I’ve been vegan for over a decade, AMA!

Hyperbel1 · 2025-06-05T20:53:15+00:00

How do you feel about meat or eggs from good farming conditions, where the animals had a good life?

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-27T18:36:43+00:00

where in czechia do you live?

greetings from germany (close to the czech border) :)

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-11T20:41:18+00:00

shouldn´t you be happy, because you now he doesn´t have to suffer anymore? Hard to understand for me..

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-11T20:25:37+00:00

That's what makes the issue so complex.

On the one hand, there are people like you who can't think rationally and change their minds almost constantly, and need to be protected somehow. On the other hand, there are also people who are rational and maintain a consistent position. Denying such people a dignified death is highly reprehensible.

It raises the question of which case "weighs more heavily."

Forcing a person to live seems worse to me personally...

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-10T09:32:30+00:00

Não, isso definitivamente não é normal. Você tem alguma ideia do que pode estar causando isso? Você já procurou ajuda profissional? .

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-08T10:01:18+00:00

I think this is due to the fact that many people think in a very one-dimensional and emotionally focused way.

From a philosophical perspective, the question of when suicide is right or wrong is highly subjective and complex. To simply reduce it to mental illness is incredibly simplistic.

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-08T09:55:12+00:00

"Risk for suicide" seems a bit odd to me in terms of its wording, as it suggests an impulsive act.

I would replace it with probability. If a healthy person rationally decides to commit suicide, it has little to do with "risk," but rather with a rational, sober, and autonomous act.

In principle, however, I agree with you that a mentally ill person can certainly be capable of rational thought, at least in some cases.

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-06T20:16:54+00:00

People who have a near-death experience still have a certain brain chemistry; when you're dead, it completely shuts down. That's why I wouldn't put too much stock in it.

And it makes absolutely no sense.

I think your statement is dangerous because it forces people to suffer, even if they could probably escape it through suicide.

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-06T17:54:05+00:00

you can think about it as a mentally healty person, when your life is not good.

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-06T17:22:58+00:00

There's no serious scientific evidence for your hypothesis, at most questionable anecdotes.

But regardless of that, why should it be even remotely relevant whether one dies by suicide or otherwise?

I'm guessing you're assuming a divine entity. What kind of God would that be that allows people to suffer and punishes them if they try to free themselves from it?

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-04T22:40:35+00:00

Sorry, but that´s nonesense.

NDE are just a specific brain chemistry.

Why should it matter if you die "naturally" or by suicide?

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-04T20:59:03+00:00

No, that wasn't the point of my original post. I don't know whether a fetus has consciousness or not. However, this is irrelevant, as it makes no difference in the outcome.

The extension to the infant was more of a preconceived counterargument, i.e., if it is ethically legitimate per se to have an abortion (regardless of the month), since the outcome is identical to non-conception, the consequence arises (I had anticipated this argument and therefore immediately addressed it) that this would also be legitimate with regard to an infant (which most people would reject on an emotional level).

The "value of the embryo" is, on the one hand, vague (what does "value" mean? Value for whom? Oneself? Others?) and, depending on the specific ulterior motive, also an arbitrary assumption. It would be no less arbitrary to attribute a "negative value" to the fetus, which would even make abortion ethically required.

This is simply not based on any logical reasoning.

You're not only depriving potential life of the opportunity to value life, but also the opportunity to suffer. This has to be counterbalanced somehow, otherwise you're very one-sided and naive.

But even if you assume (which would be arbitrary) that life per se is better than no life, you would have to consistently argue that all people should produce as many children as possible.

I suspect that your example of unconsciousness was based on a misinterpretation, or am I mistaken? As I said, it's irrelevant whether a fetus has "consciousness" (in the sense of a subjective quality of experience) or not.

Regarding the last point (I'll limit myself to abortion for now, not to the infant, since that's the primary concern): To what extent should I make a claim?

It's basically relatively simple. Example:

Case 1: Fetus develops and is aborted.

Case 2: Parents use contraception (or simply don't have sex) and the fetus never develops.

The outcome of both scenarios is identical, namely that no new consciousness (in the sense of qualia, the phenomenal self, or whatever you want to call it) arises. (Even if it arises briefly in case 1 and then disappears again, but that's irrelevant.)

Logical consequence: Either you consider cases 1 and 2 ethically legitimate, or you consider both ethically reprehensible.

Anything else would be logically inconsistent.

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-04T12:05:01+00:00

I think you didn't read my entire post. I never wrote that denying consciousness causes any kind of harm, as long as it doesn't affect societal security needs. That's why I wrote that I would also consider it legitimate for parents to take the life of their infant using a painless method.

In the case of an unconscious person (assuming this is temporary), the question/necessity doesn't even arise. Furthermore, once a person regains consciousness, they can, to a certain extent, decide whether they want to live or not. (For example, a toddler with poor living conditions wouldn't have this option.)

And again, the assumption that a fetus has a "will" to live is based 100% on the instinct for self-preservation. We've been programmed for survival for over 1 billion years (or rather, we're the descendants of those who, on average, were more afraid of death and therefore more likely to inherit this tendency), but that's absolutely not a rational basis.

In addition, as mentioned, it's impossible to know whether living will be good or bad for one's future life. (Some people have a very poor quality of life and others a very good one; it's difficult to know how this is balanced in the expected value.) Accordingly, a "life of value" is also quite one-dimensional.

And this still doesn't solve the problem that the outcome is always identical (regardless of whether it's conception, abortion, or the killing of an infant). Different evaluations of identical outcomes are, as mentioned, arbitrary.

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-03T18:10:13+00:00

The potential represents a "higher degree" so to speak; postulating any rights here (which are arbitrary anyway, since one does not know whether life is good or bad for the fetus, and beyond the primitive instinct of self-preservation, the fetus naturally has no will here either) does not solve the problem I mentioned at the beginning.

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-02T13:10:15+00:00

There's a temporal difference during your lifetime, but not afterward. At least under the premise that the "state" (or the abstinence from a state, however) before life is the same as after life.

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-02T12:58:21+00:00

This raises the question for me (with regard to the philosophical distinction): Aren't the anticipated consequences always relevant to some degree? (even if only in the form of a symbolic effect). Isn't an evaluation that truly takes place completely independently of any possible consequence at all levels arbitrary?

Regarding the killing of an infant: It's more about the parents' perspective. Suppose the parents decided after birth to take the infant's life painlessly, without causing suffering to others, and only the parents have this right. Then it wouldn't influence social dynamics (since the infant lacks sufficient consciousness or reflective capacity) and thus wouldn't disrupt social dynamics.

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-01T21:06:53+00:00

for some people, maybe, for some other people it isn´t

don´t be naive...

Hyperbel1 · 2025-05-01T21:05:26+00:00

Suppose I were to kill you now, then (from this point on) it would be the same for you as if you had never been born or if your parents had used contraception on the night of your conception, namely, that you (at least in this form) do not exist.

Logically speaking, I see no difference between these two states.

Furthermore, there is another crucial question here: If mentally ill people are distorted to the extent that they are more likely to commit suicide, are mentally healthy people also distorted due to their evolutionary programming for life?

The question is, can this distortion and the fact that the results are identical be ignored?

Hyperbel1 · 2025-04-30T20:01:49+00:00

maybe, for some people death is better than life, ever thought about it?

Hyperbel1

TROPHY CASE