perpetuallyangryethicist-blog

[perpetuallyangryethicist-blog]

Tastes like a real healthy instagram trash panda!

VEGAN FACT

here are a few types of vegans:

rice and beans (save those coins)

fruit smoothies (healthy+instagram)

animal product substitutes (tastes like real!)

pasta and oreos (trash pandas)

varied and balanced (who you kidding?)

tag yourself i’m a coin saver trash panda

[perpetuallyangryethicist-blog]

Bandwagon Fallacy

This fallacy refers to assuming an argument or assumption is correct simply based upon the majority-status of it’s support in a group. An example of this fallacy would be stating that Veganism is inferior to Omnivorism, because the vast majority of the U.S consumes meat. This line of though is incredibly dangerous and is often one of the biggest hurdles to true moral progress. It is important to note that while public consensus often is on the right side of moral issues, public consensus alone is *not* enough to decide whether or not an action is truly morally permissible. If one were to argue that public consensus is enough to declare moral status, they must inherently accept that Slavery was entirely just and permissible in the Antebellum South. Bandwagon-based logic would also assume that currently accepted moral actions are incredibly fickle and privy to change at the tip of the hat. The logical conclusion of Bandwagon fallacious thought is that, if Americans tomorrow shifted to a majority consensus that rape and murder were permissible, those actions would suddenly become impervious to moral questioning, simply by nature of their popularity.

[perpetuallyangryethicist-blog]

Rant in my feelings (not angry)

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/11/2/18055532/vegans-vegetarian-research-uk It sounds absurd, but it's real. I've gotten VERY aggressive responses when asking businesses which of their products are suitable for me. I've literally never once been anything but kind to businesses when asking because I don't ever want to paint a lifestyle of compassion in a negative light, and because I've always had great compassion for service workers, and I've been told some pretty mean things. I totally understand the discomfort of being told an action you partake in is not very ethical, as I still commit daily offenses against ethical living. I remember how bad it felt, and how defensive I got when people told me I was inconsistent for hating butchers while directly paying for their services. I know it feels like a personal attack, but it's not. It would be so easy if we could separate the ethics of Veganism vs. Omnivorism into good and bad people, but we can't. There are so many honest and good Omnivores, shitty Vegans, and vice versa. Our culture raises us to view animals as objects. We are systematically taught that animal's lives don't matter, that they aren't worth consideration, and that they are mere tools for our advancement. I don't entirely blame individuals for their beliefs, I blame the system. So many of the most amazing and kind people I have met are Omnivores who haven't had the privilege of having their beliefs challenged. Carnism is strong and it forces us to act against our moral intuitions. The vast majority of people really do love animals and don't wish them harm, but they’re raised and conditioned to do so. I don't know, I'm just rambling because I'm in my feelings. Anyway, I love you all and thanks for reading. To the Omni's out there, please remember that you can question the ethics of your actions. It is never too late. Realizing that something you do isn't very kind is incredibly uncomfortable, but it feels so amazing to make the change. And to the Vegans, please remember that we were once them. We weren’t born knowing the things we know now. We were once the oppressors, and a message of compassion is far more honest and convincing than a message of resentment. Sorry this is so gross and sappy, but it’s all been eating at my heart lately since a really bad interaction with a pretty rude Omnivore. I’ll go back to anger and fallacy’s soon, I promise <3.

[perpetuallyangryethicist-blog]

Me trying to understand why there’s so much evil in this world…

[perpetuallyangryethicist-blog]

Fallacies That Have Made Me Mad Lately

Note: These are the fallacies that I hear the most in my daily life as a Vegan. I generally hear these fallacies made in arguments against Veganism. I will avoid using Vegan analogies in my discussion of these fallacies, because these points are important to make regardless of opinions on the Vegan lifestyle. I will allow you, the reader, to make these connections if you choose to do so. Another important thing to note is that I am in no way claiming to be immune to committing these very fallacies I discuss. I, like you, am human and because of this I am incredibly fallible. If you see me committing a logical fallacy I sincerely request that you attempt to explain what I did wrong (in a polite manner), and I will do my best to hear out your explanation. I will grant the same respect to all of you as well :).

