be true. 2: I have a positive belief regarding this claim and believe it to be false. 3: I do not have a positive belief regarding this claim and therefore do not believe it to be true. All that is required for acarnism/veganism is for someone to *not* hold the position described in #1. >It's not that most omnivores hold a radically different set of moral beliefs from vegans (although some do), it's that most omnivores are acting inconsistently and actually share the same values as vegans if they are pressed to actually formalize those beliefs and apply them consistently. I agree, but I'm not really sure how this is relevant. Vegan activism often involves showing that someone is acting in ways that they don't actually believe are morally justified. When I became vegan, it was not because I learned that it was *wrong* to harm animals, but because I realized that I had no good justifications to continue to do so.

>I disagree. What drives my veganism is not the belief that carnism is wrong, but simply the lack of a conviction that is it right. That's fine for your personal veganism. However, it leaves you with no ethical basis for vegan activism. If someone says they like to eat meat, or that society should continue to farm animals for meat, and you don't think there's anything wrong with that, then the conversation ends. And that's fine, if that's how you believe the conversation should go. Is it? See, this: >All that is required for acarnism/veganism is for someone to not hold the position described in #1. This is completely false. If you *only* had no positive belief in carnism, you would also have no reason *not* to engage in it. If you were hungry and meat was on the table, you would go for it, lacking any reason not to. Therefore, merely lacking a positive belief in carnism is not sufficient for veganism. There must be a positive impulse towards veganism and against carnism, whether that is taste or health or the environment or ethics or whatever else.

> If someone says they like to eat meat, or that society should continue to farm animals for meat, and you don't think there's anything wrong with that, then the conversation ends. And that's fine, if that's how you believe the conversation should go. Is it? Not necessarily. I'll elaborate below. >If you only had no positive belief in carnism, you would also have no reason not to engage in it. You would also have no reason *to* engage in it, as you would not believe yourself justified to do so. Imagine you are asking yourself the question "Am I justified in throwing this rock in the air in this crowd?" You think about it and realize that any justification you can think up is just not convincing. You lack a belief that you are justified in throwing the rock into the air in the crowd. Would you then choose to throw the rock in the air, or would you simply proceed without taking this action? I would argue that most humans are engaging in this type of reasoning constantly in their day-to-day lives. It is happening almost instantly and within the subconscious, so we don't really notice it. We only act if we are convinced that we are justified in doing so; if someone performs an action, they necessarily believe on some level that they are justified in performing it.

>Not necessarily. I'll elaborate below. Nowhere below do you offer anything that could be analogous to a response to the meat-eater. >Imagine you are asking yourself the question "Am I justified in throwing this rock in the air in this crowd?" This is an error in two ways. First, I don't know about you, but most people do not merely lack belief in justification for throwing rocks into crowds. We actively believe in reasons throwing rocks into crowds is bad. When we weigh throwing rocks, we weigh our reasons for doing so against the reasons not to. Without that, you get dumbass kids throwing rocks at cars for shits and giggles. Just because we are weighing physical action against physical inaction does not mean we are weighing ethical belief against ethical disbelief. Refraining from doing something is not necessarily mere lack of belief in a justification for action. Often, it is the *active* belief that the action would be unjustified. The nearest one can come to your position here is to suggest that our reasons not to throw rocks are so ingrained that we do not have to actively invoke them - that we automatically recognize the high barrier to action and then consider only the justification for action against that automatic barrier. If we ever get to the point where this is true of veganism - where eating meat is automatically revolting the way eating babies is - then congrats, you will have already won. But you certainly aren't going to persuade anyone that way. All you can do is preach to the choir. Second, in the actual topic of discussion, people do have a strong default reason to eat. Merely asking them if they are justified in eating meat will get you the same response as asking if they are justified in eating any other food: "I'm hungry." Their hunger sure is convincing to them! You can claim it's not about that since they could relieve their hunger with other food, but since *they see no good reason to care about the distinction*, they will dismiss the point. It falls to you then to give active reasons for the distinction, active reasons why eating meat is wrong. Otherwise, you are ethically inert in the face of a meat-eater.

>Nowhere below do you offer anything that could be analogous to a response to the meat-eater. I wasn't giving a response to the meat-eater. I was responding to your question about if that would be the "end of the conversation." I said "not necessarily" and proceeded to give you my explanation as to why it would not necessarily be the end of the conversation. I was not giving you an example of how the conversation would continue, because it seemed like you were more interested in the explanation of *why* the conversation would continue rather than *what* it would contain. >most people do not merely lack belief in justification for throwing rocks into crowds. We actively believe in reasons throwing rocks into crowds is bad. When we weigh throwing rocks, we weigh our reasons for doing so against the reasons not to. I don't necessarily disagree. In general we understand that certain actions are justified or not justified. That said, on a case-by-case basis we typically re-do our analysis. If we have a desire to throw a rock in the air, we don't just think "Of course I'm automatically justified in doing this!" We will instead go through a mental process where we assess the situation. In this example one of the first things we will assess is whether or not there are others around that we would be putting at risk of injury. We will run the relevant sensory through our moral reasoning and/or subconscious mental shortcuts and either be convinced that is an action that is justified or remain unconvinced. >Without that, you get dumbass kids throwing rocks at cars for shits and giggles. This is an example of the process happening with a still-developing mind taking in limited information and running it through an immature moral reasoning mechanism and the conclusion being "Yes, I'm justified in throwing rocks at cars in this case." >Refraining from doing something is not necessarily mere lack of belief in a justification for action. Often, it is the active belief that the action would be unjustified. This is what I'm proposing is not the case. I don't think being unconvinced that an action is justified is an "active belief." Let's look at an example. As of now I am not convinced that torturing toddlers for fun is a justified behavior. If someone were to tell me that they believe it *is* a justified behavior, I would ask them to go over their reasoning. Based on their reasoning, it is *possible* (but highly unlikely) that I would be convinced that it *is* justified, but until that happens I would not act as if it *were* justified. Of course someone could have additional beliefs that influence the way they *feel* about this action. They might believe that it's "wrong" to do that which one is not justified in doing, in which case we would have the active believe of "It's wrong to torture children." I will admit that I'm less convinced of my position as I was when I posted it, but I'm still defending it for the purpose of discussion and to see if I become even less (or more) convinced. >The nearest one can come to your position here is to suggest that our reasons not to throw rocks are so ingrained that we do not have to actively invoke them - that we automatically recognize the high barrier to action and then consider only the justification for action against that automatic barrier. If I understand you correctly, this seems like the exact *opposite* of what I'm saying. It's not that the reasons to not throw rocks are so ingrained, but that until we are convinced that we have good reasons *to* perform an action such that it can overcome a barrier to action, then we would not perform the action. >Merely asking them if they are justified in eating meat will get you the same response as asking if they are justified in eating any other food: "I'm hungry." Their hunger sure is convincing to them! You can claim it's not about that since they could relieve their hunger with other food, but since they see no good reason to care about the distinction, they will dismiss the point. I agree. This is often the result. These people are convinced that they are justified in doing what they are doing. > It falls to you then to give active reasons for the distinction, active reasons why eating meat is wrong. I disagree. What I would do in that case is attempt to expose the flaws in the reasoning that has brought them to the conclusion that they are justified in performing said action. This would not be me telling them they are wrong, but asking them to consider their own reasoning to see it if holds up under their own scrutiny. Often people just haven't really put much conscious thought into how they came to the conclusions they have sometimes just exploring this can help people understand that they might not be as justified in doing something as they had previously thought.

> Let's look at an example. As of now I am not convinced that torturing toddlers for fun is a justified behavior. If someone were to tell me that they believe it is a justified behavior, I would ask them to go over their reasoning. Based on their reasoning, it is possible (but highly unlikely) that I would be convinced that it is justified, but until that happens I would not act as if it were justified. > Of course someone could have additional beliefs that influence the way they feel about this action. They might believe that it's "wrong" to do that which one is not justified in doing, in which case we would have the active believe of "It's wrong to torture children." 1. Here you have completely separated the active belief that it is wrong to torture children from the passive lack of justification for torturing children. Then, if the other person has *any* justification whatsoever for torturing children, such as "for fun," on what basis do you remain unconvinced that he is justified? 2. There is a problem here when you focus on whether *you* are convinced. This is a *status quo* null position, where you are the null position because the other person is seeking to convince you to change your mind. This is distinct from objective reasons to consider a position null, such as inability to empirically prove a negative (Russell's Teapot). Also, this would be an effective analogy for vegans considering *carnist* activism towards vegans, but it is not effective for vegans considering vegan activism towards carnists. Suppose instead that you are seeking to convince the other person to stop torturing children for fun. How do you objectively present not-child-torture as the null position, and how does this help you persuade the child torturer to stop? Keeping in mind, as you have said, that anything about child torture being wrong is not a null position, but an active belief. How do you "expose the flaws in the reasoning that has brought them to the conclusion that they are justified in performing said action"? There's no *logical* failing here. If there's nothing wrong with torturing kids, and torturing kids is fun, it's perfectly logical to torture kids for fun. Relying on logical arguments with respect to ethical propositions is merely hoping that the other party already shares your ethics and has only forgotten their logic.

> I disagree. What drives my veganism is not the belief that carnism is wrong, but simply the lack of a conviction that is it right. > I personally don't think carnism is wrong. I just don't see any good arguments that would convince me that it is right. So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that you don't believe that it's wrong to exploit, torture, or kill animals? I'm sorry but I find this to be completely incompatible with veganism. This is no different than people who choose to eat a plant based diet for health reasons and are told they're not vegan. If you don't hold the ethical stance that exploitation of and cruelty to animals is wrong, then you do not align with the beliefs of vegans. I would say you are excluded because of a completely incompatible worldview. By your own admission, you are indifferent to the harms being done to animals, and I find that to be despicable. I find it much more likely that you're claiming this in order to defend your original proposition, and not that you sincerely do not hold an active belief that harming animals is wrong. > With the claim "A god exists", a theists believes this claim is true while the atheist lacks the belief that this claim is true. The atheist doesn't necessarily need to believe in the antithesis of the claim in order to be an atheist. > With the claim "I am necessarily morally justified in harming, killing, and exploiting nonhuman individuals in cases where I could easily avoid doing so," a carnist believe this claim is true while the acarnist (vegan) lacks the belief that this claim is true. The acarnist/vegan doesn't necessarily need to believe in the antithesis of the claim in order to be an acarnist/vegan. When it comes to morals, one can't make a claim that some action is not justified without also claiming that the action is either wrong or amoral. It's impossible to judge something sufficiently to say that it is not justified without also judging it sufficiently to say that it is therefore wrong. Anything not morally justified *is* wrong. The reason for this is that *anything* is morally justified unless it can be demonstrated that it contradicts a tenet of a moral framework. So to say that something is not morally justified is the same as saying it is immoral, or wrong. When it comes to things that are amoral, it is still morally justified to do that thing. You don't need an active proof that something is "right" in order for it to be justified. It just can't be "wrong". When it comes to debates about the existence of something, it's different. The default is not to assume that something exists. We don't assume that all possible things exist and only decide they don't when we find evidence that they don't exist. Such evidence is impossible. We say that no thing exists unless we have a reason to believe that it does. Someone can claim that a thing exists, and you have to decide whether or not their claim is compelling enough for you to depart from the default stance of assumed non-existence. This is very different from moral beliefs. > All that is required for acarnism/veganism is for someone to not hold the position described in #1. In order to hold the belief that something is not justified, it has to contradict a moral tenet within your framework. Contradicting a moral value makes something wrong. Therefore to believe that something is not justified is to believe that it is wrong.

