We Should All Be Vegan | Change My Mind

my Maris at King's College University in London with a banner that simply says we should all be vegan change my mind now some of you might have seen this concept on YouTube before but I decided to take the concept and veganize it and see if it could work in a conversation about veganism so I'm hoping people will sit down maybe they'll have a conversation a discussion maybe an argument they'll try and change my mind and hopefully we can get some sort of good discussion from this banner and from the conversation that can happen because of it so let's see what happens ok so just before we get started I'd have to make sure are you aware that you've been filmed and you happy to be filmed I'm very happy to be filmed okay so so I'm here and I have a statement and the statement you know is that we should all be vegan I especially believe this moving into kind of this this world that we're currently moving into you know with climate change and you know and industrialization and such and what are you off any opinions do you agree with me or disagree with me so basically there are two types of vegans I think the first one the first type of vegans are the one who are vegans because of green-friendly issues and I'm totally fine with it the second type of vegans are because of morality and ethical reasons they believe that animals animal life has a say I have the same value as human life so what kind of vegan do you promote veganism do preneur promote I liked I liked to fall somewhere in the middle and promote both because for me the beautiful thing about veganism is there's so many tangents in so many ways and in so many reasons to be vegan environment ethics even you know even benefits to your own health as well that for me it just makes no sense not to be vegan so I believe that both are very valid and I don't know that you made a point about some vegans believe that Nanshan animal life is the same as human life look for me that's a little bit of an oversimplification it's not necessarily that the the lives are the same I just think that that right to life is equal now and I also say to people that that doesn't define being vegan to be vegan do I have to say that life of a pig or a cow or a chicken is equal to the life of a human all you have to acknowledge really is that the life of a pig a cow a chicken is higher than your tastebuds or higher than the 50 minutes of pleasure you get from consuming their flesh what do you think about that well would you say would you compare the mass killing of animals to a genocide a genocide is is more with the inclination of of annihilation of a certain graphic so I know I don't believe it's a genocide I'm because absolutely morally wrong absolutely boy alone so my question to you sir I have two questions the first one is so if basically do you believe that we are all kind of animals we are all animals yes humans are animals from yes so animals each each animals or other animals so from that principle that's the first thing from that from that principle if we are all animals I don't believe I'm a religious person I don't believe that there is humans they're humans animals plants so three kinds of different three kind of lives so if I were to think like you that we are just like animals and we don't have like there is no there is no hierarchy between animals and between humans and animals obviously humans being superior well if I had to behave like a like a lion or I don't know like a fox I would still eat other animals so on on what basis should I act differently I should I differently than an animal if we are animal FF II a few things especially okay seventy five percent the animal kingdom is herbivorous so just because we are animals doesn't mean we should base our morality in actions of our animals to eat of animals but I don't think that that's particularly we should I'm just saying why wouldn't we because of two things necessity and moral agency so animals like lions kill zebras or you know a buffalo because they are wildebeest maybe because they have to to survive it's a necessity they need animal flesh to sustain their life we as humans don't we can survive and thrive about consuming animal flesh which means it's not a necessity for us lions obligate carnivores meaning they kill to survive but we don't have that excuse but also as humans we have something called moral agency which means that we're able to make decisions based on a notion of a right and wrong because you know we have we are highly intelligent beings you know I'm not gonna deny that for a second and but with that moral agency comes the element of scrutiny which means that if we make decisions that we know to be wrong as a society or as a species then we should be held accountable for those actions so yes we are animals but there are differences between us and animals that kill for necessity and we should base our morality in actions of wild animals any you know we don't we don't just if I say murder of our own species or or rape just because animals in the wild do so but we you know so it's a similar kind of way of thinking well okay so my second question I understand what you're saying with my second question would be my second question would be why on what basis would you give your animal life more value than plant life so a couple of things to know on that firstly and foremost we can go down scientifically I don't want to on this point up and you can say look a plant doesn't have a brain it have a central nervous system you know they don't have the capacity to suffer in the same way that an animal human or non-human does let's brush let's brush that aside okay no no no no let's take that aside that's that's a purely kind of scientific biological point let's this let's say that plants they you know we barley corn maize soy these crops have the same capacity to suffer as animals and as and as we do as well so it takes up to 16 kilograms of plans to produce one kilogram of say steak takes about 12 to produce one kilogram of lamb fundamentally we produce so many more plants to feed animals we right so okay so okay so first let me I'll get to that so the first things first is by being vegan you're responsible for less plants being braised and murdered if you want to use that word or killed or whatever you also responsible for less rainforest destruction look at the Amazon the majority Amazon rainforest has been cleared to make way for cattle farming in Brazil