That’s because they don’t consider non-veganism a morally acceptable option.
As a thought experiment, pick any action that you would personally find morally repugnant and ask yourself if you should accommodate people who do that action.
Precisely. They make the same mistake that all extremists make. They believe that they are morally superior which justifies anything they say or do to anyone they see as inferior. The problem is that the rest of the world does not agree with them so they are reviled for their antisocial behaviour then constantly whine about how the people they harangue treat them badly.
Just because the rest of the world doesn’t agree with them doesn’t mean they’re wrong, though. Societal norms progress with splinter groups that are willing to put their convictions above group conformity. The process is always unpleasant.
Yup, that’s exactly the mistake that extremists make. There is a great quote from a judgement out of a court in the UK. Let me find it…
“But the plain fact is that each of you has some time ago crossed the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic. You have appointed yourselves as the sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change, bound neither by the principles of democracy nor the rule of law.
“And your fanaticism makes you entirely heedless of the rights of your fellow citizens. You have taken it upon yourselves to decide that your fellow citizens must suffer disruption and harm, and how much disruption and harm they must suffer, simply so that you may parade your views.”
This really sums it up. Sometimes fanatics are right. Often, they are wrong. Their ability to self-absolve their abhorent antisocial behavior is why so many people so violently hate them and it’s the reason that many vegans feel like they are being painted with the same brush. They’ve appointed themselves holy crusaders who will bully, harass, and intimidate anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
Yet without the radicals that are willing to rock the boat, our society would be morally stagnant and unable to progress. We’re literally having the conservative/progressive debate.
I assume the case you’re referring to is the recent Just Stop Oil case? I personally see the judge’s decision as incredibly short sighted. He’s put short term convenience above averting global catastrophe for all life on earth. In my view, it is he who has caused his fellow citizens harm, and on a much wider scale.
Self-absolution. I understand it but it is a logical failure.
Should anti-LGBTQ fanatics who are absolutely convinced that they are morally superior be able to discriminate against LQBTQ people?
Should anti-abotionists who are absolutely convinced that they are morally superior be able to harass and threaten women making the most difficult decision of their life? Should they be allowed to fire bomb clinics? Shoot abortion doctors and nurses?
Should white spremacists who are absolutely convinced of their racial superiority be allowed to refuse service to people of color? Burn crosses on lawns? Hang people of color from trees by the neck?
Where does the vegan fanatics self-absolution end? Fire bombing restaurant? Pipe bombs wrapped in nails in crowded restaurants that serve meat?
The ability to self-absolve is very VERY dangerous. It permits fanatics to justify any ammoral horror in the name of their mistaken moral purity.
Except you can say this literal exact thing about the opposites too
Should black people have just stayed slaves and not have rights even though “they are absolutely convinced they should have”? Should us queer people never fight back and fight for acceptance? Etc etc.
The actual difference is the arguments for the specific position. What sound arguments are there for racism and slavery? What sound arguments are there for queer-phobia? What sound arguments are there for not following a vegan diet beyond “it tastes good”?
That’s self-serving nonsense. Vegan extremists have been harassing and intimidating restaurateurs and their patrons attempting to drive them out of business or to comply with their demands to stop serving meat. That is not, “the terrifying act of talking”.
What if you’re mistaken about being morally superior? What if your actions toward other humans demonstrate a complete lack of any morality?
Profiting off the suffering of others isn’t acceptable behavior. Establishments that do so should be boycotted where possible and practicable. I think protest is a justified response.
Given two scenarios where I’m potentially wrong, the one where I’m mistaken and vegan is the one with a substantially more ethical outcome than the one where I’m mistaken and not vegan.
That’s because they don’t consider non-veganism a morally acceptable option.
As a thought experiment, pick any action that you would personally find morally repugnant and ask yourself if you should accommodate people who do that action.
Precisely. They make the same mistake that all extremists make. They believe that they are morally superior which justifies anything they say or do to anyone they see as inferior. The problem is that the rest of the world does not agree with them so they are reviled for their antisocial behaviour then constantly whine about how the people they harangue treat them badly.
Just because the rest of the world doesn’t agree with them doesn’t mean they’re wrong, though. Societal norms progress with splinter groups that are willing to put their convictions above group conformity. The process is always unpleasant.
Yup, that’s exactly the mistake that extremists make. There is a great quote from a judgement out of a court in the UK. Let me find it…
“But the plain fact is that each of you has some time ago crossed the line from concerned campaigner to fanatic. You have appointed yourselves as the sole arbiters of what should be done about climate change, bound neither by the principles of democracy nor the rule of law.
“And your fanaticism makes you entirely heedless of the rights of your fellow citizens. You have taken it upon yourselves to decide that your fellow citizens must suffer disruption and harm, and how much disruption and harm they must suffer, simply so that you may parade your views.”
This really sums it up. Sometimes fanatics are right. Often, they are wrong. Their ability to self-absolve their abhorent antisocial behavior is why so many people so violently hate them and it’s the reason that many vegans feel like they are being painted with the same brush. They’ve appointed themselves holy crusaders who will bully, harass, and intimidate anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
Yet without the radicals that are willing to rock the boat, our society would be morally stagnant and unable to progress. We’re literally having the conservative/progressive debate.
I assume the case you’re referring to is the recent Just Stop Oil case? I personally see the judge’s decision as incredibly short sighted. He’s put short term convenience above averting global catastrophe for all life on earth. In my view, it is he who has caused his fellow citizens harm, and on a much wider scale.
Self-absolution. I understand it but it is a logical failure.
Should anti-LGBTQ fanatics who are absolutely convinced that they are morally superior be able to discriminate against LQBTQ people?
Should anti-abotionists who are absolutely convinced that they are morally superior be able to harass and threaten women making the most difficult decision of their life? Should they be allowed to fire bomb clinics? Shoot abortion doctors and nurses?
Should white spremacists who are absolutely convinced of their racial superiority be allowed to refuse service to people of color? Burn crosses on lawns? Hang people of color from trees by the neck?
Where does the vegan fanatics self-absolution end? Fire bombing restaurant? Pipe bombs wrapped in nails in crowded restaurants that serve meat?
The ability to self-absolve is very VERY dangerous. It permits fanatics to justify any ammoral horror in the name of their mistaken moral purity.
Except you can say this literal exact thing about the opposites too
Should black people have just stayed slaves and not have rights even though “they are absolutely convinced they should have”? Should us queer people never fight back and fight for acceptance? Etc etc.
The actual difference is the arguments for the specific position. What sound arguments are there for racism and slavery? What sound arguments are there for queer-phobia? What sound arguments are there for not following a vegan diet beyond “it tastes good”?
Usually it ends at the terrifying act of talking with people, because harming them would be explicitly against their own philosophy.
But yeah, it’s totally like a jihad or something.
That’s self-serving nonsense. Vegan extremists have been harassing and intimidating restaurateurs and their patrons attempting to drive them out of business or to comply with their demands to stop serving meat. That is not, “the terrifying act of talking”.
What if you’re mistaken about being morally superior? What if your actions toward other humans demonstrate a complete lack of any morality?
Profiting off the suffering of others isn’t acceptable behavior. Establishments that do so should be boycotted where possible and practicable. I think protest is a justified response.
Given two scenarios where I’m potentially wrong, the one where I’m mistaken and vegan is the one with a substantially more ethical outcome than the one where I’m mistaken and not vegan.