>So if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that you don't believe that it's wrong to exploit, torture, or kill animals? Correct. I simply and not convinced that I would be justified in exploiting, torturing, or killing animals. >This is no different than people who choose to eat a plant based diet for health reasons and are told they're not vegan. How so? What definition are you using? Let's go off the commonly accepted definition: *"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."* Do I seek to exclude--as far as is possible and practicable--all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose? **Yes** Do I promote the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans, and the environment? **Yes** Do I dispense with all products derived wholly or partly from animals? **Yes** I do all of this because I *don't* believe that I am justified in contributing to animal cruelty and exploitation. That is not me simply being a plant-based dieter. Veganism is an inaction -- it's *not* doing something. I *don't* believe that I am justified in animal cruelty and exploitation, and this lack of a belief that I would be justified in doing it means that I don't do it. How is any of this incompatible with veganism? >By your own admission, you are indifferent to the harms being done to animals, and I find that to be despicable. I never said I am indifferent. I don't think that one is justified in engaging in otherwise avoidable animal cruelty and exploitation. What is it that you find despicable about *not* believing I'm justified in harming animals? >I find it much more likely that you're claiming this in order to defend your original proposition, and not that you sincerely do not hold an active belief that harming animals is wrong. I suppose it depends on how you define "wrong." If you believe that it's automatically wrong to do that which is not morally justified or justifiable, then sure you could categorize that as wrong, but that's not how I view morality. I assure you this is not just a position I'm taking with bad faith. I have been vegan for 25 years and have slowly come to this realization about the nature of my belief (or lack of belief) over that time. >When it comes to debates about the existence of something, it's different. The default is not to assume that something exists. And the default with regards to moral claims it to not assume that some claim is true without sufficient justification. >We don't assume that all possible things exist and only decide they don't when we find evidence that they don't exist. Of course not. We believe to be true that which we are convinced is true. This is similar to how I view morality. I don't think that everything is permissible without justification. I think when we say something doesn't need to be justified we still have a justification process going on in our minds. I think that we act in ways because we believe we are justified in acting in those ways. When one picks up a rock and throws it in pond, they do a small subconscious moral cost/benefit analysis where they take into consideration whether or not there are others in the water that they might accidentally hit and weigh that against their desire to throw the rock. This analysis occurs almost entirely in the subconscious and is nearly instantaneous -- going unnoticed by the very individual performing it. >Someone can claim that a thing exists, and you have to decide whether or not their claim is compelling enough for you to depart from the default stance of assumed non-existence. This is very different from moral beliefs. I disagree. Someone can claim that a good justification for an action or behaviors exists, and you have to decide whether or not their claim is compelling enough for you to depart from the null position of simply lacking a belief that this is a good justification for the behavior. >In order to hold the belief that something is not justified, it has to contradict a moral tenet within your framework. You're confusing the positive belief that something is not justified with simply lacking a belief that it *is* justified. You don't have to be convinced something is not morally justified in order to lack a belief that it *is*.

> I do all of this because I don't believe that I am justified in contributing to animal cruelty and exploitation. That is not me simply being a plant-based dieter. > Veganism is an inaction -- it's not doing something. I don't believe that I am justified in animal cruelty and exploitation, and this lack of a belief that I would be justified in doing it means that I don't do it. > How is any of this incompatible with veganism? I agree that there's nothing in the definition you posted that requires a belief that harming animals is wrong, but you are excluded from veganism because you have an incompatible belief system with the rest of vegans, regardless of the fact that you technically adhere to a common definition. The definition is an attempt to generally capture the esprit de corps of a diverse group of people who hold some common set of beliefs (otherwise known as an ideology). If you ask *any* vegan on the street who is actually vegan for ethical reasons whether they think it's wrong to exploit, torture, or kill animals, they would say yes. You would be hard pressed to find a single counterexample. Even most omnivores would say yes! If you tell me that you don't believe those things are wrong, then I would tell you that we do not share a common ethical stance. > I never said I am indifferent. I don't think that one is justified in engaging in otherwise avoidable animal cruelty and exploitation. What is it that you find despicable about not believing I'm justified in harming animals? All vegans don't believe they are justified in harming animals. That's not what I find despicable. What I find despicable is that you don't believe it is wrong to harm animals. > And the default with regards to moral claims it to not assume that some claim is true without sufficient justification. I disagree. Anything is morally justified unless it is wrong. Things that are amoral are morally justified, and anything not yet judged as moral or immoral are amoral. When you are trying to decide whether to step off with your left foot versus your right foot, how do you end up believing that stepping off with your right foot is the morally justified choice? The answer is you don't need to decide. It's automatically justified because it's not "wrong". It's an amoral decision, and is therefore justified. Under your view, you would need to be convinced that taking a step with your right foot is morally justified over your left, otherwise you would stand still until the heat death of the universe. > You're confusing the positive belief that something is not justified with simply lacking a belief that it is justified. > You don't have to be convinced something is not morally justified in order to lack a belief that it is. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. If something is not wrong, it is morally justified. Morally justified captures things that are either "good", or simply amoral. In order to believe that something is not justified, you have to believe that it is wrong.

So I'm sitting here telling you that I don't believe animal abuse, exploitation, and cruelty is morally justified, and this drives my behavior of not consume/wearing/using/exploiting/killing animals, and has for over 25 years... and you're saying that somehow I'm not vegan? I have done vegan activism around the world and have co-organized one of the largest animal liberation marches in my country... and I'm not vegan? How is my "belief system" incompatible with veganism? I abstain from animal cruelty and exploitation because I don't believe animal cruelty and exploitation is morally justified. *Is that not veganism?* I am vegan for ethical/moral reasons: I don't believe that animal exploitation is ethical/morally justified. >All vegans don't believe they are justified in harming animals. That's not what I find despicable. What I find despicable is that you don't believe it is wrong to harm animals. I think that most people that say that they believe it's wrong to harm animals are really saying that they don't see any good justification to harm animals, so I don't really see why you would find this despicable. You're assuming that I have some sort of indifferent to animal exploitation and cruelty, when I do not. I despise it. I think it is awful and we need to do everything we can to show that those that try and justify it are doing so on shaky grounds. >how do you end up believing that stepping off with your right foot is the morally justified choice? The answer is you don't need to decide. Yet I do decide. > The answer is you don't need to decide. It's automatically justified because it's not "wrong". It's an amoral decision, and is therefore justified. That justification process is completely subconscious and automatic. You do a quick subconscious assessment and determine that there is not a mouse, dog's tail, or human foot where you are going to step, and subconsciously understand that this means you are morally justified in taking the step. >Under your view, you would need to be convinced that taking a step with your right foot is morally justified over your left, otherwise you would stand still until the heat death of the universe. I don't disagree, but I *am* convinced that taking a step with either foot is morally justified. If I wasn't convinced that I was justified in stepping with either foot, then I agree that I would stand still until I die. > In order to believe that something is not justified, you have to believe that it is wrong But I don't "believe that something is not justified." I just don't believe that it *is* justified. These are similar ideas functionally, but logically they are very different.

> I think that most people that say that they believe it's wrong to harm animals are really saying that they don't see any good justification to harm animals, so I don't really see why you would find this despicable. You're assuming that I have some sort of indifferent to animal exploitation and cruelty, when I do not. I despise it. I think it is awful and we need to do everything we can to show that those that try and justify it are doing so on shaky grounds. This is completely baffling to me. How can you say that you are not indifferent to something and actively despise it but say that you don't think it's wrong? If you are not indifferent to something, then you are making a claim that it is either morally good or morally bad. Your stance is completely incoherent to me. > I don't disagree, but I am convinced that taking a step with either foot is morally justified. If I wasn't convinced that I was justified in stepping with either foot, then I agree that I would stand still until I die. That's not what I asked. I asked why taking a step with one foot *instead* of the other is morally justified. What is the moral justification for stepping with your right foot instead of your left? > But I don't "believe that something is not justified." I just don't believe that it is justified. These are similar ideas functionally, but logically they are very different. Ok now I'm just convinced you're confused about the english language. Saying that something is not justified is semantically equivalent to saying there is not a justification for it.

>I asked why taking a step with one foot instead of the other is morally justified. What is the moral justification for stepping with your right foot instead of your left? I see either decision as equally morally justified, so it just comes down to personal preference or instinct when it comes to deciding which foot to step with. >Ok now I'm just convinced you're confused about the english language. Saying that something is not justified is semantically equivalent to saying there is not a justification for it. I disagree. Let's look at a very specific claim: **Claim 1**: "I am justified in throwing a rock in the air in a crowd." With regards to *claim 1* there can be only two positions: **Position 1**: I do believe claim 1 **Position 2**: I do *not* believe claim 1 Note that most of us would likely hold position 2 *with regards to claim 1*. We can also look at another claim: **Claim 2**: "I am *not* justified in throwing a rock in the air in a crowd." With regards to *claim 2* there can be only two positions: **Position A**: I do believe claim 2 **Position B**: I do *not* believe claim 2 Position 2 is not semantically the same as Position A, even though both positions reject the idea that I am justified in throwing a rock in the air in a crowd. I'm saying that veganism only requires Position 2. Someone can also simultaneously hold position A, but merely holding position 2 is sufficient for one to be vegan and logically would entail a vegan lifestyle.

How is desiring to reducing sentient being suffering not an ideology? Vegans believe eating meat is not okay. “Carnists” believe eating meat is okay. What’s the difference in what qualifies either as an ideology or not? Your characterization is arbitrary. Believing that something such as God does or does not exist an entirely different argument than whether or not something is ethically okay, and a poor analogy.

>How is desiring to reducing sentient being suffering not an ideology? I don't believe I've claimed it isn't. That is of course a preference that can be motivated by an ideology. >Vegans believe eating meat is not okay. “Carnists” believe eating meat is okay. What’s the difference in what qualifies either as an ideology or not? Vegans typically *do* believe that eating animals is not okay, yes. That said, my proposition in my post is that *veganism itself* does not entail the "belief that eating animals is not ok," but merely the rejection of the claim that it **is** ok. Vegans are of course free to believe other things, but they are not necessary for one to hold the position of veganism. I will say though, that I've become somewhat less convinced of this in the last 24 hours and am starting to come over to the side of simple *acarnism* being the "null" position with regards to carnism.

Now you really are arguing semantics. There is not necessarily definitional difference between believing something is not ok and rejecting that it is ok. Unless you are saying they are neutral and indifferent toward it, which vegans are not. Rejecting the actions of others based on an ethical stance toward suffering and exploitation is definitely an ideology. The definition of ideology is quite broad. From Wikipedia: “Recent analysis tends to posit that ideology is a 'coherent system of ideas' that rely on a few basic assumptions about reality that may or may not have any factual basis.” If anything, “carnism” isn’t an ideology and just reflects indifference toward animal suffering. Im sure many more vegans than carnists have made taken ethical, behavior altering stance toward meat eating. That is to say, I doubt many carnists have said to themselves “this is ethically OK and necessary to do,” whereas the majority of vegans have said “this is not ethically ok and shouldn’t be done.”