but also soya bean plantations which have been fed to those cattle and and exported out to other countries in the Western world okay so you could reduce the amount of rainforest be destroyed rainforest trees plants so that's less trees been murdered you can reduce them out woodlands of forest lands that have been destroyed in this country alone we've cleared out so much our forest lands to make way for fields that we can grow crops to feed to animals or to provide space for animal grazing or factory farming so you could reduce the amount of land that we would need to you so you can allow Woodlands to come back provide life but the Martin the moral aspect of why we can consume plants is because the idea of necessity again right so we have a necessity to eat to survive and because we have a necessity you can morally justify something my argument is that there is no necessity for us to eat a cow or a pig or a lamb or a chicken but the thing is we can survive of only eating plants we can't survive of only eating animals animals which and which animal do you eat which animals you chicken lamp no fruits no vegetables no nuts where do you get your vitamin C from sorry did you get your fitmin see from my rhythm in C from I don't know your vitamin E I don't know I'm a vet man a no you're saying I cannot survive if I cannot I don't eat plants I don't eat plant you will you will suffer in the long time if you don't get your vitamin A or vitamin C or vitamin e a lot of people who don't suffer on the long term but apart from that which is I let's get let's get back so so far like I didn't hear still I don't still understand why there is a moral reason why we should attribute human animal value more value I'm sorry animal life more value than plant life they're all the reason for that is because there is no there is no book where it's written than that animal life has more value than than plant life and your morality my question to you is you cannot say morality because morality is very it's a very precise and concrete Singh I think it's very subjective no it's not subjective because it is tomorrow I say that my subjective neurology compels me to kill that it's okay to kill someone well I'm just being moral from my own perspective it's not something subjective because I believe that morality I believe that so the for for me I don't like the idea of animal suffering and this is why I personally eat kosher because it's even though we consider in the Bible that like humans are superior to animals which I actually believe we are because we're discussing it right now I have never seen a cow or a dolphin discuss about themselves and what is moral because they don't have a neurology they only animals display elements morality actually would say that you can't understand what they said now obviously animals don't have the same cognition or the same intellectual debates that we have a matter of level of intelligence it's not a matter of level of intelligence because the closest thing to us is the monkey the monkey and which is worlds and galaxies away from like discussing a topic basically so we have the right to kill them just because they don't have the intellectual capacity that we do well I don't see why we don't have like a right to kill them tell me why we do have a right to kill you I'll tell you because I believe I believe personally in God and I believe that God created humans and animals and plants and that it is very obviously that's not your opinion because obviously I guess you don't abide by the Bible do not about the Bible but most of people do and I mean not most of you'll be sorry but your sense of morality does come from the Bible I don't believe that it necessarily why don't you kill humans why don't you kill humans because I believe that to be morally wrong if God hasn't told me that it's morally White's morally on what our morality morality changes and evolves for a time as we become more intellectual and more sophisticated as a society we evaluate our previous actions rights more sophisticated than men's 2,000 years ago and we morally most Plato for example as a society our moral code it's a lot better than it was 2,000 years how do you know that because we don't crucify people anymore we don't crucify people we're not here anyone from well where did you know that the Bible abolished human slavery I believe Sherman slavery was justified in the Bible no slavery was justified in about every seven-year you have to free your slave slavery was justified in the Bible we could you know that's the robbery of religious texts I don't want to divulge too much in these points I think goes off touch the problem of religious texts is that you can read into what you want to see and you can be very subjective in your interpretation of what religious texts sound funny these days is that people I'm not talking about too personally but like vegans and and yeah vegans in general love to talk about morality morality ethics but 2,000 years ago morality is very subjective as you said and myrrh she does not come from anywhere and you don't have your own morality you don't believe in the Bible but you are shaped by the Bible because you grew up in a western country which is actually shaped by the Bible and the idea that human life has some intrinsic value the idea of freedom the idea that you should be able to have like a weekend which is from Shabbat or JD that human sacrifice is terribly terribly wrong all of that morally human sacrifice was condemned in the Bible as well it's time it's not it's condemned in the Bible it's time it was the way there was a time when religion accepted human sacrifice and then back when the Old Testament in the altars of women well surely can enable well it's not sacrifice murder mad okay yeah and it's actually a sin so the Bible says it's a sin and Cain that's a bad example because he killed him it just my really just scholarship is perhaps not as as I can to y'all let's get back onto the topic of Venus I think it's very important because you cannot say it's a part like the beginning isn't into another problem because it's all about morality and morality you cannot create your own morality you cannot take the biblical yeah I I personally I think it doesn't have anything to do with morality as for example military is one of the most moral people like in history and she was not vegan so like I mean it really doesn't have nothing to do with morality it has it has more to do with how you