That would be the main take-away from this. Joey said in his video that he asked to go on the show, but they refused him and accepted this young person who is a representative of some group called Animal Rebellion. Joey's belief is that they did that specifically to get an easy target for Morgan's bullying. Of course Morgan isn't interested in their views.
That's true, but irrelevant to Morgan's point. Morgan is reflecting typical non-vegan criticisms and if they cannot be countered, then it le
That would be the main take-away from this. Joey said in his video that he asked to go on the show, but they refused him and accepted this young person who is a representative of some group called Animal Rebellion. Joey's belief is that they did that specifically to get an easy target for Morgan's bullying. Of course Morgan isn't interested in their views.
That's true, but irrelevant to Morgan's point. Morgan is reflecting typical non-vegan criticisms and if they cannot be countered, then it leaves activists looking bad. The end result is that activists actually reinforce the negative opinions offered by the critic. Veganism is essentially a personal ethical stance. Yes, at the global scale certain benefits accrue, but vegans are choosing to do what they think is best to do at the individual level. Morgan's criticism covered two points - environmental damage and harm to other species. He particularly drew attention to harms to bees used to pollinate the crops, but also to environmental damage from growing almonds.
Now, he may be wrong about that as I have seen articles that dispute those claims. But his point remains. The goal of vegans is to prevent exploitation and unnecessary harm and suffering. The "least harm" thing isn't part of standard moral evaluation as I understand it - that emerges when we have two comparable cases of conflicting interests to attend to. In such cases, we might defer to the case wherein we do least harm. But comparing the harms accruing from cow's milk and then saying that almond milk is less harmful seems to be an inappropriate application of the principle.
The question is, does a choice we make cause harm and can we make a different choice. In the case of almond milk, I think we drink that primarily for pleasure. If it causes harms, then we need to consider if we have an alternative that is less harmful. We can't wave the charge away because some other completely different choice is more harmful.
The young lady in this clip was evasive but in the end had to agree that she did eat avocadoes and possibly almond milk. The better answer is to simply say either yes or no and go from there.
My question though is related to the issues Morgan raises. How should activists respond? We know there are only so many criticisms that people like Morgan can raise and these should be well known by now. She should have been aware that Morgan wasn't interested in her actual stance but merely wanted her to be the bunny for a "gotcha" moment. I think vegans have to face the fact that drinking soy milk or almond milk does cause environmental and species' harms and have an answer for such criticisms. And the answer isn't to wave it away by saying that someone else does worse. That is both hypocritical and deflates the moral argument.
aves activists looking bad. The end result is that activists actually reinforce the negative opinions offered by the critic. Veganism is essentially a personal ethical stance. Yes, at the global scale certain benefits accrue, but vegans are choosing to do what they think is best to do at the individual level. Morgan's criticism covered two points - environmental damage and harm to other species. He particularly drew attention to harms to bees used to pollinate the crops, but also to environmental damage from growing almonds.
Now, he may be wrong about that as I have seen articles that dispute those claims. But his point remains. The goal of vegans is to prevent exploitation and unnecessary harm and suffering. The "least harm" thing isn't part of standard moral evaluation as I understand it - that emerges when we have two comparable cases of conflicting interests to attend to. In such cases, we might defer to the case wherein we do least harm. But comparing the harms accruing from cow's milk and then saying that almond milk is less harmful seems to be an inappropriate application of the principle.
The question is, does a choice we make cause harm and can we make a different choice. In the case of almond milk, I think we drink that primarily for pleasure. If it causes harms, then we need to consider if we have an alternative that is less harmful. We can't wave the charge away because some other completely different choice is more harmful.
The young lady in this clip was evasive but in the end had to agree that she did eat avocadoes and possibly almond milk. The better answer is to simply say either yes or no and go from there.
My question though is related to the issues Morgan raises. How should activists respond? We know there are only so many criticisms that people like Morgan can raise and these should be well known by now. She should have been aware that Morgan wasn't interested in her actual stance but merely wanted her to be the bunny for a "gotcha" moment. I think vegans have to face the fact that drinking soy milk or almond milk does cause environmental and species' harms and have an answer for such criticisms. And the answer isn't to wave it away by saying that someone else does worse. That is both hypocritical and deflates the moral argument.