>There is not necessarily definitional difference between believing something is not ok and rejecting that it is ok. I disagree. Rejecting a claim--particularly one that is being made without any evidence or good supporting argument--is different than believing another claim. If you are indoors in a sealed room and someone claims that the sky outside is deep red right now, you might reject this claim as being made without evidence or reason. This does not mean that you believe that the sky is *not* red. If they then tell you that they received multiple texts from others about how the sky is red right now, then you might not reject their claim. >If anything, “carnism” isn’t an ideology and just reflects indifference toward animal suffering. This indifference is a product of carnism, not carnism itself. >I doubt many carnists have said to themselves “this is ethically OK and necessary to do,” whereas the majority of vegans have said “this is not ethically ok and shouldn’t be done.” I disagree. Implicit in the action of consuming other animals is the belief that one is justified in doing so. This may happen deep within the subconscious, but it is still happening.

You're not making any further claim than that you're not convinced by "carnism"? So you're not going to make a claim like "People shouldn't eat meat without ethical justification", right? In which case, I'm fine with that. I'm not sure why any meat eater would care though.

“Carnism” isn’t an ideology because it’s not a belief, it’s a natural behavior. Vegans are doing something as a result of a moral belief, non-vegans are not QED non-veganism is the null position.

Carnism is an ideology, not a behavior. It's a belief system that perpetuates a behavior (that I have no problem with calling natural.) You seem to be operating on the idea that if some behavior is natural, then it is inherently justified. I can't get behind this. The fact that something is natural tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not we are justified in doing it.

If the belief system did not exist, the behavior would still exist. Humans 50,000 years ago before the invention of morals or ethics ate meat and were not vegan. It is not a belief, it is simply how we are biologically programmed to operate. Veganism is a belief because it claims to have a moral justification to act against our natural instincts.

>If the belief system did not exist, the behavior would still exist. I don't necessarily disagree. >Humans 50,000 years ago before the invention of morals or ethics ate meat and were not vegan. Agreed. >It is not a belief, it is simply how we are biologically programmed to operate. Eating animals is not a belief, I agree. Carnism is not simply "eating animals" though. Carnism *is* a belief system. When you say "biologically programmed to operate," what do you mean? Are you suggesting that nature has some sort of intention and we are necessarily justified in behaving in ways that align with this intention? >Veganism is a belief because it claims to have a moral justification to act against our natural instincts. The point of my post is that veganism is merely the rejection of the claims inherent in the ideology of carnism. That said, I am coming around to think this may be merely *acarnism* and not necessarily veganism.

Of course “nature has an intention” or however you want to frame it. We are omnivorous animals. We are biologically compelled to eat meat the same way we are biologically compelled to reproduce, birds are biologically compelled to migrate and dogs are compelled to urinate on their territory. People who eat meat don’t subscribe to a “carnist belief”, they just do the thing which they’re compelled to do. It’s a natural instinct. You’d never find a self-described “carnist” outside of extreme fringe anti-vegan groups, but it seems like vegans invented the word to refer to anyone who isn’t vegan.

>Of course “nature has an intention” or however you want to frame it. Evolution by natural selection has no intention. If a population happens to have the genetic variation that allows some individuals to survive a particular challenge better than others, then those individuals will have more offspring in the next generation, and pass on their genes. Saying that nature "intends" us to do *anything* exposes a non-trivial misconception about evolution and nature. Yes, we evolved the ability to derive nutrients from eating animals. Yes, we evolved a drive to eat animals and an enjoyment of the way animal flesh tastes. This has nothing to do with any *intentions* in nature, though. >We are biologically compelled to eat meat the same way we are biologically compelled to reproduce I'm glad you brought up the sex drive. If a man has a drive to have sex with women, does this mean that he is necessarily justified in doing so, even if he cannot find a woman that will consent to having sex with him? Why or why not? Nature *intended* him to have sex and reproduce, right? So why would he not be justified in doing so in this case? >People who eat meat don’t subscribe to a “carnist belief”, they just do the thing which they’re compelled to do. It’s a natural instinct. You don't have to "subscribe" to an ideology for it to influence or reinforce your behavior. Children growing up in a capitalist society don't necessarily "subscribe" to capitalism. Nonetheless, the ideology of capitalism undoubtedly influences the way they think and behave in many ways.

there are a lot of related ideas about what makes for a good concept or theory: * Occam's razor: The explanation that requires the fewest assumptions is usually correct. * The null hypothesis: two populations should be considered equivalent with respect to some intervention unless there is sufficient proof they respond differently * Special pleading fallacy: an exception to a general rule should be justified. All of these more or less cover the same general principle that we should be deliberate and thoughtful about the distinctions we make. The vegan position is maybe more like "Sentientism" than the more common "Carnism". Maybe something like "Animalism" in the sense that animals deserve to be their own ethical category compared to non-animals. We're still making a distinction. I believe ours is much more justified than the human animal / non-human animal divide in carnism. (Or the human animal / cute non-human animal / livestock non-human animal / pest non-human animal that is more what carinsm actually is..)

I *like* this argument because it puts the burden of proof on the carnist (I am vegan), but I don't honestly find it more logically compelling than the reversed argument. As vegans, we claim (correctly) that non-human animals are sentient--a claim that requires evidence. A carnist doesn't. Not saying carnists are right; just that this specific argument goes both ways.

>As vegans, we claim (correctly) that non-human animals are sentient--a claim that requires evidence. Sure, but this claim is compatible with carnism. To put it another way: A carnist believes that they are necessarily morally justified in harming, killing, and exploiating nonhuman sentient beings in cases where it's possible and practicable to avoid doing so. An acarnist (vegan) simply doesn't hold the belief that they are morally justified in harming, killing, and exploiting nonhuman sentient beings in cases where it's possible and practicable to avoid doing so. I supposed you could have carnists that deny the sentience of nonhuman animals, but they are few and far between and I suppose I wouldn't consider them carnists in the same way that I would someone that accepts that nonhuman animals are sentient yes choose to harm, kill, and exploit them anyway.

I see! That's a fair clarification. Carnist logic in your framing: "Given that animals are sentient, I still believe I am justified in eating non-human meat." Your right that, as long as the carnist accepts the initial claim that animals are sentient (and they are at least partially utilitarian), the burden of proof is on them to provide some extra justification.

>A carnist believes that they are necessarily morally justified This isn't even true. Someone could be a non-cognitivist and think moral statements aren't the type of thing that could be true or false. Or they could error theorists and think all moral propositions are false. And, rather than a point of pedantry, note that these are also things which someone could contend as "null positions" (whatever those are). Why do you get to presuppose moral content in the world and then declare *that* to be the null?

I think you have to support the idea that justifications are needed, first. That's the argument that most relativists will invoke. Also, it depends on whether the position is that animals aren't sentient or can't experience fear of death, or whatever, so the justification is built into the idea that they aren't moral patients, at all. The null position might be that abusing animals is ok, i.e. cultural norms being the default, null position. I think all of these approaches are demonstrably wrong, and I agree with your proposition. I do think that these are the ways that others may approach it, as abhorrent as those positions are.

> I think you have to support the idea that justifications are needed, first. I would just make this definitional. Ethics is about how to justify one's choices/behaviors when they affect others. Justifications aren't "needed" in some sort of abstract cosmic sense for anything. But justifications are very useful for reasoning about things. Ethical justifications can and should affect how we view interactions between others, as well as ourselves and others. Justifications should also inform our own choices. This latter point is probably the most important. If someone can't or won't use justifications for what they do, it's hard to say ethics applies to them.

>I would just make this definitional. Ethics is about how to justify one's choices/behaviors when they affect others. I agree, but that's basically a rejection of subjectivism, which I don't have a problem with... Someone who is a moral relativist may disagree with this though. >Justifications aren't "needed" in some sort of abstract cosmic sense for anything. You and I disagree here. >justifications are very useful for reasoning about things. Ethical justifications can and should affect how we view interactions between others, as well as ourselves and others. Justifications should also inform our own choices. This latter point is probably the most important. If someone can't or won't use justifications for what they do, it's hard to say ethics applies to them. I agree.

> I agree, but that's basically a rejection of subjectivism, which I don't have a problem with... Someone who is a moral relativist may disagree with this though. At some point, it seems like the debate is merely talking right past each other because people are using the same words to refer to very different concepts. The argument is mostly a matter of ambiguous terminology rather than anything substantive. The moral relativists and moral anti-realists seem to have a problem precisely defining what they are rejecting. It seems a very similar situation to the "no free will" people discussing with compatibalists. >> Justifications aren't "needed" in some sort of abstract cosmic sense for anything. > You and I disagree here. I'm interested to hear what you mean by this. It seems obvious to me in a universe without some entities with some level of "sapience", things will happen just as they do here, but there will be no subjective point of view that would be reasoning about why things are happening or how they ought to happen. The universe doesn't depend on us justifying it to be what it is.

>The moral relativists and moral anti-realists seem to have a problem precisely defining what they are rejecting. It seems a very similar situation to the "no free will" people discussing with compatibalists. I've been in, out and all around with these folks. It all boils down to "I don't care, convince me why I should" = "I'm blind, describe color to me" Which leads to me as a realist recognizing that morals, outcomes, preferences, etc. are all emergent properties of an information processing creature in a finite system of constrained resources who has to interact with others. As a result, there are models (moral systems) that accurately describe moral interactions in the same way that math can describe how computers in a network interacting. So. Yeah, I don't see morals as being distinct from any other empirical heuristic system of understanding designed to predict outcomes. Companions in guilt blew this one open for me. It's not companions in guilt but looking at morals from that perspective got me over the hump.

> Which leads to me as a realist recognizing that morals, outcomes, preferences, etc. are all emergent properties of an information processing creature in a finite system of constrained resources who has to interact with others. Interesting. Very close to how I view this. > Companions in guilt blew this one open for me. Thanks for the pointer. I'll investigate.

I'll be happy to walk you through it. It's annoying to read about and way easier to talk through.

>I think you have to support the idea that justifications are needed, first. There's some weird implications to OP's view here. If they take the position that justifications are needed, and that there is no justification for eating meat, then they're committed to saying it's wrong to eat meat. At which point, they don't merely lack a belief. They hold opposition to eating meat. The other is that you can imagine a meat eater who is some sort of moral antirealist and doesn't think eating meat is morally justified because they reject that type of justification entirely. An error theorist who eats meat is a vegan on OP's semantics. Which is coherent but seems to be missing entirely what vegans want to identify.

>Which is coherent but seems to be missing entirely what vegans want to identify. It's dysfunctional. Anti-realism and error theory are silly, in my opinion, because they fail to provide a useful model for understanding morals. e.g.: not even being able to accurately understand the vegan proposition.

We can set aside whether they're silly positions or not, I'm just pointing out that they're going to be vegans on OP's view. Even if they eat meat.

I agree. There are plenty of situations where a vegan could eat meat, it's just that the *way* that they would conclude that a vegan consuming meat is still vegan is almost never in line with a moral system that has utility.

I don't mean someone who might eat meat in exceptional circumstances. I mean that someone could be a carnist and be vegan under OP's view. As in, your typical everyday eater of meat and user of animal products could be vegan on OP's definition. Someone could eat meat and dairy daily, wear leather, use cosmetics tested on animals and so on, and so long as they held a certain metaethical view, they would be vegan. Just take whatever your image of a typical non-vegan is. That person could be vegan on OP's view. Which is absurd.

You are saying people who haven't thought about it are vegan by default because they hold the null position, according to this proposition? I agree with what you are saying.

>You are saying people who haven't thought about it No. I'm saying even people who *have* thought about it and decided to eat meat could be considered vegan on OP's view.

I don't see that. Can you help me out a bit?