 Appeal To Futility: This fallacy is based on the false idea that if something can’t be entirely changed or altered by an individual, there is no purpose in attempting to do one’s part in reducing bad outcomes. This fallacy is often spoken by an individual who does not want to change their behavior despite understanding the ethically questionable nature of their actions. An example of this fallacy in action would be a litterer refusing to throw refuse in the garbage can, based purely on the assumption that there will always be litterers, so there is no point in attempting to reduce environmentally unfriendly behaviors. A good way to detect if this fallacy is being enacted is to ask the question “If everyone conducted themselves this way, would the world be better, or worse?”. If the answer is worse, there is a very good chance that an Appeal to Futility is being made. We live in an imperfect world, and it will always be an imperfect world. This does not mean that we do not have a moral obligation to make the world better.

Appeal To Nature: This fallacy is based on one party assuming that because something is present within the natural world, it must be good, or conversely, because something is absent from the natural world, it must be bad. This fallacy is using entirely arbitrary means to decipher somethings moral value. I would argue from a practical standpoint that the boundary between the natural world and the synthetic world is often difficult to tease apart in the first place. There does not seem to be any question that plants such as trees and flowers are natural, but when extended to the animal world things get a bit more confusing. Beavers and bees are likely natural, but what about their homes? Are dams and beehives natural because they are made of materials harvested from the environment, or are they synthetic because they required intelligent life to be created. What about human homes? Is a log cabin natural? I don’t know the answers to these questions, and that is precisely my point. But, ignoring the difficulty in teasing apart the natural vs. synthetic world, I don’t think the argument of something being present in the natural world is a very strong argument towards it’s ethical nature. For example, my biological drive to procreate with those I deem attractive is entirely natural, a result of evolution and instinct. However, we can understand that it may not be the most ethical action to cheat on my significant other because of this natural drive. Take another example. Infanticide, the murdering of infants, is something that occurs within nature. No synthetic materials are involved in the decision of an animal (human or otherwise) to murder their own infant. We can intuit that the murder of a baby for pleasure is a decidedly immoral act, despite it’s presence in the natural world. Coming from the other side of the spectrum not all things that are synthetic are unethical either. For example, the harvesting and manipulation of energy needed to power the lights in your home, or the device you are using to read this blog on is synthetically, or unnaturally, made. Harvested electricity is an unnatural phenomenon, but we do not reasonably state it is unethical or wrong for it to exist. It is important to note that this electricity can absolutely be unethical (the potential for pollution, etc.), but the ethical conundrum present is not based on controlled electricity's status as an unnatural or synthetic product. Moral Subjectivity: This is the type of faulty logic I hear the most, and I find it to be the most dangerous to the pursuit of a just society. While it is true that there is no physical manifestation of good morality that can be weighed or measured, this does not mean that the symbolic value of ethics does not hold meaning. Words and ideas that we have created do indeed hold important meanings and values. Take Justice for example. While there is no physical manifestation of Justice, this does not mean that we can apply the values associated with this concept to any given scenario. While we can (on a syntactical level) say that the murder of an innocent person is just, on a semantic level we understand this to be false. We can not pervert the meaning of Justice to fit any scenario we wish. Most of us understand that this is not an acceptable excuse for intentionally committing immoral actions. We do not accept the ethereal nature of morality as a valid excuse to commit heinous acts of murder, or great bodily harm. Every time I hear this excuse, the angry ethicist inside me has a massive desire to mug the fallacious thinker and burn their home down, but I understand that would be a breach of proper morality, and I abstain from doing so. But if morality isn’t some entirely futile concept to be morphed into fitting our world views, how can we really access it? Great question, hypothetical question asker! I think the best way to reach our ethical/moral apex is through genuine philosophical and logical debate. The ability to and desire to learn and grow is the mark of an incredibly strong person. I think that the best way to construct our ethical framework is to build from the bottom and work our way up, rather than start from the top and work our way down. What I mean by this is that we should let the strength of opposing arguments decide our world view, rather than having a set world view and constructing arguments to lead us towards that destination. Thank you all so much for listening to my ramblings, and I hope you’ve had a fun time reading along. May we all grow today to be better tomorrow, perpetuallyangryethicist

[perpetuallyangryethicist-blog]

Welcome!

Not entirely sure exactly the type of content I’ll be posting here, or how often I will post, but I plan on keeping this blog devoted to discussing ethics, pseudoscience, or other things that piss me off. This is a place to collect all my complaints and negativity, so that I can keep the rest of my social media (relatively) positive! Thanks for taking the time to visit my blog and I hope there’s something you can learn while you’re here :)