see the world and how you like your perspective to it you know so like I don't like it the fact that you put the term moral into veganism or vegetarianism elicits the probably ate it or whoever other or the figureheads that like we all consider as the most moral like people in history they probably did it just for the pleasure of eating meat because meat has a different taste and that's a one thing as of today maybe when you know like maybe if scientists scientific development in in terms of like meatless meat you know like with like eggs exactly you know like keeps on growing and so we might be able to like invert this like situation but as of today it's the only like possible way to have the meat like taste and I and like keep on going with the culture you know like cuz he I don't know where you're from but way from France like I get well I don't know like but like in France it like there's a big culture with meat eating at least in in Spain there is I'm how Spanish have Italian you know there's there is everyone you know obviously I know there is but the thing is like if we all started to become like vegan immediately you know all this like culture what does it like I know it's food culture would this completely did it disappear I think like we have to like sodium progressively with time and we eventually will go to a point will reach a point where no like no like for the no deforestation will be needed for soya bean grows for as you said for like or like cattle or anything like in Brazil or whatever as you were mentioning earlier on like will reach to that point but as of today with like these scientific resources we have now it's impossible for us to like keep on pleasuring ourselves with meat and keep on like keep on continuing our culinary culture without like I don't know if it exists I'm just like culinary culture you know with like with with with like vegetables by leg or with plant-based substances here one thing for my English it's quite that you English is perfect don't worry about it no no I'm you met you touched an issue I'm gonna arrest this gentleman just because further purposes and I I actually really want to make this very clear I believe that eating meat is an immoral act but I don't believe that it makes you a bad person no good people can do bad things no mother Theresa undoubtedly did many good things but she wasn't a perfect person because perfection doesn't exist you know Gandhi was a great person he also did a lot of not-so-great things when you look into it and so you good people can do bad things and I don't and I think what you mean there's a moral spectrum right okay and no one exists purely good and don't exist purely evil that's too binary we exist somewhere in the middle where we meet Isis and you'll see pure evil oh yeah they know that they're right down here absolutely right down at the bottom don't get me wrong but I'm saying that you can't you can't categorize people but but oh yeah this is the thing sleeping it's not like Evo consumes everyone's brain for every second thing and also the other thing that we have to note is if someone isn't aware that what they're doing is wrong you can't hold them entirely morally accountable for the action so say someone's eaten meat their entire life they've been raised in the culture that says eating meats normal their family do it their peers do it everyone around them does it how are you to then judge that person for doing something they've been told it's normal and acceptable the only issue and I don't like to go on that ground but from that principle the idea you cannot judge someone because he's not aware of the true moral codes that you claim well in such circumstances you cannot claim Nattie's we believe that like they were a year key between races sorry sorry forgive my accent you cannot judge Nazis in Germany in the 1930s which bill who believed that they were who actually believed that they were there was a racial wire a hierarchy okay look we're in dangerous territory I've get enough tangent but I think it's really really really interesting and and I think this is this distinction that we have to make is I think good people can do bad things and I think bad people can do good things I don't think it's I don't think it's so straightforward is this persons good in this person's bad and I think history has a way of eliminating those idiosyncratic kind of differences between people and so we said oh this person was purely good this person is pretty good this person was clearly why you're seeing it you're saying this in order not to be too aggressive now and evenly I think you believe it but the reason you're saying we cannot judge people who eat meat as bad people is because you want not them to feel to be to feel aggressed and rather include them more easily that's very diplomatic and okay that that's very that's a very good tactic but the only thing is that you're pretending that your moral codes are of a higher value of powers which is codes based on judeo-christian values why why is it the case that is your code who have no like roots like no paper where is it written like you know how do you know that what sure you believe is morally cheaper than what we believe I don't I'm not necessarily saying that absentia okay so I believe that it's Western society has absolutely been shaped by Christian values absolutely no doubt about that but that doesn't mean that our society can only show be shaped by Christian values now of course we have a lot to o morality in terms of what Christian or Christian values provided for us but why stop at what Christian values provides as a species we should be constantly looking to evolve and adapt and change we have done for many many years you know we had slavery for such a long time that was abolished you know thankfully we're going to the point now where people being granted the rights they deserve for being the people and the individuals that they are still a long way to go but those it there was a steps of morality that were making as a society and so we should constantly look to keep changing and evolving and the way I say it that veganism is a natural progression in that moral step because it starts to see that the foundation for so much oppression is the idea that some life has higher value than other right and so if you could okay but let's take let's take the idea right that if you raise a child and you teach them that the life of a chicken should be respected to such