An ideology that establishes its own rules based on some sort of guiding principles and attempts to follow them are not self-defeating or incompatible with existence when pragmatically applied. When I say pragmatically applied, I mean I don’t consider magical hypotheticals, like a bunch of hedonists on a boat demanding to torture me, trolly cars, or quantum hotels, as a meaningful critisism to real world applications. Philosophically based veganism, without agreeing with it, is a well developed and coherent ideology, as an example. If a person walked veganism out beyond just a diet, it demands major changes to how one live their lives and doesn’t even require magically managed global ecosystems or animal prisons.
Thanks for answering, I broadly agree. But what about consistency?
A vegan might argue that eating meat is bad because it causes animal suffering. They would be morally required to save an animal from the butcher’s blade if given the chance (assuming they didn’t have to cause more suffering to do that).
But an animal doesn’t know the difference between being killed by a butcher and being killed by a predator. So is the vegan not also morally required to save an animal from a predator? If not, how is that consistent with the basis of their veganism? It sounds like an arbitrary distinction to me, hardly an element of a coherent ideology.
Of course, once extended from the single animal to all animals, there are nuances to consider. If the whole world went vegan this instant, that would have enormous ramifications on the meat industry, and what would we do with all those animals? It might not be moral to instantly turn the world vegan and just free all industrial animals due to the chaos that would ensue. But surely it would be moral to explore what processes could turn the world vegan in a less destructive way.
What is your idea of a coherent ideology?
An ideology that establishes its own rules based on some sort of guiding principles and attempts to follow them are not self-defeating or incompatible with existence when pragmatically applied. When I say pragmatically applied, I mean I don’t consider magical hypotheticals, like a bunch of hedonists on a boat demanding to torture me, trolly cars, or quantum hotels, as a meaningful critisism to real world applications. Philosophically based veganism, without agreeing with it, is a well developed and coherent ideology, as an example. If a person walked veganism out beyond just a diet, it demands major changes to how one live their lives and doesn’t even require magically managed global ecosystems or animal prisons.
Thanks for answering, I broadly agree. But what about consistency?
A vegan might argue that eating meat is bad because it causes animal suffering. They would be morally required to save an animal from the butcher’s blade if given the chance (assuming they didn’t have to cause more suffering to do that).
But an animal doesn’t know the difference between being killed by a butcher and being killed by a predator. So is the vegan not also morally required to save an animal from a predator? If not, how is that consistent with the basis of their veganism? It sounds like an arbitrary distinction to me, hardly an element of a coherent ideology.
Of course, once extended from the single animal to all animals, there are nuances to consider. If the whole world went vegan this instant, that would have enormous ramifications on the meat industry, and what would we do with all those animals? It might not be moral to instantly turn the world vegan and just free all industrial animals due to the chaos that would ensue. But surely it would be moral to explore what processes could turn the world vegan in a less destructive way.