Destiny vs VeganGains Live Debate/Discussion

Destiny and I discuss the ethics of eating meat.

Destiny's channel:
Support me on Patreon:
outro: Beef by KRS-One
Follow me on Facebook:

Destiny vs VeganGains Live Debate/Discussion

Destiny and I discuss the ethics of eating meat.

Destiny's channel:
Support me on Patreon:
outro: Beef by KRS-One
Follow me on Facebook:

70 thoughts on “Destiny vs VeganGains Live Debate/Discussion

  1. Empathy (or the golden rule) has nothing to do with reciprocation. It’s the simple recognition that I don’t have some special place compared to other sentient beings, therefore it is ILLOGICAL to treat someone in a way that I wouldn’t want to be treated in their position. It also doesn’t mean sacrificing your own well being for the sake of a criminal, because it’s also true that the other person doesn’t have a special place compared to you. If there’s a choice between you or them, you need to use other criteria (the well being of other people in society, for example) to make the decision.

    And re: the train situation. It probably would be the most moral decision to throw myself in front of a train, but obviously it’s very difficult to live up to the greatest morality in a situation like that. In other words, logic is clouded by emotions – understandably so. But that doesn’t mean the logic is invalid. And avoiding animal agriculture is a much easier moral decision to live up to than throwing yourself in front of a train.

    1. ProPhilosophy
      The problem is though why does it matter if they can feel pain? who cares? what does feeling pain mean in a universe where morality is a cultural fiction accepted only in subjective ways? You vegans keep making the point that animals feel pain, but you guys cease being logical here, because you haven’t proved *why it matters* that they feel pain. It isn’t a forgone conclusion that it matters. From a philosophically materialist perspective we don’t kill other people for fear of reciprocity, not for some magic morality that is objective/subjective, that is the modern position on morality, to argue against this you would need pre modern ethics to convince any intellectually honest person.

    1. not as many upvotes as the parent comment above. you put some effort into your essay of a comment but at the end of the day you just sound like another neck-bearded, armchair philosopher

    1. Thor Whether you’re a psychopath or a normally functioning human being? Let’s be honest, if Destiny is being genuine his arguments do not apply to the general population because the general population are normal human beings with basic emotions with emotional reasoning behind many of their morals. If Destiny was not bullshitting the entire debate he is clearly lacking something psychologically and emotionally and is not representative of the general population and their eating habits.

    1. no. human morality is not equal to the laws of physics. human social interaction isnot related to the laws of physics that make up our universe. our perception and interactions with each other are completely based on our subjective opinions on how others should be treated

    2. social contracts basicly means might makes do as we think you should do and if not we can kill you,its another political form of barberism.

    3. 30:45 an example of the dred Scott decison. he was a slave but his owner was nice. dude sued for his freedom and the worst decision was made in court.

    1. It doesn’t. You are undermining the value of logic and ethics in constructing rational opinions with little regard for actually analyzing the arguments and logic put forward. In essence, you are dismissing the theories of epistemology and meta-ethics that provide the basis for our political order. It almost seems like you are too lazy to analyze the discussion and just fall back on a form of ethics grounded in emotion, something that not a form of logical argumentation.

      If you analyzed Destiny’s position, you would see that he does not abide by logical consistency. He presents a single quality that would justify killing an organism and asserts the moral acceptability of animal agriculture by that one quality (the ability to participate in social contracts). He completely disregards the plethora of other qualities that could serve as baselines for immunity from murder. He is not being logically consistent.

    2. That’s probably the stupidest thing I have read on this comment section so far. “extreme logical consistency” is not a bad thing and does not lead to immoral behavior. Logical consistency is what creates ethical principles.

      It is when one is not logical enough, like Destiny, that we get the perception that their argument is “immoral”. For example, he only brought up one quality to use as a baseline for killing living things: the ability to participate in a social contract. He did not recognize a lot of other qualities that could also be used and neglected to justify why such qualities would or would not be appropriate baselines.

