Let's do veganism now. I'm allowed to do this because I still remember what lentil burgers taste like from when I dated a vegan at university. So, as with most vegans, Singer is blocked by the classical counting paradoxes from declaring that a certain number of eukaryotic cells makes something morally inedible, and the standard list of counterexamples works just fine for him. Also, I hear he eats shellfish, and geoducks are bigger than e.g. chicks or kittens (or whatever else we might not want to eat.) I don't know how he'd convince me that a SCOBY is fundamentally not deserving of the same moral insight either; I think we just do it by convention to avoid the cosmic horror of thinking how many yeast cells must die to make a loaf of bread, and most practicing vegans aren't even willing to pray for all the bugs that they accidentally squish.

I agree with everything else he puts forward, but it boils down to buying organic-farmed food and discouraging factory farming. Singer is heavy on sentiment but painfully light on biology.

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

As I understand his argument, it goes

If you can suffer, you have moral value
We have an obligation to not cause suffering to beings with moral value
Some animals can suffer, therefore they have moral value, and we have an obligation to not cause suffering to them

You can then of course ask whether yeast can suffer, which we don't have any evidence of, but you're welcome to stop eating yeast if you feel morally obliged to anyway. Lack of evidence doesn't mean we know they don't suffer. But for the animals where we have convincing evidence that they experience suffering, such as most intelligent mammals, we all have a clear moral obligation to stop causing them harm.

Counting cells doesn't really enter the argument. Evidence of suffering does, which is not just about sentiment.

The inability to draw a perfect distinction between beings that can suffer and those who cannot doesn't stop us from identifying cases clearly on either side of that line.

What Singer eats doesn't really matter for the argument.

[–] corbin@awful.systems 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You now have to argue that oxidative stress isn't suffering. Biology does not allow for humans to divide the world into the regions where suffering can be experienced and regions where it is absent. (The other branch contradicts the lived experience of anybody who has actually raised a sourdough starter; it is a living thing which requires food, water, and other care to remain homeostatic, and which changes in flavor due to environmental stress.)

Worse, your framing fails to meet one of the oldest objections to Singer's position, one which I still consider a knockout: you aren't going to convince the cats to stop eating intelligent mammals, and evidence suggests that cats suffer when force-fed a vegan diet.

When you come to Debate Club, make sure that your arguments are actually well-lubed and won't squeak when you swing them. You've tried to clumsily replay Singer's arguments without understanding their issues and how rhetoric has evolved since then. I would suggest watching some old George Carlin reruns; the man was a powerhouse of rhetoric.

[–] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago

this is not debate club