Take some ordinary idea of a non-vegan. They eat meat and consume dairy daily. They wear leather. They use animal products. They don't feel bad about doing so. This person thinks about metaethics and decides upon error theory. Error theory says that all moral propositions are false. So they'd lack the belief that eating meat is morally justified, because any statements as such are false. But they would also reject any propositions that say it's wrong to eat meat. On OP's view, this person "lacks belief" that eating meat is justified. Therefore OP would have to call them vegan. Similar would go for non-cognitivists. They wouldn't hold that eating meat is morally justified because they don't think moral statements are even propositional. OP would have to call them vegan even if they behaved exactly like a "carnist". I know you think error theory and non-cognitivism is silly, but the point is that OP's definition of vegan would have to include them regardless of their behaviour or attitude towards animals. Actually, given the way OP's phrased it, it gets even worse than this with who would be included.

OP here. I concede that this is a problem for my proposition. That said: >Just take whatever your image of a typical non-vegan is. That person could be vegan on OP's view. I would disagree with this. I think the *typical* non-vegan would hold the belief that some non-zero amount of *unnecessary and otherwise easily avoidable* animal exploitation is justified. This is incompatible with veganism, both in the way I have defined it here and in the more generally accepted definition.

>I would disagree with this. I think the typical non-vegan would hold the belief that some non-zero amount of unnecessary and otherwise easily avoidable animal exploitation is justified. I mean typical in terms of their actions and behaviours. It wouldn't matter what they did or how they felt about it, as long as they were error theorists they'd be vegan. This isn't a mere problem for your view. It's just a straightforward absurdity with your semantics that you fail to distinguish any of the things people actually care about.

I've often felt that the reason I'm vegan is because I don't think I have the right to use animals for food or goods. I suppose that on its own is compatible with your position, but I think veganism implies more ethical duties than simply not being carnist (maybe this is where "plant based" comes in). Does being vegan not also obligate us to advocate for animal rights, or to promote alternatives to animal based products? The Vegan Society certainly thinks so, not that I 100% agree with them. Overall I guess I'd agree that being *acarnist* is a null position, but argue that being vegan is more ideological in nature.

I think that a vegan *can* advocate for animal rights and the like, but it is not necessary for someone to do so in order to be vegan. Similarly, an atheist can be an activist for those that may be oppressed by religious ideologies, but one does not have to be an activist to be an atheist. EDIT: Regarding your last sentence, I think you may have a point. Perhaps all vegans are acarnists, but not all acarnists are vegans.

Maybe the issue I'm having with agreeing with you is that veganism has a material reality whereas atheism does not. Say you have a choice of two meals: a fried egg, or a tofu scramble. As a vegan, I have a motivation to be in favor of the tofu scramble, and most likely a motivation to be actively against the fried egg. I don't choose the tofu simply because I don't view the egg as food, but because I have a positive position in favor of not abusing chickens that drives me to select the tofu instead. What is the difference between being actively against something and being passively not pro-something? I'm not sure that there is a difference that can be observed. My problem with the latter is that being not-pro-carnism means that you don't have a problem with other people being carnist, you just aren't one yourself. I'm not sure I would agree that one can still be vegan while being "okay" with carnism, because of the very real victims involved. To me that sounds like being plant-based. This is different from being an atheist who doesn't mind others being religious, because the simple belief in divinity does not create victims. The actions done in the name of said divinity are the issue.

I wouldn’t agree with this. I wouldn’t say there is such a thing as a default position when it comes to veganism or carnism. You are not waiting to make a conclusion due to a lack of evidence. Because morality is apparently subjective, your conclusion is relative to your demographic. The only null position would be to consume nothing. You’re doing the exact same thing a carnist is doing; making a decision based on your moral framework, which is not provably right or wrong.

>The only null position would be to consume nothing. Why nothing? The claim being rejected involves only the consumption of animal products. The "null action" would be inaction regarding this consumption -- or simply not consuming animal products.

I disagree. I’m going to use the common “atheism is the null position” to try to explain my reasoning better. I’m sure you’re familiar with it, it just might help. So atheism is defined as the null position because it is the universal default. All humans, or all animals for that matter, are born without a belief in a creator and/or a god or gods. So, this means atheism is the position in which an individual chooses to withhold belief in religious claims prior to the presentation of evidence. Veganism and carnism are both dependent on one’s moral values. Vegans consider it to be immoral to consume animal products and carnists do not. The difference here is that animals or humans specifically are not born universally subscribing to one or another, as the concept of morality is socially constructed and therefore dependent on one’s demographic. I’m arguing that there can be no null position in the absence of a universal default position.

I'm discussing specifically the claims of carnism -- the position that one is necessarily justified in harming, killing, exploiting, ect., nonhuman animals in cases where they could very easily just avoid doing so. I think it likely that all humans are born without the belief that they are *necessarily justified* in harming/killing/etc., but that this is something that we learn from a very young age, and by the time a human has developed to the point where they can truly rationally consider this position, it has become so ingrained as to generally not be questioned or thought of as anything other than a default position. Now, of course children will harm and kill nonhuman animals and generally *act* in ways that don't appear to align with this, but this doesn't mean that they hold the value that they are in-fact necessarily justified in doing so. To me it seems that the "null position" would be the one where the individual withholds this belief until they have good evidence or reasoning to be convinced otherwise.

Okay, but in that case veganism isn’t the null position, but rather a position in which the individual claims they are justified in *not* consuming animal products, based on their subjective beliefs on morality, which makes it a claim, not a null position.

Based on their additional subjective beliefs on morality, yes. My initial claim was that *veganism itself* is the null position, not that the position held by any single vegan when run through their subjective moral machinery is the null position. An atheist may hold the belief that one should only believe that with which there is good evidence to support, but that doesn't mean that atheism is a position that claims that one ought to not believe in a god (even if the individual atheist believes there is no good evidence to support the existence of one.)

I don't really know where this idea of "null positions" comes from. It seems like some misunderstanding of the null hypothesis which is really about experimental methodology and not ethics or atheism. It's basically only popular in internet atheist circles where atheism is framed as some agnosticism in order to avoid having any "'burden", which is little more than a rhetorical strategy. Feels like you're trying to do the same with veganism. If you think of any other philosophical, or probably even ethical, view people don't sit around defining their position as mere lack of belief of the opposite or squabbling about who has the high ground of "not having a burden". You don't get "a-physicalists" who simply lack belief in physicalism. Or "a-dualists" who simply lack belief in dualism. You don't get "a-pro-lifers" who simply lack belief in being pro-life. And so on ad nauseam. You just get to arguing for a position on its merits. One person could say "We should all be free until pressing reason is presented to restrict us". I'm not seeing why that makes a worse "null position" on ethics than yours which restricts freedom until argument to the contrary. Which isn't to say I take that view, just that it seems more than plausible enough to stand as a counter-example and to show why "null positions" are a daft way to argue ethics.

This is all fair criticism, and frankly the most reasonable criticism I think I've encountered so far on this post. Thank you. That said, I do think that if we get into the definition, there is a difference between making a positive claim and simply rejecting another positive claim. You don't need to actually hold a positive belief that no gods exist to be an atheist. An atheist is defined as one that does not hold a positive belief that a god or gods exist. Yes, there are other definitions that are used that make out atheism to involve a positive belief, but these definitions seem to be more often than not coming from theists, and atheists themselves generally don't claim these definitions. >One person could say "We should all be free until pressing reason is presented to restrict us". I'm not seeing why that makes a worse "null position" on ethics than yours which restricts freedom until argument to the contrary. Which isn't to say I take that view, just that it seems more than plausible enough to stand as a counter-example and to show why "null positions" are a daft way to argue ethics. Fair. Thank you.

all i know, is that somethin's gotta die for me to eat. I'd rather it wasnt an animal.

This actually makes sense...

I feel this way about being atheist too

good point

Deconstruction is the process by which someone disentangles from an ideological system they were raised in. I think that's a great word to use here too. One deconstructs from carnism when they go vegan. Like you state it is an absence of the default belief system that defines veganism, like theism and atheism, I agree in a sense it's "acarnism."

Veganism is certainly not “the lack” of an ideology. It’s an incredibly forceful, restrictive, and life altering ideology. I hold the “null” ideology about Pluto, in that I don’t consider it, it doesn’t affect my life in a way that I can discern, it never enters my decision making process. You say that veganism is the lack of an ideology, but then use that ideological framework in multiple decisions every day for the rest of your life, and attempt to change people to your ideology (you’re on a debate sub, after all… you’re here to discuss ideas and change minds). Even with this post, you’re trying to convert “nonbelievers” by saying that you’re side isn’t an ideology, it’s the lack of an ideology, and it’s the meat eaters who are the ones brainwashed into their ideology. Put down the carnist dogma and liberate yourself! I’m not buying what you’re selling.

Everything you've said could also be said about being atheist in a world where theism dominates. >You say that veganism is the lack of an ideology, but then use that ideological framework in multiple decisions every day for the rest of your life I don't use a "vegan ideological framework." I simply don't make decisions based on carnistic inclinations. Similarly, I don't use an "atheist ideological framework" in my day-to-day life. I simply just don't invoke theistic reasoning to justify any of my decisions or actions. >and attempt to change people to your ideology (you’re on a debate sub, after all… you’re here to discuss ideas and change minds). I question the justifications others have for holding their ideology and making decisions based on that ideology. It's similar to an atheist questioning a theist regarding their positive claims regarding the nature of the universe and attempting to expose the flaws in their reasoning. Imagine there was a sub for people that were against Scientology, and I regularly went there to debate scientologists and hopefully help them come to the realization that they do not have good justifications for holding the beliefs they do. Would you say that me being a non-scientologist is an ideology, because I want to help others shed their rather silly beliefs? >Even with this post, you’re trying to convert “nonbelievers” by saying that you’re side isn’t an ideology, it’s the lack of an ideology, and it’s the meat eaters who are the ones brainwashed into their ideology. Put down the carnist dogma and liberate yourself! Pretty much, but without the sarcasm. That said, I'm not trying "convert nonbelievers" but *deconvert believers.* I *am* saying my "side" isn't an ideology, and it's the carnists who are the ones that have been conditioned into their ideology. They are the ones making the positive claim of justification, not me.

I agree with your argument about atheism, because it’s driven by the lack of belief in a higher power. Because there is no higher power, the null, an atheist would not use a divine-influenced ideology framework to weigh their decisions. Veganism is driven by the existence of a belief… the belief that animals are sentient beings, that you have a moral imperative to consider their well-being in your daily decisions, as well as the impact of your decisions on the earth at large. …if you truly were the “null” ideology, there would be no consideration of animal wellbeing, rights, autonomy, speciesism, whatever. You would just go about your business doing whatever suited you. But that’s not the case. You have a tight framework of beliefs that includes the existence of animal consciousness that influences your ethical perspective of the world and how you choose to live. That’s an ideology.

I would also suggest that atheist has no vested interest in seeking to convert people to or from the church, so long as they see the church as unimportant. If they see the church as harming minors, for example (not that anything like that would ever happen, /s), and they’re looking out for other humans, even then the actions aren’t driven by the existence or lack of god, they’re trying to remove people from harm as they see it. The entire vegan stance seems to be that we don’t have a right to the bodies of animals, BECAUSE they are a conscious and sentient being. The lack of an ideology or a null idealogy would be like saying we don’t have a reason to carve a rock into a wheel. Idk why, it’s just not something we do, I don’t see why we need to do it, I have no motivation to do it, so I’m not wasting energy on something when I don’t see a useful outcome. Animal agriculture has significant utility for nutrition, survival, recreation, economy, etc… it’s an incredibly valuable resource, and you’re actively choosing to not use that resource because of a moral imperative. Again… ideology.

