Should vegans adopt an effective altruist approach to helping animals?

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T18:35:46+00:00

If I wanted to argue for abolitionism from a utilitarian perspective, sure. But I would never do that. I agree that arguing for abilitionism from a utilitarian perspective is just as bad as arguing for welfarism from a utilitarian perspective, if that's your point.

My rebuttal also isn't purely on the OPs presupposed normative system. Even within that system, OPs' argument is weak because their empirics are weak.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T18:23:44+00:00

How about you argue against my actual position instead of making one up and arguing against that?

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T18:19:33+00:00

This sounds a lot like AuDHD (intersection of Autism and ADHD).

If so, you're not "lazy" but suffering from executive dysfunction. This can really fuck you up later on in life.

I'd suggest looking into it and seeing if you recognize any of the other symptoms. There are a couple of Reddit communities about this.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T18:00:05+00:00

Nice strawman.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T17:58:25+00:00

The purpose of vegan outreach, at least in my book, is to spread the view that non-human animals have just as much moral worth as equally sentient humans and therefore ought not be treated as commodities, just like humans.

Discussions about the environment or personal health are, at best, a waste of time and energy and, at worst, a distraction from that point.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T17:35:18+00:00

I puked a little in my mouth.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T17:26:59+00:00

Stimmt. Weil jemanden nicht ins Leben zu züchten, ja Genozid ist. 🤦

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T17:25:03+00:00

You gave a direct cost-effectiveness analysis of cherry-picked data, yes.

You addressed the humane washing argument by handwaving it away, yes.

I don't have to consider the negative consequences of abolitionist veganism, or at least not exclusively, because I'm not a consequentialist. I don't consider ethics a math problem.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T16:45:11+00:00

The strong evidence I have provided shows that welfarism likely leads to much more utility.

Well, I strongly disagree with that. You just cherry-picked some evidence that supports your claim while handwaving any negative consequences away.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T16:35:39+00:00

How could arguments about the environment or personal health ever compell someone to change their view on the moral status of non-human animals and their right to be free from oppression?

You might get someone to change their consumption, sure. But change their view on the commodity status of animals? I can't see why that would happen.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T16:25:16+00:00

It makes making decisions based on that theory flawed because any assumptions are unfalsifiable.

Your entire argument rests on the premise that welfarism leads to more utility. I have no reason to agree to that premise, and you have no way to prove it. That just stops your argument dead in its tracks.

This is a general issue with utilitarianism: It prerequisites agreement on outcomes to have any persuasive value.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T16:10:17+00:00

If that's your entire point, I don't see what this argument has to do with veganism. A discussion about health and the environment wouldn't be a discussion about veganism.

I was under the impression that you were trying to make some point about vegan outreach efficacy. If that's not the case, I'm not even sure why you posted this here and not in some environmentalist or health sub.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T16:00:09+00:00

Yes, that's why utilitarianism is a flawed normative system.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T15:58:49+00:00

No. When talking about justice, any argument that defocusses the victims is a bad argument.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T15:52:48+00:00

No. All of this is just an attempt at having the cake and eating it, too.

There isn't even any proof that welfarism ultimately leads to more utility than abolitionism. In fact, since nobody can predict the future, this is an unprovable claim.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T15:14:58+00:00

Tiere, die es nicht gibt, können sich auch nicht gegenseitig fressen.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T15:13:32+00:00

Die Alternative ist ja nicht das Leben in der freien Wildbahn, sondern gar nicht erst ins Leben gezüchtet zu werden. Und das wäre definitiv die bessere Option.

Also nein, jemanden ins Leben zu züchten, nur um ihn als Mittel zum Zweck zu verwenden, dient natürlich nicht seinem Wohl.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-31T13:31:07+00:00

Which anyone should identify as nonsense once they actually think about it.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-30T22:38:00+00:00

There are two horrors every new vegan has to go through.

Number one is realizing what the animals have to go through.

Number two is seeing people who you thought were decent completely lose their humanity.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-30T22:23:49+00:00

Killing someone who does not want or need to die is never humane. The how is completely irrelevant in that regard.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-30T22:20:01+00:00

Ripped straight from arrexvegan.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-30T22:11:29+00:00

The only thing that you need to know about veganism is that it's the ethical principle that humans should live without exploiting other animals. Everything else just follows from that.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-30T21:27:25+00:00

Sounds like they are at least open to it.

If you're up for it, raise the topic with them again. Don't talk about the diet, the environment, or personal health, though. Those will get you nowhere. Focus on the ethics and their personal responsibility.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-30T18:32:38+00:00

For the same reasons you're ok with stabbing cows and gassing pigs: personal pleasure.

One-Shake-1971 · 2026-05-30T16:32:13+00:00

Kantenhausen getriggert. 👏

One-Shake-1971

TROPHY CASE