an extent that we don't kill them just for pleasure that's gonna steal it for pleasure why do we kill we kill to eat and eating is not necessarily a pleasure but why do you eat why do we say to you why do I eat chicken because I believe that humans are of a higher value and intrinsically superior than other all other forms of life and I'm not saying tell me why well because I believe in the Bible but what about the Bible says what about being human makes you better than makes your makes you more superior but not just appear in terms of the Bible and how it shapes this idea who explains me why why why is your life higher why because God said so because God created humans that way preacher because obviously you're not reset if they are not here to preach like judeo-christian values all I'm saying is that it's just so easy to take everything from the Bible and say ok we're going to add another morality and then like for instance the reason the reason now you don't believe in human slavery or in the reason you don't believe in human sacrifice it's because you were shaped but that same morality that says no human sacrifice is wrong it's a sin how did slavery exist how did slavery exist in a time with judeo-christian values I'm not saying is it doesn't from vet prevent humans to be bad a lot of these people who had slaves were Christians I know but there were against the Bible this is why they will never read the Bible to the slaves right so so the the only thing is what I I feel it's a what bothers me what what bothers mean that's all vegan thing apart from apart from the like green-friendly argument which I totally agree with I totally agree I think we should all reduce our consumption of meat but because of like practical issues not because of morality because I deeply think that even though we should respect animals and I hate everything I see about human animal suffering in industrialized meat factories how do they suffer differently in a cow sure like where just the meat register chicken you eat come from the same farms or different farms it's not it's about the killing and they come from the same place most of the time they come from a different a different different farms I'm not saying that can you describe those farms can you describe those farms to me what do those farms what's so good about those farms that makes that immoral act it's compared to industrialized the life of the the chicken it's it's you usually when we talk about kosher it's not about how its raised is about how its killed so they can be raised terribly and that's fine well no that's not fine because we believe that animal life is Jill or it's also a creation of God so because it's a creation of God we should respect it because it's a creation of God the same the same applies to to plant life but it's not because it we we should respect them that it they are they have an equal value I'm not saying you have to view that life is equal to yours but I think that I don't think how can you respect someone if you take their life from them that's there all day and then what what's in it are they at one are they n N and I'm an object a table a table is an it it's a thing it does not exist it's a lie it doesn't have a it's not the same thing as a an animal because it's not living and it doesn't for me doesn't have a divine how do you say yeah exactly okay so as humans we have a brain that allows us to think we have a heart that pumps blood around our bodies we have legs for walking arms for picking stuff up eyes for seeing nose they have the same we're animals pigs have the same where other protests here I'm protesting for but you're not an animal you're a decent human being we even slave them and now we can't wavery you cannot apply we've in slight and slaved and slaved yeah you cannot apply human terms for animals such our objective last time a crazy vegan saying that by the way do you agree with all the the vegans who advised me against butchers no vegans act violently gets butchers a vegan day so they spray pain and I know they put bricks through windows and stuff but that's not violent to the but should I spell it to the to the business I don't agree of it by the way I just think I just think we have to be careful with words because balance to butcher's suggests it isn't a physical assault on a butcher which hasn't happened and with as many there's many cases where violence against you snow bands directly up upon me o against room it's my property which is a different thing is it if someone if someone breaks something I own that's not a physical assault on me I don't agree with it by the way I just think we have to be careful semantics because what happens is people use words like violence to butchers and people read those and vegans are beaten up butchers which is okay because because I don't believe it's helpful for discussion I believe that the way that we progress this is from a conversation and a butcher isn't gonna want to listen to a vegan if we feel that it's well but just legality for morality sorry its legality equal morality it does not necessarily but what is moral is differently private property and individual freedom and if you individual freedom that's an important it impedes someone's business well I don't agree with it but I don't think we should be doing that by this points me just wants clarify a language again well as I was saying I am actually against animal suffering and your question was how is like kosher or maybe halal like killing style difference well I'm not saying it's perfect and I'm not saying the animal doesn't feel anything because it's merely impossible not to make anyone feel so they do suffer so they do suffer like for which you're against second we are against suffering I'm a guest I'm again I'm against wasted like unnecessary suffering so you're against unnecessary suffering but you acknowledged when animals are killed they suffer no but you said that they take no I said okay that's very that that's actually very easy to say but when you suffer for one fraction of second well obviously you suffer from one for one fraction of second but I definitely agree that we should make everything in place should put everything in place so that the animals don't feel a fear how do we do what you know in a kosher slaughter says there's a kosher slaughterhouse in East London in Hackney Wick and I've been to it many times I've seen I've seen the process of what they do to the animals there and there's that you it's not for one second you can deny those animals don't feel fear and they don't suffer in that moment how do you know that you can see they fly right they're trying to escape they're flapping around they're hung upside down by their legs and Anna kosher and a kosher method of slaughter is just that you've cut their throats well a non kosher method of slaughter is that you cut their throat as well but they're stunned beforehand no I don't believe I believe that both are completely wrong on both I don't believe it one's better than the other but at the same time I don't understand how you can say that not stunning an animal is better than stunning an animal in terms of the amount of suffering they feel so basically what you're right you say that the difference between kosher and non kosher or non-religious let's say let's say that way not religious way of killing animal would be the studying before I think that stunning is definitely a cause of all to a pain for the animal I agree with you on that point I just don't see how there's a difference I don't see how there's a difference in suffer when you see the throat of an animal you don't just leave the throat you make sure that the main how do you say the main flow yeah exactly destroy all the connections all the the sensitivity connections between the brains and the body which basically are the the fear of pain so it starts I'm not saying it's perfect and I'm not I'm just saying it's the spirit of it is moral because you try to respect the as much as possible even though you consider you consider that humans are superior and that you have a right to eat them that doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it everything has a decency and and you're talking about like a table why are you why are you against global warming why am i against club water the impact it has affects beings who are alive yeah living people yeah all living beings human and non-human I think one thing that we have to look at is is a comparison between say certain animals and other animals now I know that in Judaism and Christianity and indeed in Islam as well so mammals you can eat some algae Katya but let's look outside of that and let's look at more just kind of culturally accepted things if I was to go rescue a dog from a shelter and I brought that dog back to mine and I cut the dog in the same method the closure method that you described would that be a moral act killing the dog yes so and even if it was just because I want to eat them yes because you want to eat them and if but if I could hunting for pleasure is a sin okay so let's agree so let's broaden that out okay so the reason that we eat meat but know a lot of the reason that people think we eat meat is because we need protein and iron and stuff from from plant they're from animals but we can get all those things from plants which means that if we can live off plants then the act of killing every scientist it's not bad but the climate changed it might be every scientist but yeah but that nothing's about me every scientist because the same there are plenty of known scientists who claim that like even though vegetarianism is good for you for her for like elf veganism isn't and that some people need proteins and that animals provide that plants don't and actually I mean people will turn a vegan and we live perfectly fine with it and some people generates bad like bad health the problem is we can if we analyze anecdotal evidence it's a very poor structure but it is if you say well some people have lived this and some you need to look at the broader scientific studies and the broader scientific studies are showing very conclusively that we can all get all the essential amino acids we need comes from plants what's up so okay so let's look at the American diet Association the British Dietetic Association which the largest bodies have diet nutrition professionals in both countries they both categorically stated that a vegan plant-based diet is nutritionally adequate health and safety and safe for all stages of life including pregnancy so that those the biggest bodies of diet nutrition professionals in potentially - the most scientifically advanced countries in the world so yes you're gonna have some people that say oh well you know you can live healthier this way or healthier that way and yeah I mean we don't know necessary must optimal to my way of living but the point is we can survive and thrive on a plant-based diet which means there's no necessity for us to eat animal products and if you ask most people here on the street the reason they that is because they enjoy the taste which means that it's done for pleasure and so if it's done for pleasure like we said that's wrong and so if you're eating meat because you enjoy the taste of it rather than because you have to to survive then by up but by both our own admission that's immoral some people prefer our plans then meat I hope so some people so it's also killing for pleasure it's the same again we do need plants to survive in a tree or you eat an apple you're still eating something alive but do you believe more about an apple or a tree than an animal I guess if you what's the difference between them if you were driving down the road and a dog jumped out in front of your car or any any animal jumps after near the car like a carts or even a chicken would you swerve onto a flowerbed to save the life of the animal sorry what if you were driving down the road and an animal jumps in front of your car a dog a car a chicken would you swerve onto like a bed of roses to save the life of the animal a bed of roses roses of sunflowers well I I guess I would because if I I don't kill them I just mash them by your own admission then when you see an animal you value the life of the animal in that moment more than life of the plants around that's my feeling but my feeling does not create a morality and it's not because I feel that someone is bad and I need to kill him and I can feel a lot of things that doesn't base mmm neurology and even even if I do that even if I instinctly believe that well like animals are still like morally superior than plants so you believe that the plants and animals that it's wrong morally wrong to kill a mosquito what in or be a bee for sure I mean it's that idea of necessity if a musky it was in front of me now and I just slapped him like that I would say that that was not a very good thing to do because why would you not like would you