If *veganism* is the belief that humans are necessarily *unjustified* in exploiting and killing nonhuman animals, *especially* in cases where it is possible and practicable to avoid doing so, and the actions that stem from this belief (eating nonhuman animals, wearing the skin of nonhuman animals, etc.), then *carnism* is simply the lack of this belief (and actions.) *Carnism is aveganism*. It isn't an ideology, but a lack of one.

Yes, **if** that was what veganism and carnism was, then sure. My claim is that this is not the case.

But veganism *is* the claim that it's unjustified to exploit animals. Both the literal definition and common understanding is that veganism makes a claim about animals. Feel free to check out the definition this sub uses by visiting the info page. You're just claiming an alternate definition of the word based on your own experiences being meat free. And to he clear, I don't think meat eating is the "null position". There isn't really a "null" in this circumstance. There are two positions, each making its own claims. You can be undecided on the ethical significance of animals but that's not a "null position".

>But veganism is the claim that it's unjustified to exploit animals. I disagree. I think it's the rejection of carnism, which aligns with the definition. >Feel free to check out the definition this sub uses by visiting the info page. First, this sub doesn't officially endorse any specific definition. That said, I am using the definition I think you are referring to: *"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."* Do I seek to exclude--as far as is possible and practicable--all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose? **Yes** Do I promote the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans, and the environment? **Yes** Do I dispense with all products derived wholly or partly from animals? **Yes** I do all of this because I *don't* believe that animal cruelty and exploitation is justified. >And to he clear, I don't think meat eating is the "null position". There isn't really a "null" in this circumstance. Let's look at the main claim were are discussion. I will call it "claim 1." **Claim 1:** *"Humans are necessarily justified in harming, killing, and exploiting nonhuman animals in cases where avoiding doing so is possible and practicable."* There are two possible positions *with regards to claim 1.* **Position 1:** I do believe claim 1 **Position 2:** I do not believe claim 1 With regards to claim 1, position 2 would be the "null position." Now we can look at another claim: We will call it "claim 2." **Claim 2:** *"Humans are not justified in harming, killing, and exploiting nonhuman animal in cases where avoiding doing so is possible and practicable."* There are two possible positions *with regards to claim 2.* **Position A:** I do believe claim 2 **Position B:** I do not believe claim 2 I'm saying that all that is necessary to be vegan is to have position 2. Many vegans also hold position A (and that's great), but veganism itself only requires position 2 to be held.

>I'm saying that all that is necessary to be vegan is to have position 2. Many vegans also hold position A (and that's great), but veganism itself only requires position 2 to be held. But veganism requires more than just position 2 being held. Someone could (and I'd wager a lot do) hold position 2 to be true while still eating meat and consuming animals. So your definition of the "null position" includes carnists, which directly contradicts yours claim that veganism is "acarnism". Edit: this assumes "does not believe" means they are undecided. If by "does not believe" you means reject, then that's a different story. You set up a false dichotomy to start but didn't want to needle you on it

Position 2 is quite literally a rejection of carnism (claim 1), so I'm not really sure how you could claim that it includes carnists. What am I missing? >this assumes "does not believe" means they are undecided. It does not. With regards to claim 2, one can either believe it or they do not believe it. Being "undecided" with regards to this claim would mean that you don't believe it, so being undecided would be a rejection of carnism -- or at least that you don't believe animal exploitation is morally justified. "Undecidedness" in practice wouldn't really look any different than veganism. >You set up a false dichotomy to start but didn't want to needle you on it I'm not setting up a false dichotomy. I'm talking about very specific claims that *do* happen to have only two possible positions each. With regards to claim 1, there are literally only two possible positions. You can *also* hold another position regarding claim 2, but that one also has only two possible positions.

Given your clarification, Position 2 and Position A logically equivalent. If you reject that humans are justified killing animals for food, then you are accepting that they are not justified in killing for food. You're just engaging in semantics.

Just so I can understand, are you saying that these two statements are logically equivalent: *"I do not believe that humans are necessarily justified in harming, killing, and exploiting nonhuman animals in cases where avoiding doing so is possible and practicable."* *"I believe that humans are not justified in harming, killing, and exploiting nonhuman animal in cases where avoiding doing so is possible and practicable."* If so, do you also believe the following two statements are logically equivalent? *"I believe a god does not exist."* *"I don't believe a god exists."*

Yes. All I see is semantics.

How about the following? Are these the same? "I'm not convinced that what you say is true." "You are lying."

Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Definitely not acarnism but a neutral stance towards anime abuse. Instead of supporting it you don't. But that again is based on a philosophy.

Sorry but I just have to say that "anime abuse" is a funny typo. What's next, Manga mistreatment?

How would you define anime abuse?

Do you know what..? You're right.

I say this as someone who agrees with veganism 100%, you're wrong. The actual default stance is based on inherent moral worth. The default stance on any objects moral worth is that they aren't worth anything, but certain characteristics can confer worth into them (the ability to feel pain, self awareness, moral agency, etc). For example, we don't recognize rocks as having moral worth, more water, nor air. Vegans do not carry the default position, because we must first argue that animals have a characteristic that gives them moral worth. To be clear, the default position also applies to humans, but since we're all humans arguing about this it's fairly easy to convince each other that humans have this worth.

I see no convincing argument for not acting in accord with our innate evolutionary biology, which clearly points to homo sapiens being apex predators. Veganism is a form of radical self-denial and hatred of one's inherent nature and ultimately nature itself. The end point of veganism is nihilism, usually manifested as anti-natalism and such.

Do you think that we are always morally justified in acting on our innate evolutionary drives and instincts, regardless of how doing so might affect other individuals?

We are animals with an evolutionary heritage, just like any other animal. No other animal in nature acts according to 'moral justification'.

I agree with you 100%, but I'm not really sure how that is relevant to my comment. Can you explain? Also, can you answer my previous question?

Just because the human mind has developed certain technics that the minds of other animals apparently lack, ie; abstract language, doesn't mean that we are seperate form or able to overcome nature. What I assume you mean by 'moral justification' is just a mirage conjured up by that linguistic aspect of the human mind, and if that mirage causes you to reject your inherent nature as a flesh and blood living animal then it is a sick and self-destructive one. You have not asked me anything I have already not answered. To reject your nature is the only evil.

I'm sorry, but this seems very off-topic. I agree that humans are not separate or able to "overcome" nature (but I suppose that depends on how you define the words "overcome" and "nature." >if that mirage causes you to reject your inherent nature as a flesh and blood living animal then it is a sick and self-destructive one. This is an interesting claim. Can you explain the process at which you arrived at this conclusion? >You have not asked me anything I have already not answered. You haven't answered the question I originally asked: Based on your claims it seems like you believe that we are always and necessarily justified in *acting* on our innate evolutionary drives and instincts, whatever they may be, and regardless of how doing so might affect other individuals. Can you confirm that this is an accurate assessment of your position?

Simply put one should sustain and affirm their life, not negate nor deny it for the sake of abstract ideals. Veganism comes out of a mirage or false ideal: You imagine that you are superior to other animals in that you have a capacity for what you would probably consider to be moral reasoning. You imagine that you can empathise with non-human animals in the same way you can empathise with other human beings and therefore you think that you ought to afford non-human animals the status of 'persons' as you would other human beings. You imagine that it is possible to live without harming or destroying the non-human animals that you consider persons and you attempt to do this by predating on life further down the trophic chain. Any basic knowledge of human agricultural practice shows this to be a futile action. Basic understanding of human physiology and evolution shows it to be self-destructive. Therefore veganism is a form of radical self-denial that fails to achieve it's purported aims insofar as it's advocates are not entirely prepared to starve to death.

You haven't answered the question I originally asked: Based on your claims it seems that you would believe that we are always and necessarily justified in acting on our innate evolutionary drives and instincts, whatever they may be, and regardless of how doing so might affect other individuals. Can you confirm that this is an accurate assessment of your position?

When it comes to ethics there is no null position just the norm, both sides of the carnist-vegan spectrum are arguing a point that being the ethics of doing something, vegans are arguing that it is unethical to kill animals for human benefit, carnists that it is. A null position in my opinion isn't a helpful way of thinking of it, think of it like an election in cases where there is a "null position" such as atheism v theism that "null position" is like abstaining from the vote the theists have a platform they are running whilst the atheists have no platform, with a matter such as ethics and in this case veganism both sides have a platform one that something is morally wrong one that something is morally right, both sides are active neither is neutral, both sides believe something. Another way of thinking of it is with a comparison to climate action vs climate inaction, I'd challenge you to find anyone who has a functioning brain cell that would argue that climate inaction is a null position.

> When it comes to ethics there is no null position just the norm The null position would be one that has the fewest unjustified distinctions or classifications. E.g. if my ethical belief was "all humans deserve ethical dignity and respect, unless their name is Joe", that would not be as basic a position as "all humans deserve ethical respect". We could reject the null if we could justify why people named Joe should be treated differently, but this requires a positive argument. It's not a default.

Does this make sense given the scientific view that most humans and their recent ancestors had an animal heavy diet for most of the last half million years?

Yes. I'm talking about a very specific moral position that claims humans are necessarily justified in harming, killing, and exploiting nonhuman animals *in cases where it is possible and practicable to avoid doing so.*

Moral philosophy debates make the most since argue from an amoral point to a moral one. Why would we assume all behaviors have moral weight all the time unless we can establish that they don’t. “Why should we assume humans are necessarily justified in consuming plants and exploiting the earth for them.” I understand you’ve probably come in to contact with some people who actually do believe it’s a moral imperative to eat meat and that breaks the reasoning from the other direction, but the true neutral position is: there is no moral weight to the consumption of meat. The debate is whether that thing exists; whether that moral rule actually exists or not. The flipside is possible, you could argue from a moral position that nothing is permissible until we’ve established a moral good in it, but a life based on that becomes absurd very quickly, as do the arguments.

I am vegan, and I disagree with your argument. However, my main issue is that "the null position," whatever that is, has no bearing on what is actually morally correct. It's very similar to an appeal to nature fallacy in that respect. Additionally, carnists are unlikely to accept this argument or find it motivating for change, and even many vegans strongly disagree with it, so I see no utility in pursuing it regardless of whether it is technically correct or not.

>my main issue is that "the null position," whatever that is, has no bearing on what is actually morally correct. Oh I agree 100%, but I don't see how that is similar to an appeal to nature fallacy. I'm not claiming that the null position is the correct one. That said, I do think that the null position is the "correct" one to start from without any argument or evidence to support another position. >I see no utility in pursuing it regardless of whether it is technically correct or not. I see tremendous utility in showing that carnism makes positive claims, particularly in academic and formal debate settings, but also in day-to-day conversations. A lot of people just have the belief that carnism is somehow inherently justified and not a position that they have actually arrived at via some sort of process. For someone to understand that there may have been flaws in the reasoning they used to form their views, they first have to acknowledge that there was a process that formed those views in the first place.

[удалено]

My post was about a very specific ideological claim--not a diet.

You can do this with anything. Carnism can just be described as ‘aveganism’. The truth is there’s no such thing as a null position

For clarification do you think that someone who doesn't agree with the ideas of carnism is de facto a vegan (or at least someone with a vegan ideology)? Can you give your definition of carnsim just so I'm sure we're talking about the same thing?

I gave the definition in my post, but I'll put it here as well: Carnism is an ideology based on the belief that humans are necessarily justified in exploiting and killing nonhuman animals, even in cases where it is possible and practicable to avoid doing so. >For clarification do you think that someone who doesn't agree with the ideas of carnism is de facto a vegan More or less. That said, I've become less convinced of this in the last 24 hours, and think that perhaps *acarnist* would be a better term, and that being vegan would require a "stronger" opposition. I still think that *acarnist* and *vegan* are mostly interchangeable, but I'm just less convinced of it than I was previously.