  2. This dude is in favor of animal cruelty? 7 minutes in and that’s what it sounds like. Well at least he’s honest I suppose.

    1. Fighting isn’t cruel so long as it’s between two consenting adults. If you’re just beating someone up then sure, but when you’ve both agreed to the rules of engagement prior then you can’t really call it cruel.

    2. Just because someone wants to compete in a sport doesn’t mean they also must love torturing animals.
      And it’s not an opinion to say fighting isn’t cruel so long as it’s between two consenting adults. Rape between two consenting adults isn’t rape, cruelty between two consenting adults isn’t cruel. It only become cruel when consent is removed from the situation or manipulation is introduced.

  3. Love him or hate him, you have to admit, Destiny was the best and most logically consistent person Vegan Gains has ever debated. It turned out to be a really good debate on both sides, most of the time Vegan Gains is stuck debating mindless idiots like NoBullshit so this was a breath of fresh air!

    1. “A cow would not reciprocate a social contract and she would kill me so it is ethical for humans to breed them and kill them for the eternity”
      That was not very smart… Neither he was honest.

    2. that guy it seemed to me like he wanted to give the strongest argument he could for the sake of the debate and him currently eating meat, even though he thinks it is a very hard position to defend.

    3. +GrimSpeaker
      “Disagree. He clearly insisted that all deeds is for the sole benefit of the individual and in that way can extend to others as a social cobtract, agreed upon way of conduct to assure the safety and benefit for the ind. This is no way is being inconsistent.”

      – Which individual? Answer: himself. That’s the inconsistency. He is concerned about himself being treated in a way that respects his own sentient experience, but he’s not concerned about treating others in a way that respects their sentient experience, even though his own experience has no privileged position in the scheme of things. That is a logical inconsistency. The moment you express concern for your own experience, you have to do the same for that of other sentient beings or else you’re being inconsistent. The only other way to be logically consistent is to renounce any concern for your own life or your own experience.

  4. In this discussion, Destiny operates under a completely different set of moral values than most people, which allows him to then justify meat eating based on his own unorthodox sense of morality.

    When you apply natural human morality to the question, he would have to concede to veganism being correct.

    Basically, if you’re a psychopath who doesn’t value sentient life, then sure, veganism is illogical by your moral standards.

    1. i think the confusion is in the fact, that what society accepts as moral changes as people’s views change making morality seem like sort of a matter of opinion, but in reality we are on a constant hunt to uncover morality based on the notion of needlessly causing harm is less moral than not needlessly causing harm. sure that premise is a belief but one that can be supported by our experience. in effect, morality reveals itself to us as we question our beliefs about morality.

    2. @Mike Hawk

      Because its reality though? I also eat meat because its there to eat, i know its cheaper to eat vegan I know its not healthy for me to eat meat and I know animals had to die in cruel unnecessary ways for me to eat it. So how can I justify eating it?

      I can’t but I will continue to eat meat because I literally couldn’t care about the life of an animal and until i move out its easier to eat meat so i guess i have to be a “sociopath”. by your standards anyway

      Thats literally the point destiny brings up you have to accept these realities about yourself if you are a rational person but still a meat eater you have to face the reality that you don’t care about the life of animals and by extension even some humans.

      Might not be the answer you hoped for but its the 100% honest truth.

  5. I think Destiny was just playing Devil’s Advocate here, he is a leftist and leftists don’t believe things like “empathy doesn’t matter.”
    He was just saying it for the sake of debate.

    1. He’s the most dishonest. I doubt he’s in favor of skinning dogs and other people alive. Such intellectual dishonesty.

    1. pimpinainteasy holocaust was a genocide same as the murdering of indigenous peoples. intent is what defines genocide…

    2. >This is where Destiny’s argument falls apart. He doesn’t consider why other qualities, like an organism’s quality of living, of feeling pain, sentience, or a certain degree of emotional intelligence can be considered baselines for worth.
      No, he does. However, he has not been provided with convincing evidence that they are superior baselines for worth to his own. His argument does not fall apart, he acknowledges his axiom to be arbitrary just like any others, but his defense to favor picking his is that it is the most logically consistent baseline of human society and interaction. Destiny cares a lot about logical consistency. The only way to attack him on this is to show that a different system than the social contract can be used to derive society more precisely, or to argue that his care for the system of logic and the current state of society is arbitrary, which I’m sure he would agree with as of his talk with JF on moral nihilism.