think it's as bad to kill a beef or a horse Danny yeah what's the beef a cow yeah it's do you think it's as bad to kill a cow that it is to kill a mosquito it's not a very interesting question and I guess it depends on levels of consciousness but also it's about because consciousness defines awareness of life it defines a ability to feel pain to suffer to experience happiness to experience sadness to experience love to experience companionship to experience all these very complicated things that uniquely perform us as individuals but again it's that it's that thing of necessity now if there was a cow there and a mosquito there don't kill Eva that's nice I'm just saying do you value one more than the other it depends on circumstance and more you're talking about ethics and and what I can say the same thing I can eat meat it depends on circumstances why I had to if I had a necessity you had a gun pointed at you and sorry to ask you that but if you had a gun pointed at you yeah don't worry if you're gonna point at you and you had to kill either a mosquito or a cow or a human for the sake of the argument so you which do which animal it because you consider the humans are animal which which is the only one you will keep so I and this I think this answer here probably explains how morality can be defined not free religion but potentially through the advancements made from a scientific point of view now obviously I'm gonna kill the mosquito of the human in the cow and the primary reason for that is a the human in the cow have an experience of life that is much more complicated potentially we don't ever set but we'd imagine more so than the mosquito that's advancements in science that probably show now but also my ability to recognize consciousness in the cow means that I understand that they have an ability to to suffer they have probably a warrant of life that means that even though they we don't have a perception of what life and death is they still find happiness and value in the life that they have whether that's nurturing their children whether that's been part of a maternal herd thing in animals absolutely I mean dogs can experience happiness we take them on walks they jump around they play you for a ball they're excited that's a form of happiness happiness very human in the concept of course now animals so a dog or even a pig they can it how they can have panic attacks they can experience depression if you give CBD oil to an animal it caught it invokes the same reaction of carnal disease okay so biological so biological so you would by your own admission admit that non-human animals and humans do have things in common right Oh obviously yes obviously another science denier or so in the case of the mosquito and the cows thing which would you kill I would kill the mosquito why because scientific advancements are I believe what's beginning to define our morality now I believe that for a certain period of time judeo-christian bowel I'm sorry to cut you right in in the middle but you believe that science and morality are positively correlated I believe that they have the potential to be not not not not conclusively but I believe that they have the potential to I believe that science has the potential to define our ongoing morality so judeo-christian values have brought us up to a certain point however they can only go so far because there's only the moral code set out in the Bible that judeo-christians can follow but I believe that we have a moral duty therefore to go past what judeo-christian teaches us and look towards what the future can hold and that comes from scientific advancements because a religion only has it's formed in a book and once you've read that book and instead of teachers in the book that's it done but that's not good enough for an ever change in society and so science comes into play because as we because society changes every day every day every day that's not because of religion that's because the religions doesn't change so you're saying it can only go so far I will tell you very opposite society changes every day but the Bible doesn't change so we've had two thousand years since Jesus was born and in those two thousand years has only been in the past 50 years where we've said to ourselves you know what civil rights is probably a good idea LGBT rights is probably a good idea so how come if Judah judeo-christian values are so morally concrete it's taken us 2,000 years to get to the point where we say you know what perhaps a person of color deserves the same rights a white person do wait that first of all like people are human so it's already embodied by the bat by dead to the Bible years of judeo-christian values for us to get to that point why why do you take 2,000 years of Judea to to abolish slavery you didn't why years uh you didn't take 2,000 years to abolish slavery and at about 400 or so right huh about 400 or so right of us slavery right it went to war for that that wasn't because of God that was because they went and had a civil war just know that's a very oh that's a big oversimplification I'm sorry to say but it's Novus implicit it's a very big implication that slavery was abolished in ancient Israel 1,000 years before Jesus Christ in the time of King David and even before by the time of Moses even if you love me you doesn't believe don't believe that slavery was abolished by but like progressed like modern progresses that's a very cell not selfish with egocentric way of thinking she has existed at least biblical morality has prevailed not 2,000 years ago but since the for the last three thousand five hundred years so let's bring it back to the point that we're making and so the point I was making was that judeo-christian values a process up to a certain point however I believe that the morality of the future will be defined by our scientific discoveries so for example through science we've discovered like through the cambridge discussion of cambridge study of consciousness the animals like cows and pigs and chickens and sheep and the animals that we kill have a consciousness and can experience pain and experience emotions like love and fear and regret and guilt and therefore veganism is is more a following on from the progression that science has given to us because we say religion didn't teach us that these animals can experience pain and fear in fact religion try to suppress or not suppress it but religion didn't reveal those things to us but science has revealed