Agreed! I remember telling someone I think eating roadkill is permissible, and they replied "it's not vegan!" and I was like "okay, I don't really care. i care about what's right/wrong". Sometimes people obsess more about some actions vegan-ness than it's actual moral properties
I agree with your conclusions regarding the morality of these actions, but I actually think it’s pragmatically useful to have a clear line like this. In my experience, family members find exceptions like being willing to eat leftovers incomprehensible and will modify their behaviour in ways you don’t want because they can’t understand why you’d be willing to eat in that situation, but not other situations. I’m speaking from experience here because my own parents interpreted me being willing to eat leftovers as implicit permission to order extra meat for me. In fact, because normal people find this kind of moral reasoning, pretty alien and hard to track. It is generally good to have simple rules because what more complicated rules appear clear to you appear like random whims to them. A person who never eats meat or never eats specific categories of meat is much easier to mentally model. Of course, some level of flexibility has its own benefits because people appreciate it when they see your willing to bend your principles for their convenience and will try to reciprocate but be careful that this doesn’t turn into them annoyingly pushing at your boundaries until your behaviour has substantially changed in ways you don’t want. It isn’t intentional, but if people don’t know the boundaries, they’ll end up pushing them especially if they think You enjoy the taste of meat since they value you having fun.
Yep, I definitely agree! It'll usually just be better to pretend as if it is always wrong to eat meat, since it can be hard to figure out whether you'll be doing something wrong.
To the extent that what I argue has practical significance, I think it's mostly in a discussion context--I think it's unwise to insist that these exceptions really *are* wrong when speaking with a non-vegan, as you might just come off as unreasonable and fanatical, hurting your ethos. But it's also hard to make general rules for these things, as social relations are really complicated and unpredictable.
"Take, for example, this story from the reign of Darius. He called together some Greeks who were present and asked them how much money they would wish to be paid to devour the corpses of their fathers – to which the Greeks replied that no amount of money would suffice for that. Next, Darius summoned some Indians called Callantians, who do eat their parents [n.b.: as a funerary rite], and asked them in the presence of the Greeks (who were able to follow what was being said by means of an interpreter) how much money it would take to buy their consent to the cremation of their dead fathers – at which the Callantians cried out in horror and told him that his words were a desecration of silence. Such, then, is how custom operates; and how right Pindar is, it seems to me, when he declares in his poetry that ‘Custom is the King of all’.
I think saying roadkill isn't vegan makes sense if you're arguing with a maximally hostile demon. If eating roadkill is categorically moral, you could imagine this maximally hostile demon will try to increase the likelihood of nonhuman animals suffering catastrophic accidents by increasing the number of cars on the road, etc.
I think it clearly is moral in a one-off scenario but i kind of think internet arguments and the like lead people to act as if they are trying to negotiate moral rules with a maximally hostile demon.
Agreed! I remember telling someone I think eating roadkill is permissible, and they replied "it's not vegan!" and I was like "okay, I don't really care. i care about what's right/wrong". Sometimes people obsess more about some actions vegan-ness than it's actual moral properties
Yeah! I actually think I'll change my official stance to "schmeganism," which is veganism without the false parts.
I agree with your conclusions regarding the morality of these actions, but I actually think it’s pragmatically useful to have a clear line like this. In my experience, family members find exceptions like being willing to eat leftovers incomprehensible and will modify their behaviour in ways you don’t want because they can’t understand why you’d be willing to eat in that situation, but not other situations. I’m speaking from experience here because my own parents interpreted me being willing to eat leftovers as implicit permission to order extra meat for me. In fact, because normal people find this kind of moral reasoning, pretty alien and hard to track. It is generally good to have simple rules because what more complicated rules appear clear to you appear like random whims to them. A person who never eats meat or never eats specific categories of meat is much easier to mentally model. Of course, some level of flexibility has its own benefits because people appreciate it when they see your willing to bend your principles for their convenience and will try to reciprocate but be careful that this doesn’t turn into them annoyingly pushing at your boundaries until your behaviour has substantially changed in ways you don’t want. It isn’t intentional, but if people don’t know the boundaries, they’ll end up pushing them especially if they think You enjoy the taste of meat since they value you having fun.
Yep, I definitely agree! It'll usually just be better to pretend as if it is always wrong to eat meat, since it can be hard to figure out whether you'll be doing something wrong.
To the extent that what I argue has practical significance, I think it's mostly in a discussion context--I think it's unwise to insist that these exceptions really *are* wrong when speaking with a non-vegan, as you might just come off as unreasonable and fanatical, hurting your ethos. But it's also hard to make general rules for these things, as social relations are really complicated and unpredictable.
Herodotus relates this famous anecdote:
"Take, for example, this story from the reign of Darius. He called together some Greeks who were present and asked them how much money they would wish to be paid to devour the corpses of their fathers – to which the Greeks replied that no amount of money would suffice for that. Next, Darius summoned some Indians called Callantians, who do eat their parents [n.b.: as a funerary rite], and asked them in the presence of the Greeks (who were able to follow what was being said by means of an interpreter) how much money it would take to buy their consent to the cremation of their dead fathers – at which the Callantians cried out in horror and told him that his words were a desecration of silence. Such, then, is how custom operates; and how right Pindar is, it seems to me, when he declares in his poetry that ‘Custom is the King of all’.
I think saying roadkill isn't vegan makes sense if you're arguing with a maximally hostile demon. If eating roadkill is categorically moral, you could imagine this maximally hostile demon will try to increase the likelihood of nonhuman animals suffering catastrophic accidents by increasing the number of cars on the road, etc.
I think it clearly is moral in a one-off scenario but i kind of think internet arguments and the like lead people to act as if they are trying to negotiate moral rules with a maximally hostile demon.