    3. I would argue against it being a superior baseline for his own worth. Primarily because the social contract is purely an abstraction and it’s usefulness is confined to explaining the origins of civilization, not the functioning civilization the layman encounters in his daily life. I think the more “primitive” instincts like affinity towards empathy, compassion, etc towards life forms of comparable capacity to humans are ultimately what drive many policies created.

      However, this is definitely an interesting topic that merits further discussion.

  6. First debate with someone who sounds intelligent, but seems to be a psychopath. Are we making progress? I can’t tell.

  7. Destiny is a sociopath who is ok with genocide and doesn’t understand empathy. He could literally torture a dog and feel nothing.

    1. Zone 9 why would you say “He could literally torture a dog and feel nothing.” ? What’s the point of doing something if you don’t get any value?
      It won’t happen if there’s no reason.

    2. The point is that there’s always a reason for something.
      Accidentally killing a dog in a car accident and not feeling anything is not the same as deliberately torturing an animal.

    3. He’s not being dishonest for the sake of debate. He’s being dishonest to justify him eating meat. I don’t think he’s a sociopath. I just think that he wants to be one.

    4. Zone 9 the argument on vaganism is mostly circumstantial. Depends on your morals. its all about where you are, when you’re there, and how you’re with. Its all perspective, a few hundred years ago, if you were raped, your family would kill you to relieve them of their shame. Now that’s considered evil. Who knows, possibly in the future, killing people with yellow teeth will be moral, its not completely out of the ballpark. Stuff like this has happened. (Of course not yellow teeth genocide, but you get my point)

  8. I have so many thoughts on this.
    Intellect without compassion is the root of evil. He is basically a complete sociopath/psychopath (I don’t know the definitions), who has no genuine concern for any other being other than himself. I would not trust him for one second. I think after seeing this, many people will feel the same. So his ideology of only caring when it’s reciprocal may come back to bite him. People will see through his bullshit. He is a really dangerous person.
    I would also like to ask him why he values consistency over reducing suffering. He made an effort to stress how consistent he was being but also maintained he doesn’t care about anyone else, or their opinion of what is moral. So why does he seek approval for being consistent? Why is he even having a debate.

    1. Mihai Pecican I don’t know if it really makes that much difference. Anyone that is willing to even say they would do the things he said, even if they actually wouldn’t, is still an untrustworthy person, because it’s still a form of seeking acceptance. He wants to be accepted for being consistent instead of being moral, like bearing etc. Neither are honest or concerned with doing the right thing because it’s right. To me has the typical personality of a “lone wolf” terrorist type. He’s deeply troubled whatever his real feelings are, to have such low self esteem you either have no empathy or want others think you have no empathy. Hate is a cry for help/love.

  9. Basically the only way to talk against veganism is to either be or pretend to be a sociopath. I’m guessing the latter was the case here, Destiny is totally being dishonest.

  10. This guys argument actually stands. He is essentially admitting he is a bad person, and therefore his actions are only consistent with his viewpoint. He is not debating veganism in a sense, he is just saying you have to admit you are an inconsiderate and non-empathetic person in order to eat or use animals.

    1. No his argument is nonsense. He’s claiming that social contracts are ethical in and of themselves and without a social contract everything is morally neutral. This leads to absurdities like it’s okay to commit genocide against people for absolutely no reason. In reality morals are what create social contracts as without the understand that needless suffering and death is a bad thing social contracts would be absolutely meaningless.

    2. But is he even claiming he is right? From my perspective listening to this it is basically just him admitting he is wrong because he is a bad person. He is disregarding morals so therefore he sees himself as being outside of the debate of right or wrong. It is a bad excuse admittedly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *