WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

1.3K

Name the trait that if absent in animals that if absent in humans would make you disregard your own life if you lacked such trait.

The axiomatic presupposition this is based upon is that man acts. This axiom is the basis for decision theory and praxeology. The analysis of such a decision should be based on the maximum expected utility.

To argue that man does not act to achieve their maximum expected utility of a decision is to prove the axiom in the process of disproving it because you are acting in a way that you think will result in maximum results. The opposite of this action is reflective action like sneezing.

This is Ludwig von Mises definition of human action

Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego's meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person's conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is adequate and does not need complement of commentary.

This axiom is also the basis for the Non-Aggression-Principle and the Self-Defense-Principle.

Here are some things I want to add, because I don't think personally I am fully for veganism.

  1. I think it is ok to own a pet. Some animals like the cat has self-domesticated themselves with humans, dogs have been bred to be domesticated and other farm animals have had the same impact on their species. Owning pets is like the same thing as having a child. Its volunteered slavery. I know the thinking is a bit sloppy on this but hear me out. You wouldn't just let a child leave your house because they cannot consciously make a decision like that for themselves. This is the same with animals (with the exception of cats because they're self domesticated.) Their overall livelihood and the maximum expected utility they can receive in a home is much higher than they can get outdoors.

  2. EnForced Veganism is UnVegan If the point of veganism is to protect action from being impeded, then forcing people to eat something they don't want is going the against human action, and action is the only way we see humans manifest their mind into reality.

For me if I was going to name the trait I think it would be the ability to know the future before it happens. That way the person would always know the maximum expected utility of someone's life accurately.

If aliens exist I bet you this is how some of them think.

There some metaphysics stuff that I think would debunk this but I'm guessing most people on here subscribe to the objective metaparadigm metaphysics interpretation of reality so it might be a topic for another discussion.

Name the trait that if absent in animals that if absent in humans would make you disregard your own life if you lacked such trait. The axiomatic presupposition this is based upon is that man acts. This axiom is the basis for decision theory and praxeology. The analysis of such a decision should be based on the *maximum expected utility*. To argue that man does not act to achieve their maximum expected utility of a decision is to prove the axiom in the process of disproving it because you are acting in a way that you think will result in maximum results. The opposite of this action is reflective action like sneezing. This is Ludwig von Mises definition of human action > Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego's meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person's conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is adequate and does not need complement of commentary. This axiom is also the basis for the Non-Aggression-Principle and the Self-Defense-Principle. Here are some things I want to add, because I don't think personally I am fully for veganism. 1. I think it is ok to own a pet. Some animals like the cat has self-domesticated themselves with humans, dogs have been bred to be domesticated and other farm animals have had the same impact on their species. Owning pets is like the same thing as having a child. Its volunteered slavery. I know the thinking is a bit sloppy on this but hear me out. You wouldn't just let a child leave your house because they cannot consciously make a decision like that for themselves. This is the same with animals (with the exception of cats because they're self domesticated.) Their overall livelihood and the maximum expected utility they can receive in a home is much higher than they can get outdoors. 2. EnForced Veganism is UnVegan If the point of veganism is to protect action from being impeded, then forcing people to eat something they don't want is going the against human action, and action is the only way we see humans manifest their mind into reality. For me if I was going to name the trait I think it would be the ability to know the future before it happens. That way the person would always know the maximum expected utility of someone's life accurately. If aliens exist I bet you this is how some of them think. There some metaphysics stuff that I think would debunk this but I'm guessing most people on here subscribe to the objective metaparadigm metaphysics interpretation of reality so it might be a topic for another discussion.

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

that [..] would make you disregard your own life if you lacked such trait

Well here is one problem. No creature is expected to disregard it's own life (unless you count vegans).

Let me ask you this: why do vegans hold humans to this 'do no harm to sentient beings' standard but not hold other animals to it?

[–] 2 pts

In this instance I believe the trait you're referring to is moral agency.

Moral Agency

Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

So what you are proposing is:

If it is ok to kill an animal because they lack moral agency, its ok to kill a human who lacks moral agency. (For example a psychopath.)

Now I can actually see how some people would actually agree with this.

Personally I think this would lead to a slippery slope into delineating who gets to be culled and how that is decided. I personally am not vegan, but vegetarian because of the implications of property (can't have animals mucking about) and animal self domestication (voluntary slavery/pets)

As for the connotation that vegans don't uphold this to others well here's some news. Ideologues fucking suck. People don't have ideas. Ideas have people.

I can envision lots scenarios where killing animals is ok. A lot of "vegans" may disagree. But most of them are virtue signaling.