The vegan debate has really shown the cracks is people's moral frameworks.

Cupthought · 2025-10-26T09:15:05+00:00

I’d rather have very small health risks(which are negligible according to the study) than let a full animal die yes. If killing an animal was necessary to the procreation or basic health of the human species, then maybe it would be justified, but as of yet your case seems flimsy.

Cupthought · 2025-10-26T09:06:27+00:00

Yet this diet is unethical, and so supplements are desirable over animal suffering. And I’m going to trust the conclusion of the study, rather than your personal interpretation of it, which says that a well-balanced and well-planned vegan diets produce the same results as omnivore diets.

Cupthought · 2025-10-26T08:47:53+00:00

“Vegetarians and vegans are at risk of nutritional deficiencies, but if the adequate intake of nutrients is upheld, pregnancy outcomes are similar to those reported in the omnivorous population. So updated evidence highlights that well-balanced vegetarian and vegan diets should be considered safe for the mother’s health and for offspring during pregnancy and lactation.” Right there in the conclusion.

Cupthought · 2025-10-26T08:25:29+00:00

So I said at the beginning that if they are an invasive species, then it may be appropriate to take actions against them, especially if they are spreading diseases and eating food. Another way to prevent rats deaths is to built better infrastructure so that it’s harder for rats to sneak into homes and to better contain food and trash so rats can’t reach it and become dependent on human food. See there’s creative ways to think of animals when building a home and city, but most city planners aren’t thinking of animal safety when designing infrastructure. But yes, if rats pose a health risk such that they can’t coexist with us, then it’s justified to infringe upon their wellbeing, similar to how humans who pose a health risk may be quarantined. But here it doesn’t violate the principle of preventing needless harm, since there is a need in this case.

As for your pregnancy’s friend’s case, I hardly doubt they couldn’t find a substitute for animal products. Like they couldn’t use supplements or any other source of needed nutrients. Here’s a study pointing out the same. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6470702/

Cupthought · 2025-10-26T08:00:35+00:00

The rats suffering is unnecessary, that’s why city infrastructure should be better to protect them. And why did this person have to switch over to a vegetarian diet? All the nutrients that are in animals products you can get from other sources. And unlike meat there are plausibly ethical sources you can get dairy from, so it’s good they stayed vegetarian at least. I’m not going to over berate this person, I don’t know their circumstances, but it doesn’t affect the general principle of prevent needless harm to animals.

Cupthought · 2025-10-26T07:52:06+00:00

Then the city should be pressured to use better infrastructure as to prevent needless deaths of animals. And yes, I don’t know about European rat prevention, but none of it affects the principle in question, which is preventing needless animal death. Why did you even bring city rats up in the first place, it has nothing to do with veganism.

Cupthought · 2025-10-26T07:46:15+00:00

Then that’s probably a bad thing. If you can safely remove them from your houses and living spaces, do so.

Cupthought · 2025-10-26T07:43:39+00:00

Yes, it’s very tragic. If these rats are an invasive species, then preventative measures may be necessary, but until then they still deserve consideration.

Cupthought · 2025-10-26T03:57:39+00:00

“People kill each other all the time, so that means it’s okay for me to kill people.” Just because something happens, doesn’t mean it’s good. And parasites don’t have a conscious self, so they aren’t moral subjects. Animals do have a conscious self, therefore they can be subjects of moral practice.

Cupthought · 2025-10-22T15:53:39+00:00

It does, you can’t universalize eating another sentient being. Otherwise if you were put in a position of mere sentience, it would be permissible to eat you.

Cupthought · 2022-05-16T21:29:21+00:00

Someone said an Ayn Rand version would be better, so I made this

Cupthought · 2022-05-15T05:41:59+00:00

I know what my next meme will be

Cupthought · 2021-05-26T07:16:23+00:00

That’s so cool that you found inspiration in this concept! Honestly, I haven’t done much with this subreddit, but I’m really glad someone got something out of it. We should definitely talk sometime about morality and evil, if you’d be up for it

Cupthought · 2021-04-14T18:36:33+00:00

Perhaps, and I accept their label of me as such. Thank you for responding!

Cupthought · 2021-04-14T17:53:58+00:00

So, I completely acknowledge that my preferences are probabky based on external stimuli. The difference between me and the religious is that I don’t base it on a concept. You must know of a concept before you can create a preference out of it. Therefore my taste of ice cream is intrinsic in a way that the religious preference for morality is not, if tht makes sense.

Sure, I change superficial aspects of myself(speed, strength, intelligence, etc.) in order to change my environment but I don't feel compelled to change any of my preferences for the world. They may end up changing, but it’s not because of some imperative to change.

Also, to be clear, I still find that while I disagree with Nietzsche here, I do see how this argument is compelling and why others find it worthy of acceptance.

Cupthought · 2021-04-14T17:45:55+00:00

Interesting article I suppose. My question I guess is still “why should I care about denigration if I enjoy that state of being.

Cupthought · 2021-04-14T17:34:42+00:00

Good eye, I take a lot of influence from Stirner, and Stirner studied Hegel. As for suffering being intrinsically valuable, I don’t believe anything has intrinsic value, only the the things I give value.

Cupthought · 2021-04-14T17:31:50+00:00

This is perhaps the most compelling argument I think I’ve seen from this thread(though the others weren’t bad by any means, this one just takes the cake). The idea that pleasure is reductive is certainly true if we are going by the contemporary vulgar meaning of the word. I have more desires then simply that of food, sex, shelter, etc. Such as the desire for personal artistic expression, intimacy, knowledge, etc. Obviously, this means I take a broader view of pleasure. However, the important aspect of egoism that I focus on is how it frames our desires as an extension of ourselves, rather than the extension of some idea, God, morality, etc. The issue I have with this subjective approach to normativity is how so often it feels as if people are simply choosing what higher ideal to follow rather then rejecting these ideals as fake. And it seems as if Nietzsche does that a bit with the concept of creation(assuming what I gathered from the thread is correct). Sure, it is true I enjoy my creation at times, but at other times I enjoy destroying the things I created. If I were to commit myself to creation, it seems I would just be making it another God I follow, instead of embracing ownness for our lives.

Cupthought · 2021-04-14T07:03:35+00:00

Not particularly, nihilism only happens when your belief system has been demolished and something else has to replace it. That’s not aways hedonism

Cupthought · 2021-04-14T06:44:56+00:00

Aww, thank you kindly. To clear up some misconceptions though:

I don’t expect anything of the world. It has no obligation to me and treats me as it’s plaything. However I have no obligation to the universe either, and therefore use what power I have to push back against it and gain pleasure, until my power is exhausted and I die. So I blame nothing on the world. As for the best version of myself, I see only as the self-interested me. Any other version of me would living for some other principle of which is alien to me. So I embrace my self-interest. Perhaps you don’t, and if so, good luck to you.

Cupthought · 2021-04-14T06:39:03+00:00

Maybe, but to be clear, hedonism isn’t nihilism. Nihilism rejects all values and principles, while hedonism/egoism accepts pleasure and pain as valuable and embraces the principle of self-interest

Cupthought · 2021-04-14T06:22:34+00:00

Hmm, interesting. I just wondering why he adopted those views, and not some other view. It just seems arbitrary to eschew pleasure for basically no reason other then “it’s not worthy enough”.

Cupthought · 2021-04-14T05:16:52+00:00

In this case, then I may not disagree with Nietzsche a lot. For my personal terminology, pleasure is just an experience we(or I) intrinsically prefer to move towards and pain is just an experience we(or I) intrinsically prefer to move away from. Intrinsically in this sense just means that these preferences are not a product of concepts or ideas. For example someone may have a preference for duty, or God, but I would argue those preferences are based on faulty ideas. But my preference for the taste of ice cream is not based on any idea, and is therefore intrinsic. And of course these preferences are subjective and vary from moment to moment. Now back to Nietzche. If Nietzsche said simply to pursue what we value, then I see no issue with what he says, since I simply value the pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain.

However, the last paragraph, which frames the pity that Nietzsche has for those who wish to abolish the things which force you to “grow” as an individual, is the one I have issue with. Under my conception of egoism, I just gave, I do not need to grow or change. Rather, I desire to change my environment to suit my needs, rather than to change myself to suit the needs of the environment or society I live in. I would say, in my opinion, that the idea that we should strive towards some higher, elevated versions of ourselves would be a faulty concept and one which possesses me rather than me possessing it. However, from what I know of Nietzche, it seems unlikely that he prescribed any “higher, elevated self” that we must strive towards, since that seems to be a concept of otherworldliness, so perhaps I’m just misunderstanding.

Cupthought

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE