The definition of veganism can be vague. Different people with different underlying moral frameworks tend to interpret the definition in different ways, sometimes leading to conflict within the vegan community. In this video, I present the view that the vagueness of the definition should be preserved in order to make room for a diversity of moral theories, while holding onto the central premise of veganism - that animals are worthy of moral consideration. This way, disagreements about rights vs. suffering based morality aren't viewed as disagreements about veganism itself, but rather the moral theory that someone holds, which is independent of the set of beings they consider to have moral status. We also don't have to get bogged down in overly abstract philosophical discussions trying to convince hardcore utilitarians of animal rights or vice versa, we can keep our rhetoric focused to the point of rejecting the use of animals as a means to an end rather than ends in themselves.
To support me per video: [ Ссылка ]
To support me one-time or monthly: [ Ссылка ]
Chapters:
0:00 - The Debate
0:56 - The Definition
1:57 - Consequentialism vs Deontology
3:16 - Moral Scope
3:47 - Moral Scope is Independent of Consequentialism or Deontology
4:25 - The Vegan Principle
5:35 - Benefits for Veganism of Independence
6:25 - Practical Concerns
Videos Used:
CosmicSkeptic: [ Ссылка ]
Vegan Gaze: [ Ссылка ]
Earthling Ed: [ Ссылка ]
Perspective Philosophy: [ Ссылка ]
Dominion: [ Ссылка ]
Farm Sanctuary: [ Ссылка ]
Cube of truth: [ Ссылка ]
#animalrights #veganactivism #philosophy