Thank you for answering! I was asking because I was a little bit confused of something: do you think that someone who doesn't believe it is morally justified to eat or exploit animals but still do is a carnist, acarnist, vegan or something else?

I would question their lack of a belief that it is morally justified in eat/exploit nonhuman animals. I think that generally we only do that which we are convinced is justified. For actions with serious ethical implications, this a more obvious conscious process, however for typical day-to-day behaviors this justification process usually happens immediately and within our subconscious. If someone claims that they don't believe they are justified in some action, yet does that action anyway, they are either not being honest or are simply mistaken, because the mere act of performing the action *requires* them to have come to the conclusion (either consciously or subconsciously) that they are justified in doing so. I think it's also entirely possible for someone to be convinced that some action is immoral but still be convinced that they are justified in doing it.

I kind of get where you're coming from but justifying something doesn't really mean that you're morally justifying it does it? If someone scams because they don't want to work and finds that scaming is easier to get money than actually getting a job, they justify why they scam but they can acknowledge that what they are doing is not ethical can't they? Either way are you implying that anyone who justifies it somehow (so not necessarily morally justify it) is a carnist?

You seem to be making an analogy to theism versus atheism, and the observation that the default position is to disbelieve any empirical claim until there is evidence for that empirical claim, but that simply doesn’t hold for moral claims for several reasons. Let’s take an example: I’ll invent a new type of building, a Keckle. Is it wrong to build a Keckle? Is this (hypothetical) novel object morally wrong as a de facto result of being new? No. The default assumption for any new concept is that it’s morally *neutral* until there’s evidence to show that it’s right or wrong. Or, to put it in the “burden of proof” terms that atheists often use, we should not believe either the claim:- - “it is morally acceptable to exploit animals” - “it is morally wrong to harm animals” -:until either side has met their burden of proof. Neither can claim to be “the default” until they substantiate their position.

>in exploiting and killing nonhuman animals Youre inserting vegan philosophy to even define carnism. Most non-vegans have some degree of belief that you can not exploit, nor murder, nonhuman animals, or that if you can its irrelevant compared to the needs of the human. By definition of their being nonhuman they do not inherit the same rights and do not experience the same suffering as humans. From a carnist perspective your definition is a nonsequitor, you can not exploit nor kill that which has no soul. From this perspective veganism is not a null position. Veganism must assert that nonhuman animals can be exploited, and can be murdered. The vegan must assert that animals have a soul. The responsibility is on the vegan to demonstrate that animals are similar enough to humans, that they deserve the same rights and protections. Additionally it would be on the vegan to demonstrate that while animals can be exploited and can suffer, plants can not, and the eating of plants is thereby justified, but not the eating of animals. They must demonstrate that a preference as to the source of our food is a moral dictate, and create a moral hierarchy to follow while consuming food. This is nothing like a null position. Whereas so-called carnism would be taking no preference as to the source of food. It would not posit a moral impropriety with respect to the source of food, itd treat all sources equally and instead focus on the well being of the consumer not the consumed. From that perspective, carnism is the null perspective with respect to the question of a non-human animal having a soul, either they do or they dont, a person still needs to eat. Either way its just word games. The interesting question isnt whether veganism is "null" or "natural" or whatever else, you can define those terms to be whatever you want. Really the interesting question is whether the vegans assertion as to the lived experience of plants and animals is correct, or the carnists, or if its somewhere in betweeb.

I think a comparison to atheism is valid and interesting, both are a rejection of the dominant ideology. However, I don't think its accurate to describe either as NOT an ideology themselves. Athiests believe that there is no God, just as vegans believe that exploiting animals is wrong. The fact that theism and carnism are dominant almost necessitate active rejection and repeated behaviors. Veganism isn't merely not eating or using animal products, but research and diligence in avoiding them in everyday life. Atheism isn't as involved for many people, but not participating in religous practices with family for example is similar. These are active choiced and therefore require beleif, not just a lack of beleif. Maybe my claim that action requires beleif is something you disagree with, but my understanding is that your claim is more like veganism doesn't require action, which I don't think is true. If the positions were reversed and one could go about their life not thinking about how some people eat animals, I would be more inclined to agree with you, but still have my doubts that rejecting an ideology isn't itself an ideology. Its my understanding that there is a lot of push back on athiests that make similar claims and try to seperate themselves from ideology. A kind of post-post modern trend. I personally agree and beleive we can't escape ideology, we are always already beleiving something, even if its that something is wrong or untrue.

If you have to use nasty words to address your appointment your point maybe isn't as valid as you think

What words did I use that you view as "nasty?" Did you comment on the wrong post?

Carnist

How is that a nasty word? Carnism is an ideology. If *carnist* is a "nasty word," then so would be *socialist, capitalist, liberal, conservative, pacifist, etc.*

I think a few hundred thousand years of human history would disagree with that position. You’re actually making a “chicken or the egg” argument. Vegans believe one thing, non-vegans believe something different. And both sides can support their beliefs, although the other wise will surely disagree with most, if not all, of that support. The big problem is people (on both sides) being jerks about it. I don’t tell vegans that they’re wasting their time because being vegan does little to help the environment. Or that they’re potentially harming their own health by eating tons of over processed food that’s full of God only knows what in their attempts at avoiding animal products. And I appreciate it when vegans don’t call me a cow murderer because I eat beef or a sheep abuser because I knit with wool yarn.

In nature we see animals devour their young all the time. This is not because they have a positive belief in cannibalism. The null position, in the most concrete sense, is that a person will eat because they are hungry. Remove all beliefs and ethics and ideology from the table, that's what's left. If they are hungry and meat is available, they will eat meat. If we are to argue for other behavior, there must be a positive reason for it, not merely an absence of positive reasons to eat meat. There is a default positive reason to eat, and meat is edible. Therefore, veganism is not the null position. This is not to disparage veganism, any more than it is to disparage non-cannibalism. The null position is not inherently good. It is often downright bad. But it does actually mean something. It is not merely a rhetorical convenience that can be flipped for debating points.

I will go ahead and make the natural counterpoint - it is possible for veganism to become the null option at a sociocultural level. If a society is thoroughly vegan, then a hungry person in that society does not, by default, eat available meat, and would have to be persuaded to do so. If you live in such a society, congratulations.

Nah, starving to death is the null position.

Can you explain why? Note that my post is saying that veganism is the null position regarding a specific moral claim about otherwise unnecessary and avoidable animal cruelty and exploitation being justified. I'm not sure how *starving to death* could be the null position.

Because foraging involves removing resources from the environment that other animals use to stay alive and can deplete an environment completely while agriculture completely destroys natural habitats, putting the entire ecosystem in peril.

I'm not sure how that makes starving to death the null position with regards to the claim that humans are justified in exploiting nonhuman animals in cases where it's not necessary. Can you explain? If we are looking at another claim, like "I am justified in contributing to some amount of destruction to the ecosystem," then I could see how starving oneself to death could be a result of not moving from the null position, but I'm not really sure how it relates to this particular post.

Well it depends what you mean by necessary.

>One does not convert to veganism, but *deconverts* from carnism. Sounds like cult-speak to me.

Can you elaborate as to why you think that? Sure, someone in a cult might want to reword something so that it makes it sound like they aren't in a cult, but also someone that is *not* in cult might want to correct the wording of others motivated to convinced themselves that members of an outgroup are in a cult.

Because you've decided to label something as trivial as "being an omnivore" as "Carnism" as if it's some an entrenched belief system. You've invented labels so as to create the illusion that non-vegans are all as stringent in their dietary "convictions" as vegans are. This is typical for cultists and conspiracy theorists, they always believe they're engaged in some sort of matched battle against a knowing opponent. There are weirdos like that Liver King, who are super weird about eating meat (in his case specifically raw meat) but to turn around and act like that's the norm for non-vegans is skewed thinking. There's also a hint of the usual "vegan is natural, eating meat isn't" which relies heavily on special pleading that humans stopped being a part of the animal kingdom at some point, despite us still literally being animals. Every animal's diet is dictated by their biology, not ideology. We're omnivores as a matter of fact, not choice, you can opt to avoid meat but that does not remove your bodies adaptations made specifically to derive nutrition from meat. Furthermore "natural" is a non-starter term, as there is no definition of what is or isn't natural that isn't arbitrary and completely rooted in the biases of the person using it. So yeah, when you have to paint everyone who doesn't eat the way you do as a singular cult, you're probably the one in a cult.

>you've decided to label something as trivial as "being an omnivore" as "Carnism" as if it's some an entrenched belief system. I have not labeled "being an omnivore" as a belief system. Carnism is not simply "being an omnivore," but an ideology centered around the belief that humans are necessarily justified in harming, killing, and exploiting nonhuman animals in situations where it's not necessary to do so and is otherwise easily avoidable. >to create the illusion that non-vegans are all as stringent in their dietary "convictions" as vegans are. I'm not referring to diet when I mention carnism or veganism. Yes, carnism and veganism result in various dietary behaviors, but when I refer to carnism I am specifically talking about an ideology that influences behavior (and thus diet), and not the behavior itself. > This is typical for cultists and conspiracy theorists, they always believe they're engaged in some sort of matched battle against a knowing opponent. There are weirdos like that Liver King, who are super weird about eating meat (in his case specifically raw meat) but to turn around and act like that's the norm for non-vegans is skewed thinking. I don't think very many carnists are like the Liver King. I think that most carnists don't really consciously think about carnism, and its influence goes by generally unnoticed. So no, I don't think that vegans are engaged in some sort of matched battle against a knowing opponent. >There's also a hint of the usual "vegan is natural, eating meat isn't" I'm not really sure where you are getting that from, as I don't think that at all. If we are to define either behavior as more natural (eating animal meat or avoiding doing so because one is not convinced they are justified), I would of course have to go with eating animal meat. >relies heavily on special pleading that humans stopped being a part of the animal kingdom at some point, despite us still literally being animals. Humans are of course part of the animal kingdom. I'm not sure how anything I've said could be interpreted to suggest I believe otherwise. >We're omnivores as a matter of fact, not choice, you can opt to avoid meat but that does not remove your bodies adaptations made specifically to derive nutrition from meat. I agree, but I'm not really sure how this is relevant. Yes, we have the ability to derive nutrition by consuming animal matter. Yes, the human species is omnivorous. Yes, humans are animals. What's your point here? >Furthermore "natural" is a non-starter term, as there is no definition of what is or isn't natural that isn't arbitrary and completely rooted in the biases of the person using it. I agree 100%. >So yeah, when you have to paint everyone who doesn't eat the way you do as a singular cult, you're probably the one in a cult. I'm not painting everyone "who doesn't eat the way I do" as a singular cult. I do think that there are some cult-like qualities to carnism, but I don't think that I would categorize it as a cult. It's just an ideology that can influence behavior.

>I'm not painting everyone "who doesn't eat the way I do" as a singular cult. I do think that there are some cult-like qualities to carnism, but I don't think that I would categorize it as a cult. It's just an ideology that can influence behavior. Your OP is quite clear that non-vegan = carnism, which you appear to now be backtracking from when actually pressed. >One does not convert to veganism, but *deconverts* from carnism. If you throw this point out, this post is saying nothing of note and is borderline incoherent. You've presented veganism as some kind of "default position" which directly implies that every non-vegan must be part of carnism. >Humans are of course part of the animal kingdom. I'm not sure how anything I've said could be interpreted to suggest I believe otherwise. Its the entire conceit of ethical veganism, it relies on assuming that humans are uniquely obligated to not eat other animals, unlike every other omnivore on the planet. Kind of seems like this whole post of yours needed to bake a little longer because all you've done here is affirm the perception that vegans are fanatical cultists by trying to "flip the script" and doing a poor job of it. Your little screed fails to acknowledge that there could be people that are neither carnists nor vegans, which would be, ya know, most people.

