If It's Legal, It's Moral (Earthling Ed Vegan Debate) | Part 2 

im always so impressed with ed's patience and ability to articulate his points in such tight ways. if i had to talk to these people i think i would rage quit after about three minutes.

I'm flabbergasted that he uses human intelligence and our ability to comprehend complex issues as a reason FOR eating animals instead of NOT eating animals since we have the ability to understand animal's cruelty and choose plant-based products - something that a wolve or other animals are not capable of

Tbf to Jed it's pretty confronting having to organise your thoughts on the fly when you're being asked rapid fire leading questions (that were prepped in advance). Good on him for being a good sport and seeing the interview through peacefully unlike some of the other people Ed has interviewed.

I JUST finished part 1 and was like nooooo and then 1 min later this was out haha. I also watched Ed's original video about a week ago and WOW how is he not exhausted?! Loved your take on this

I love Ed's videos, patience, and listening skills. I equally enjoy your thoughtful, intelligent commentary. You are both great vegan advocates!

I honestly don't think the libertarian even knows his positions himself. It seemed clear that he hadn't run into this line of questioning before...we were all watching him rationalise his positions in real time while contradicting previous statements he had made or just conjuring entirely unrelated arguments

I'm so glad you covered this. I watched the original and was so confused and frustrated!

I'm getting dizzy just listening to him go in circles.

Love that you're talking about Effective Altruism, great to see that in the vegan community, I cant afford much but I'm vegan and give 1% of my income to Animal Charity Evaluators top charities, proud to be a tiny part of the progress towards a better world for animals and humans alike

I'm not a US citizen, I kind of feel offended.

I understand why Ed didn’t bring up the point, but it is so obvious, and it demolishes all of his arguments. Human slavery, was legal, slave masters used all of his arguments, they said that slaves weren’t as intelligent, weren’t part of the social contract because they couldn’t be part….obviously slavery is not moral because it’s legal in a society. It is the most blatant example of why laws don’t make morality, why might does not make right, why the social contract is made by the victors and imposed on everyone else. It’s unfortunate because had his race been any other, the point would have been brought, but such are the times we live in. He looked like he could have had that conversation with no issues, but then the internet would have gone crazy.

I watched Ed's video when it first came out and seeing this I knew it was all going to come down to the guy just not wanting to stop eating meat. Almost feels like a waste of time, but hopefully people watching it and this take into account all the great arguments for veganism even if this guy wasn't receptive. It's so incredibly frustrating though.

I love listening both Ed's debates and your comments to them

Funny how he says we should focus more on people problems rather than animal problems when reducing animal products would lead to less global warming, chronic diseases and pandemics.

My dog is fully a member of society. People know him, he goes to my salon with me, he has a full and active life. It makes me sad to think that there’s people like this man that don’t think his life holds any real value. To me, and many others, his life holds more value than many peoples. Like you said, serial killers and other awful terrible people shouldn’t rank higher than sentient creatures that just can’t speak English. People like this man think humans are so special just because we happen to be able to communicate with each other and we have thumbs. Every creature has something to teach us, if we’re willing to learn. ♥️

I wish this guy would just admit that he doesn’t think animals are equal to human. Like that is his argument and he is just side stepping it

It is very fortunate, what happened to Swayze. She was such a naive and innocent girl, when she was 100% raw vegan. But then she got a grip on herself, and now she relishes her life and loves her children, by feeding them cooked food.

Here’s my thing, a conversation like this could be avoided by someone admitting they don’t have all of their beliefs sorted and ready to articulate at all time. He’s just too prideful to say that. That goes for any discussion like this

I loved this style of video and the philosophical debate they had along with your commentary

Slavery was also legal.......sooooo... who is still thinking legality=moral at this point?

It's so nice to know that in this guy's mind, you can murder someone who is living out in the woods without being immoral.

I always find those "what if" debates very strange, we don't know what would happen "if" we don't know what would wolves do ... what matters is the actual reality , what happens now, science.

Ed should teach classes on communication

Everyone knows what we should be saying/asking him, but everyone is too afraid to say it.

Id prob blabber some super dumb shit if being grilled on the spot but jesus im laughing so hard rn watching this man struggle

The apathy of humanity really shouldn’t surprise me.

It seems to me like this guy's moral framework is social contract theory, so people live together in a society and construct the laws they want to abide by. Since those laws are constructed by the society, they are therefore right and moral. If you don't agree with the laws, you can try to change them with the means you have within the context of the law. So it's not like he would just accept discrimination or homophobia if this is the law, but he would be in favor of peacefully protesting the laws he does not agree with.

I don't agree with this guys positions, but I don't really find them confusing. If you accept he doesn't really believe in moral systems, then think its mostly consistent. The dicussion is muddled because he keeps being asked about morals when he ie explicitly states that is not his way of thinking. Really I think the bigger issue is he probably doesn't believe this. The reality is if he did see someone stomping a a dog to death he would probably feel that is "wrong" and likely try to stop it. I think that is the problem with the debate format to change behavior. People end up saying what they have to say to "win" even if it gets into some pretty absurd territory. This guy doesn't care that deeply about animal suffering. That's pretty much what it boils down to and his true argument is "yea, I don't care". Working on helping people develop empathy for animals strikes me as a lot more useful (for average person) than trying to change their behavior through "facts and logic".

The position would be that morality is a societal construct, so with respect to a society where even something like genocide is OK, genocide would be moral(or at least not immoral). With respect to a society where genocide is bad, it'd be bad. I am a subjectivist about morality in that I believe morality references a type of individual preference, so I don't agree with that formulation, but it is fine for them to have that standard. EDIT:Fine in that I consider their judgement about what morality is descriptively reasonable. It makes sense to think that morality is a social construction.