those things to us and now because the scientific advancements we've made we can progress forward more morally as a society and so when you asked me about the cow on the mosquito my morals don't come from judeo-christian in that moment they come from science because I recognize that that cows ability to suffer and to live a good life that they enjoy far exceeds that of a mosquito and that's why I choose the cow you do establish a value yerkey between animals in a time of necessity not only time of triviality no because it there's a difference between arbitrary and doing something for necessity in a situation rates one or the other that's a time of necessity but when there's neva that's the time of arbitrary conclusion you still have a moral ideology that compels you to think because of science and because of sensitivity it's kind of necessity that yeah but that doesn't matter because at because morality morality no matter if you are a moral person and if you believe in the sets of principles that are supposed to be wrong no matter how how big the necessity is it's still the same it's cannibalism amaro yes so there was a plane that crashed in the in the Indies of the ant that the Andes sorry and there was a few survivors from the plane crash now they ate another human who had died in the plane crash to live and they survived was that immoral of them to do so yes so they should have died rather than eat the of a human yes sorry cannibalism is wrong point but in a time of necessity where their survival depended on it they should still die than eat the already dead humans to stay in their life I'm not saying they should because it's immoral I understand it's not because I understand that it is acceptable and it's still morally wrong and obviously would say but just saying with the animal because you're killing the mosquito is also morally wrong but you are saying that there is still a moral yah-tchi between cows and mosquitoes so like who is better between monkey and and cow what is better between the horse and chicken so every animal has a like let's say we could quantify human living value okay you could quantify so let's say we have like 100 and then the cows are like 80 and and horses are of eight seventy that's what you believe no not necessarily although I understand the point you're making and I and I do believe that say that they were different since in terms of of life in terms of what that life can mean to the individual being what I think makes us unique not unique well I think what come unifies us is that our experience of life is very impersonal to us regardless the species that you have and therefore we don't have the right to take someone's life against their will to Sara Lee if we don't have to now the point I was gonna make you something I made right at the beginning of the conversation when I said to you that you don't have to as an individual see all life is a hundred you can put humans 100 and every other animal on ten but just because we are a hundred still doesn't fight is justification to harm others they still have a right to live their life even if they fall slowly down on that ladder of value of life but again I'm sorry to have such a simple answer but why like if we are superior to them and you believe that we were superior to them because I'm nothing you believe personally but if you say that ok let's consider from a vegan perspective that animals are ten and we are hundred okay all animals that's what all oppression comes from all oppression comes to the idea that you just said well we can like morally consider it so it's not immoral to consider that that I personally believe that it is but I don't believe it you can't be vegan unless you do I don't think it's as simple as that I believe you can be vegan on all you have to do is assess that the value of life the animal has is higher than the 15 minutes of pleasure we get from consuming their flesh still against that still doesn't explain why animal life has more value than plant life again because they have an experience of life so they can feel happiness and joy and regret they can have babies and express maternal imporant yes animals regrets all if a dog does something and they can recognize they've done something wrong and they can regret that decision by cowering by caring by being sheepish by not waiting to look at the person who looks after them they display similar feelings of regret that we do carrying away be very you know not opening up but instead kind of covering up animals can expect express loss and grief I know for animals friend dies they can grieve over that animal that's a very animal thing to do grieve is a grief increase a very complex emotion whose grief accepts that there is a loss so for an animal must have a comprehension somewhere of life and death I can provide you all other scientific use as scientifical sources that will show you that in a way trees or herbs or anything that is a plant only can you provide me one now I cannot run them at the moment but you would deny that you will you would say that plants don't have anything you can like relate to as like sensitivity okay I believe that plants are incredibly complex and incredibly wonderful beings and I believe that they are alive but I don't believe that life constitutes consciousness and so an animal will have constitutes life must be alive but to be alive like a plant does does not mean that you have to be conscious right okay so someone in the coma would you kill him because he's not conscious someone that is in the coma no I wouldn't yeah did they still list are operating on a conscious level but that's interesting but but I put that we discussed earlier and I said that even if you agree that plants so that you should still be vegan because you result in less plants being used and plants being kills right that's what we said like right the beginning of conversation so I think that the plants one is still even if I agree that the life were plant is equals to life of an animal we should still be vegan because it results in less plants being used and killed and we need things like vitamin a vitamin C vitamin E that's from a practical perspective it's not a moral one it's practical for survival necessity which is at which as I've said necessity that is better just to eat plans that that that animal because when you eat animals you also implants in a way because they need a lot of friends due to to survival yeah but that's the practical