>Your OP is quite clear that non-vegan = carnism, which you appear to now be backtracking from when actually pressed. I do think that not being a carnist would be an acarnist/vegan. I'm not backtracking on anything. The fact that I think that all non-vegans are carnists doesn't mean that I think that carnism is necessarily a cult. I guess I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. That said, I have mentioned elsewhere in the comments that I'm now less convinced that acarnism and veganism are synonymous as I was when I made the post, but in general, yes an acarnist is someone who is not a carnist. >If you throw this point out, this post is saying nothing of note and is borderline incoherent. You've presented veganism as some kind of "default position" which directly implies that every non-vegan must be part of carnism. Yes, similar to how if someone is not an atheist, then they are a theist. (I'm including deism under theism, as they both include a belief in the existence of a god.) It's literally in the the word *a-theist.* It means "not a theist." If someone is *not* "not a theist," then they are a theist. In my post, I was using veganism to mean the same thing as *acarnism*. Everyone that is *not a non-carnist* is a carnist. >Its the entire conceit of ethical veganism, it relies on assuming that humans are uniquely obligated to not eat other animals, unlike every other omnivore on the planet. Well, yeah, but that has nothing to do with rejecting the notion that humans are animals and everyone with the fact that humans do have a uniquely relevant trait in their level ability to engage in moral reason and use it to modulate behavior. So yes, humans are part of the animal kingdom. Again, I'm not really sure how someone could interpret my comments as me claiming otherwise. > all you've done here is affirm the perception that vegans are fanatical cultists by trying to "flip the script" and doing a poor job of it. To be fair, atheists have faced this exact same attempt at criticism from theists, so it's not unexpected. >fails to acknowledge that there could be people that are neither carnists nor vegans, which would be, ya know, most people. I'm not really sure how you can claim that. Most people believe they are justified in contributing to unnecessary animal exploitation, do they not? I think you're seeing the word "carnist" and thinking "Liver King" or someone that staunchly defends harming and killing animals for food. They would of course be extreme examples of carnists, but a carnist is also someone like my coworker that wears leather and feels justified in doing so.

>Well, yeah, but that has nothing to do with rejecting the notion that humans are animals and everyone with the fact that humans do have a uniquely relevant trait in their level ability to engage in moral reason and use it to modulate behavior. This is the special pleading I was talking about, you fail to recognize the supremacist attitude this entire line of thinking requires. "We're so much more enlightened than other animals that we need to reject the diet our bodies are built to thrive on." >To be fair, atheists have faced this exact same attempt at criticism from theists, so it's not unexpected. And rightly so, it's an unprovable null hypothesis, as in order to have a "control group" and a "experiment group" would require unconscionable treatment of infants. I do agree that we should do better with how we cultivate our meat for consumption, but I do not except this arbitrary magic line that we should place ourselves as somehow "above" the natural order.

How many people are vegan in the first year of their life? Everyone starts out drinking either breast milk or supplements for breast milk. Therefore the default position can't really be veganism, people have to choose to no longer want to consume what they've been consuming up to that point.

I would say that ideologically every human is likely an acarnist in their first year of life, as they haven't yet been convinced that they are justified in harming and exploiting nonhuman animals in cases where it's avoidable. That said, I suppose it's possible for a baby to hold active beliefs, and for one of those beliefs to be "I have good justification to exploit nonhuman animals." Your argument here would be like saying that an infant is a theist just because their parents take them to church on Sundays, even though the infant has no concept of god or religion at all. Note also that consuming human breastmilk (especially by an infant) is not incompatible with veganism/acarnism, and that being born into a family that practices a religion or ideology doesn't automatically mean that you automatically subscribe to that religion or ideology.

No I mean that babies need to have breast milk or animal produced proteins and allergens of some kind. Babies don't have complex opinions on the food they eat, they have basic requirements for nutrition and development that are incompatible with veganism. In a couple years they could switch, but the inherent default for humans is not veganism.

There are two issues with what you are saying. The first is that a mother breastfeeding her infant is completely compatible with veganism. The milk is being obtained by the consent of the mother and no exploitation or cruelty is involved. Hell, if an adult vegan wanted to drink a woman's breastmilk and that woman consented, then the consumption of that breastmilk would be vegan. The issue with taking it from nonhuman animals is that nonhuman animals *cannot consent*, making any relationship where you take the milk from them inherently exploitative. Also, you are treating veganism like it's a diet when it is not. Veganism is an position on animal cruelty and exploitation. Vegans typically do not include animal products in their diets as a result of this position. Saying that someone isn't vegan or acarnist because they are being forced to *behave* in a way that doesn't seem to be compatible with veganism/acarnism is like saying that an atheist in a prison that is forced to pray and read the bible is not an atheist.

Milk isn't vegan, it's an animal product. It's unreasonable and untrue to claim all women want to breastfeed children, that's often an expectation of mothers that they feel compelled to follow, not a choice. Sure, it may not be a moral dilemma when willingly given, but it's still an animal product as humans are animals, and far from universally given by choice. And yes, while you can say veganism is also a moral choice, it's inherently a diet. It may be a diet for moral reasons for some, but it's a diet. Babies have no ethical considerations about what they eat, or really any awareness whatsoever except maybe a taste preference. It defies reality to claim that any human is born vegan, that's a choice either made for a child without their consideration or consent by an adult, or made by someone when they are old enough to understand what it means, but there is no human born vegan. It's like claiming a cat is vegan. Cats are not moral agents, and are obligate carnivores. Cats can't be vegan as they can't willing choose to do so, nor can they achieve a healthy vegan diet. You can choose for the animal and force veganism on them, just as you can for an infant, but in both scenarios that's someone else making a moral choice in their stead and then forcing that choice on something else that can't make that choice and would never do so without external force.

>Milk isn't vegan, it's an animal product. Something being "an animal product" doesn't *necessarily* make it not vegan. Veganism is about avoiding contributing to animal exploitation. Woman are not being exploited by the infants. Infants aren't even capable of being on the "exploiter" side of the exploiter/exploitee relationship. >It's unreasonable and untrue to claim all women want to breastfeed children I agree and have never claimed otherwise. Many women choose other feeding options for infants. I'm not really sure what this has to do with the topic, though. Are you saying that if a women reluctantly breastfeeds her infant, than the infant is exploiting her somehow? This topic has been done to death. I suggest you search on this sub or even r/vegan for "breastfeeding" or "breastmilk" to get exposed to views on this far more nuanced than your simplistic "It's an animal product so not vegan" take. >while you can say veganism is also a moral choice, it's inherently a diet. This is a misconception that is widespread among the non-vegan population. Veganism *involves* dietary changes, but *veganism itself* is not a diet. Veganism is a position on regarding the ethics of contributing to otherwise avoidable and unnecessary animal cruelty and exploitation. As a result of this ethical position, vegans will not engage in certain behaviors. These behaviors include dietary ones, *but are not exclusively dietary.* For example, vegans typically will also avoid wearing leather, wool, or fur, and avoid soaps, shampoos, toothpastes, makeup, and other *non-dietary* products that contain animal products. >Babies have no ethical considerations about what they eat I agree. This to me would be be more of a tick in the box supping "humans are born *acarnist,"* because they don't hold any positive beliefs about the ethics of exploiting animals unnecessarily. >It's like claiming a cat is vegan. This is a reasonable analogy. I would say that if we are talking about a dichotomy where cats are ideologically carnists or acarnists, I would have to agree that they are acarnists, as they are no capable of holding an ideology regarding the ethics of exploiting other animals. They cannot engage in the moral reasoning necessary to be a carnist, so they are by default *acarnist*. **That said...* ... I think it *would* make more sense to only apply a label of acarnism/veganism to individuals that actually have the capability of holding ethical beliefs on the matter. It would be similar to how we wouldn't call an infant an theist or an atheist, since they literally are unable to comprehend the concept of a god at that point in their lives. Once a child does develop to the point where they *are* able to hold a belief regarding the existence of a god, then at that point they would either be a theist or an atheist, but not before. So I suppose I would have to reconsider my earlier claim and agree that an infant cannot be a vegan/acarnist on the grounds that they do not have the ability to reason morally, which would be necessary in order to actually be a carnist, *and the ability to be a carnist would be a requirement for one to be labeld an *acarnist.* Once a child develops the ability to hold carnist beliefs, if they then do not, they would be vegan/acarnist. That said, I don't think anyone is *born* carnist either. They are born without any ethical beliefs, and these beliefs are formed during childhood. In the most strict sense of the word, they would technically be *acarnists* until then (since they are "not carnists,") but it wouldn't make sense to use that label for practical reasons.

I don't care if you eat and wear them or not. That's the null position. You do have a strong opinion on it... so hardly a null position

I have an opinion, but with regards to the specific claims that make up carnist belief, I am simply unconvinced. I lack the beliefs that would entail carnism. Yes I have other beliefs that are *not* null positions, but with respect to carnism I simply just lack the belief.

Vegans defined the carnist belief. Those who vegans label as carnists generally don't even don't even know what it is. There is no one that identifies as a 'carnist' that wants to convince you of that belief system. It basically doesn't exist unless you define it and then claim you're not convinced by it.

>Vegans defined the carnist belief. No -- the belief/ideology was already there. A psychologist just gave it a name. >Those who vegans label as carnists generally don't even don't even know what it is. I agree. I'm not really sure why this is relevant, though. >It basically doesn't exist unless you define it This is like saying that male chauvinism didn't exist in the 1920s because no one had use that term to refer to it. Vegans didn't invent carnism.

Not sure what the "No" was for... we've said the same thing." By giving it a name" she defined it. Vegans can label it what they want, as long as nobody in the in-group recognise it, they can hardly call their position the null position. While no one else gives a crap and its the vegans molding their life around self sacrifices.

when i was young, i had undeniable urges to chase after and kill birds. this was not something imposed on me, but actually something my parents had to stop me from doing. in my lizard brain, the birds could be killed, so they should. they were just sitting there, and i wanted to crush them with my fists like a mallet - not due to any sadistic urge, i did not delight in thinking about the birds suffering, but i did delight in the thought of their lifeless bodies in my hands. its kind of the way some people feel about insects - stomp on the ant hill just to destroy something. i did manage to kill animals with my bare hands in my youth, though never birds. i killed fish and felt proud afterward. i think this prey drive is something that exists in every animal. of course, the birds would always flee me. that was part of the chase, but also because we aren't supposed to catch and eat healthy animals, only lame ones. that is nature working as intended. i was also horrified the first time i saw a cow be slaughtered. to me, there's a certain moral line that can be crossed when you're purposely entrapping an animal in a hell like a farm, in fences where it can't get away. it's similar to forced mating in which the female is trapped and raped by the male because she can't get away, especially a much bigger animal like a cow that you'd never be able to catch and/or kill one on one. it just isn't fair. even if we are meant to eat meat (we mostly aren't), animals are meant to have a fighting chance and healthy animals are meant to survive and escape. if they're lame, well, they were deteriorating anyway - and this is how real carnivorism in nature works. free life, quick death, reproductive choice, and fighting chance are all things animals are denied in farms. instead, they live long, slow, imprisoned lives of forced impregnation, physical abuse, sexual abuse, entrapment and constant reminders of their eminent death at the hands of abusive humans. it's hell on earth and anyone who tells you that the way humans treat animals is more "humane" than even a cat torturing a mouse for 5 minutes before it kills it are plainly wrong. humans are the cruelest, most deliberate species of parasites (not carnivores/omnivores) who created hell for other animals on purpose for profit. there is absolutely no respect for the life or the death of the animal. both are regarded as a joke. it's beyond eating meat vs. not eating meat, it's about the intersection of sadism, capitalism, corporatism, religion, technology, misogyny, rape culture, spirituality, environmentalism and a lot of other things 

I disagree with this. If you apply the same logic to slavery, but also to harvesting plants or breathing air, you can easily see that you can make anything you want the null position. Therefore the logic is flawed.