11:36 surely that's not Ed looking a tad annoyed as the guy ignores his point and changes the subject 😂

Jed the robot doesn't seem to have a real organic opinion about anything if he can't fit a one-sized political philosophy around it. Like dude, listen to your heart - it's not that complicated.

Hey Swayze-love your vids! Interested in your opinion about animal adoption centers and high stipulations for prospective adoptees. I’ve been wanting to adopt a second bunny for some time now, but anecdotes from others have me reconsidering. Do you think adoption centers’ standards are to the detriment of the animals, or are they truly just a indication of my inadequacy as a bunny mom? Thanks so much!

this guy the beige shirt, sounds like he’s never honestly thought about what he ACTUALLY believes…

Bro shutting down at the end was a good idea. My dude was… apathetic.

Affiliated with humans lmao

He speaks like he has to write a 10,000 word essay and could only come up with 7,000 and needs to add some filler phrases in

Everyone should work on their own ability of having high morals based on compassion. Govs get many things wrong. Govs would have him in a slave status a century ago.

13:41 on the 'Wildlife flourishing' point - the human population is probably going to peak this century, and we are still urbanising. That means less land will be needed for habitation as well as food production _unless_ meat consumption increases, given that calorie for calorie, meat requires much more land. Less demand on land means that rewilding and habitat restoration becomes more feasible. Even in the absence of any concerted government effort (and most governments _are_ committed to such things, at least on paper).

Idk who needs to hear this, but just because it’s legal it doesn’t mean it’s moral. Examples: colonialism, homophobia, stealing, capitalism, patriarchy, etc. The US and other countries still have colonies and abuse them. We demand liberty, justice and reparations. Also fight for animal liberation. Animals are here with us not for us. May all living beings be free and happy.

A sense of justice will slip out of an individual's mind, at that very moment, self-deception kicks in as a lubricant. "Might is right" even in hardcore sereal killers or psychopaths is, believe it or not, a sense of justice as if in the form of protein under denaturation. Surely its property has drastically changed, but protein is protein (in their eyes). The key to the rise of veganism, I think, is for us to be well versed in the physiology of such cat-and-mouse dynamics btw Right and Might (i.e. denatured right) which ebbs and flows in the ocean of human psyche collectively.

Right, like just because abortion is legal doesn't make it moral/right. Governments shouldn't legislate morality. Respect and value for all life should be our main focus.

This guy out here saying "but umm" more than Robin from himym

In a way, sentient AI is like an evolution of humans. We pass information onto them, make them in our likeness but also improve many aspects. They could become superior to us in a lot of ways. So his argument of humans being superior therefore other animals have little to no value, is very flawed. I don't think he would allow himself to be slaughtered for the pleasure of sentient and superior AI.

Libertarians are just people who like to hear themselves speak

Is it me or is the essence of libertarianism ‘not my problem, dude,’

Compartmentalized love is not love at all. That is just ego giving preferences to one group over another. It may be called pride or preference or even judgment (positive or negative), all of which comes from the ego, but it is not love. Family units in this world operate in this way. You can even call it business, but not love. Love and compassion is a universal state of mind and it applies to all beings. Some saints or enlightened people who experience God (love) are in this state, but most human beings are just operating in the realm of ego and calling that nonsense as love

2.59 Did Ed just ask if we deserve Valium? 🤨

Jed wanst to be the demons from The Promised Neverland

He said "as a biologist" and I thought ahh.. there it is. Hah! Obviously not all biologists think in this very black and white way, but in my experience a large portion biologists are rarely bothered by morals and ethics, rather they concern themselves with what is, and typically just accept that because that's how it's been and will always be. I'd be interested to see his response to the psychology and evolutionary purposes related to human empathy.

Veganism is the most "hands off" position.

I wonder how many of the people that debate Ed end up changing their minds and going vegan later but just don’t want to admit they’re ‘wrong’ or changed their mind in front of the camera. I feel like a lot of the people he debates just don’t want their pride hurt and secretly go vegan later without admitting that Ed changed their mind.

Dunking on college kids over a narrow topic helping? We need a good vegan on vegan debate to refine the arguments in a crucible of consensus.

Yeah sorry dude you're not a libertarian... You're basically the opposite - you believe whatever the state says is correct. That's a statist - the opposite of a libertarian. Lol I hope he figures out his philosophies!

The argument of getting our shit together as humans before helping animals is so weak. What is this ultimate order ? When there will be no more diseases ? No more wars ? No more poverty ? Ultimately these things will always exist in one way or another and there will always be some sort of problem on our world, rather it is a new pandemic tomorrow or an intergalactic war in 10 000 years. So basically he’s saying to never help any animal causes because humans will never be a 100% perfect

Of course wildlife would flourish if we abolished animal agriculture! This dude has serious issues!

You make no sense in certain parts. You're saying you believe in subjective morality but then you argue against it. Make up your mind.

God people are out of their minds..

I wrote a critical comment of you bothering to review Ed's video...and you deleted my comment. Pretty low class.

The way Jed talks makes me want to kms.

This guy is a poor representation for libertarians, for sure

If it's legal, it's probably ethical. We can't just dismiss the reality that legality should and tends to follow the ethics of the society it applies to.

Who's looking forward to Easter? 🙏✝️🥖🍷 In one week we'll all feast on ham 🐖🍖 and lamb! 🐑🥩 Jesus has risen from the grave! ✝️🌄🪦🦸‍♂️⛪

Is Ed becoming a transgender? He seems to use make up.