and I understand and I agree with that that part and this is why I'm not bothered at all with practical veganism which is kind of its practical no because some would argue I know a lot of vegans some just say well I'm very concerned about like the world in general and and climate issues and pollution in general so I'm vegan because I believe that we are over exploiting a field and I totally understand it but would you do it for that reason would you go via conflagration I try to begin I would definitely do that for that reason never analogy I would never a knowledge and consider even one second that killing a human being is high as immoral as killing a human an animal and I and I will never also consider but I didn't have I didn't say that he's morally wrong I think it's morally right and I think in any circumstance Malhar morally right so long and it is in some kind of decency so long as we don't consider animals just as mere flesh that we could that we can do anything with it the promise you you do do that because you refer to an animal's it and you deny them their personhood and not a person but they are alive and they are consciously there is someone but they but they are as someone they're not an inanimate object an animal this is someone they're not an inanimate object they're not an it and it refers to a lifeless form right why because an it is devoid of any form of individuality or personality or all kind of you know consciousness right it's it's not a person I'm sorry a cow is not a person a chicken or a mosquito is not a person they have a person so a person doesn't necessarily equal human okay person just means that there's something behind those eyes that signifies an awareness of life okay personhood and awareness of self that's not true just what does person mean a human being human means human right human means human personally separates the word human yeah but were invented it we invented it we invented we embedded vocabulary but animals speak with their own language so that we don't have known operator of a language that a cow is an individual they are individual but not persons okay but if you recognize a cow's individual by default you have to acknowledge there is someone there what if you recognize a cow is an individual by default you have to recognize that they are someone know some what I'm sorry because an individual doesn't mean that you have to pretend it's like because when you say someone and he knew you and you are a human and I guess most of your time you speak with humans so I would say that I wish less and less so most of time we speak with human and you usually when someone tell you well I met someone usually you don't understand it as a cow right would you say he or she on it well I would say she or he but that's me ran triple on top of Murphy's mo but you recognize that animal has a gender which makes them therefore yes so if they have sex in that sense and you write and you call them by the he and the she then that recommended for us and it's effective I feel like we've touched on so many points the only thing I will add to the debate is that one of your main argument is about morality that science was actually correlated with like moral progress not completely by belief that we can use science to progress in the moral level and something quickly is that I believe that I actually believe in science and in real in the Bible as well and I think that one are the two are complementary and that one cannot go without the other science without morality is just chaos and in fact the the the the most atheist the most scientifical ideology the most lethal the most deadly ideologies in human history are atheist and scientific ideologies which are communism and Nazism the most the most deadly ideologies in the world not religious systems are different to religious people a communist can be a a a fundamentalist Islam Islamist you know a fascist could be well you know I feel we're gonna get off tangent but I think it is important to note that the the church you know Church of Christianity sided with Hitler you know and actually signed a treaty with Hitler I'm not saying it's wrong you like during a long time most of the wars and crimes were committed because of religious ideals but they they have never never equated the mass murder of a love non religious purely scientific or racist ideologies such as communism or I or Nance ISM I think that history disproves that point but I do not want to get yeah I mean look look look for our history you know we have the Crusades and 15th century they killed 1,000 or 2,000 what about what's happened in Yemen in a moment with Saudi Arabia bombing Yemen and causing the worst famine that's been around in more like decades you know these are very that is a political thing run by a by a religious system so religion is still inherit the reason why people die in so many it's not religious conflicts it's political conflicts that are unloaded by religious figures but the Holocaust are mass murders in communist regimes are the direct direct result of communist or Nazi ideology very interesting and you also touched on points that I have not had asked me before so I'd like to thank you for raising issues I love all and you traded information you

Channel: Earthling Ed

Views: 412,648

Keywords: earthlinged, earthling ed, vegan, veganism, why, be, go, earthlings full movie, activism, change my mind, debate, discussion, heated, argument, king's college london, vegan vs, meat eater, cowspiracy

Id: zs_UTC9f1YE

Length: 50min 13sec (3013 seconds)

Published: Thu Oct 18 2018

Reddit Comments

[u/Nayr39]

Wish he sat down with more than one person, I get tired of religious arguments really quickly.

[u/[deleted]]

I just knew, within 30 seconds of the video starting that he was religious!

[u/vegan_butt]

Best part of the video. It really shows how much people separate themselves of what they are eating every day.

#wouldyoukillabeef 🤦

[u/vegan_craig]

The French guy was fixated with the Nazis and communism. I agree that both of them have been responsible for the deaths of more than 100M people in the last 110 years but how many millions have died at the hands of the religious zealots of all faiths for the last 2000+ years. And yet he would not admit that animals deserve better treatment at our hands than just to be treated as commodities to be consumed by the arrogant human race. You need to do this more Ed and you really need to get into politics.