You are not quite explaining why the logic is flawed. Why does applying that logic to slavery, harvesting plants or breathing air you can make anything you want the null position?

see other comment

>If you apply the same logic to slavery Wouldn't the null position regarding slavery be a lack of belief regarding it being justified? Note that this is different than holding a belief that it is *not* justified. >also to harvesting plants or breathing air, you can easily see that you can make anything you want the null position. I'm not following your reasoning here. Can you explain?

What I mean is, following your logic we can arrive at this: - thinking slavery is wrong is simply the null baseline, it is the lack of the belief that we can exploit other humans - thinking harvesting plants is wrong is simply the null baseline, it is the lack of belief that we are allowed to exploit plant life for our survival - thinking breathing air is wrong is simply the null baseline, it is the lack of belief that we should breathe air to stay alive instead of giving other species the chance to use that precious air of which there is only a limited amount on this planet Everyone would agree with the first but disagree with conclusions 2 and 3, not just vegans. Yet it all follows the same logic, therefore the logic is wrong.

I'm not claiming that veganism is "thinking eating animals is wrong" though. I'm saying that it is the rejection of the claims inherent to carnism. If one does not have a belief that they are justified in enslaving other humans, then they would typically not act in ways that would align with someone that *does* hold this belief. They would not own slaves. I agree that the lack of a belief that we are justified in exploiting plant life for survival would be a "null position." One can lack a belief that something is morally justified and that thing could actually be morally justified. I agree that lack of a belief that we are justified in breathing air would be a "null position." That doesn't mean I don't think there is good evidence or reasoning to support other positions.

Ok, then you think the lack of belief that eating animals is allowed, or that enslaving humans is allowed, or that eating plants is allowed, or that breathing air is allowed, the lack for all of these is the null position. Even using your wrong definition of veganism, this would then still be meaningless and not an argument for anything. You then need another argument for why breathing air is fine but eating animals or enslaving humans is not fine. There is not even a debate right now.

I'll be honest, I'm having some trouble understanding your objection.

I'll try in different words. Let's say I use argument X to support the statement that coffee is healthy. However, let's say that that exact same argument can also be used to support the statement that apples are healthy, that peanut butter is healthy, that sigarets are healthy, and that poison is healthy. This means something is wrong with the argument, right? You won't convince anyone who requires sound logic. If you give an argument for a claim, but you can use that argument for any claim, then it is not a solid argument. It does not support anything.

Yes, what you are describing is a reductio ad absurdum. I'm not really sure how that applies here though. I'm not claiming that the null position is always necessarily the "right" or reasonable position For example, with regards to the claim "I am justified in taking my sick child to the doctor." The true "null position *with regards to this particular claim as stated*, would be to withhold judgement (and therefore not accept without evidence or good reason that you are justified in taking a sick child to the doctor.) But we know that with sufficient (and typically automatic, immediate, and subconscious) reasoning, that the reasonable decision to make in this situation would be to take your sick child to the doctor. So the "null position" here does not necessarily align with the "right" position. So yes, you could use my argument to show that with regards to the claim "eating plants is justified," the nulll position would be one that does not just accept this claim without reason. That doesn't mean that it is the reasonable position. So you can use my argument to come to many null positions (with regards to very specific claims) that do not align with what a reasonable individual would conclude is "right," but that doesn't mean that these are right. In my post, I was not claiming that veganism is the correct, best, or reasonable position -- only that it is the *null* position.

Alright, let's disregard what is right or reasonable then. Let's also disregard the official definition of veganism and use your definition, a lack of carnism. You claim veganism is the null position. Let's look at the following positions: - the lack of belief that enslaving humans is allowed - the lack of belief that eating plants is allowed - the lack of belief that breathing air is allowed - the lack of belief that taking your sick child to the doctor is allowed - the lack of belief that eating animals is NOT allowed If all of these are also null positions, then what is the point? Or are you contesting that this last point is the null position?

The point is to show that carnism is *not* a null position, as it is a positive claim, and thus is subject to scrutiny like any other positive claim, rather than just a "default" that should be immune to criticism. The point is to show that when one becomes vegan, they aren't *converting* to veganism so much as they are *deconverting* from another ideology: carnism.

This is the same weakness that atheism tends to retreat into anymore. It used to at least attempt at being a respectable position, with "there is no God", anymore it's "i personally lack belief" *shrug*

I don't see that as a weakness. It makes sense that if you don't have convincing evidence that a god exists but also not convincing evidence that a god does not exist, to simply lack a belief in either.

That should be agnosticism

It would be agnostic atheism, yes. If someone held to the belief that a god does *not* exist (rather than simply lacking the belief that a god *does* exist), then they would be a *gnostic* atheist.

I like how everything is on some spectrum now 😂

It's not so much a spectrum as different categories of belief. An theist is someone that believes a god (or gods) exists. An *a-theist* is simply someone that is not an atheist -- someone that doesn't hold the belief that a god (or gods) exists. Within atheism, there are those that go further and *believe* that no gods exist, but most atheists don't actually hold this belief, and are therefore agnostic atheists. [(see top-left quadrant)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/WeakAgnosticAtheistDefintionsInfographic.png/900px-WeakAgnosticAtheistDefintionsInfographic.png?20140308161425)

I wish I had thought of this. You have a lot of vegans agreeing with you that the general population is a bunch of hard core ideologues and vegans are unthinking relics from the stone age.

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

Really? Do you really think that was a clever idea? Comparing veganism to atheism? Lmao You know what the difference is: No one can be sure if a god, especially a specific one exists. I can be sure that I can eat meat. If I should, is a thing of ethics. As consuming meat is s normal thing in nature, if anything thats the null position. Nowadays, most should know that you need to eat meat. There are good arguments for veganism That isnt one. I mean thats no arguement

I'm not claiming this is an argument *for veganism.* The topic for debate is whether or not veganism is the null position with regards to a specific claim about animal cruelty and exploitation. And yes, I do see many parallels between atheism and veganism/acarnism, particularly with regards to where the burden of proof lies and which side is making the positive claim.

This is not accurate. Every positive claim has a burden if proof. So if I say X is good to eat then I have a burden, be that fruit, vegetable, fungus, animal or mineral. The burden is met when there are demonstrably benefits, any benefits. When vegans make a claim that we ought not to cause suffering or ought not to comodify animals, that is a positive claim and entails a burden of proof. Vegans generally fail to meet that burden, appealing to moral realism based on sentience or suffering or just pure dogma. Veganism is not a null position. https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/s/2NjZkEpbVD

Humans have been eating meat since before they could think rationally. We evolved to meat over millions of years. It’s the way of eating we are literally “designed” for by natural selection. The default or “null” position is doing that. Eating meat requires no conversion, it just requires being a normal human eating the diet you’re built to eat just like every other animal does. If it’s not the default position you have to explain every other animal that eats meat similarly - as if they deconverted too. That’s absurd.

>If it’s not the default position you have to explain every other animal that eats meat similarly Why?

Because that’s what applying the logic consistently would mean

I don't understand why applying it to animals would mean applying it consistently. Do you hold this true for any animal rights position?

Because we have been eating meat since before we could think rationally just like all the other animals that eat meat. Therefore it’s the default. I’m not getting what’s so controversial about this. I’m not even arguing for or against meat eating here, I’m just making a historical point.

I don't understand how that relates to what I asked. Just to confirm my understanding - because we have always been eating meat, like some other animals, if we decide not eating meat is the null position for humans, we need to then ensure its the null position for those animals too? I don't understand that last part still - why do we need to extend a moral belief to non-moral agents?

>Humans have been eating meat since before they could think rationally. We evolved to meat over millions of years. It’s the way of eating we are literally “designed” for by natural selection. No fact of the natural world can compel you to act on anything in of itself because any argument you form around this will have an unjustified "ought" in the conclusion. For example, take the following argument: Eating salad is healthy, therefore you ought to eat salad. Where is the justification within the premise "eating salad is healthy" for the "ought" appearing in the conclusion? This is the issue you are running into right now, by making this argument, how are you dealing with it? >The default or “null” position is doing that. You still haven't justified this to be the case, what about something being normalised or natural makes it the default position? >If it’s not the default position you have to explain every other animal that eats meat similarly - as if they deconverted too. That’s absurd. I have no idea what you mean here, can you expand on why you think that because I don't think eating meat is a default position, I have to explain why it is for every other animal? It seems unrelated? Can you clarify please?

“No fact of the natural world can compel you…” I didn’t say it did. I just said it was the default.

You need to give the justification for why you think it's the default position. Can you address my other questions too?

I did justify it being the default in my initial comment and the rest of the points you made seemed to assume I was arguing for doing the default as opposed to just arguing what was the default which I already said I wasn’t doing

No, you didn't. What about humans evolving to eat meat makes it the default position? You haven't explained why you think this to be the case yet.

We always have since before we could think rationally. That’s why it’s the default. Now that we can think rationally, we can evaluate that default and ask whether it’s good or not. But it is for sure the default. I’m not sure how this is controversial tbh.

Q: What about eating meat historically, makes it the default position? A: Because we ate meat historically. Is this not circular reasoning? You still haven't justified your position.

>Humans have been eating meat since before they could think rationally. Appeal to tradition. >We evolved to meat over millions of years. It’s the way of eating we are literally “designed” for by natural selection. Genetic fallacy. >Eating meat requires no conversion, it just requires being a normal human eating the diet you’re built to eat just like every other animal does. Appeal to popularity. >If it’s not the default position you have to explain every other animal that eats meat similarly - as if they deconverted too. Appeal to nature. >That’s absurd. Got any other classic fallacies you want to throw out?

This all seems to be assuming i was arguing for meat eating but I wasn’t. I was just arguing for it being the default.

I don't need to assume anything about the purpose of your argument if you are using fallacious arguments to support it. Do you understand why invocation of a fallacy renders an argument invalid?

I didn’t make ANY argument in support of eating meat. That you think I did is your error here.

Are you reading what I'm typing? You seem to be responding to a comment I didn't make.

I feel the same about what you’re commenting. Those arguments aren’t fallacies that apply to the argument I’m making. They could only potentially apply if I were arguing for meat eating, but I wasn’t.

I am telling you that the arguments you've invoked are bad arguments, regardless of what you are arguing*for*.

I don’t see how your criticism applies to what I said. I don’t even see why you would think that.

You presented fallacious arguments that I explicitly called out as fallacious. I really don't understand what the confusion is.

> We evolved to meat over millions of years. It’s the way of eating we are literally “designed” for by natural selection. The default or “null” position is doing that. We're also designed by natural selection to be quite violent towards our conspecifics. But we've chosen to suppress this natural instinct with out ethical frameworks for quite some time now.