- The moral realism is the belief that moral facts exist and are objective features of the world. It can be true independent of the mind, the same way mathematical concepts can be true.
- Panpsychism is the idea that all things have a mind or a mind-like aspect, and is a feature of reality.
- Mary's Room is a thought experiment that argues against physicalism by illustrating that the complete physical knowledge does not necessarily encompass the subjective experience of an idea, for example the experience of seeing the colour red.
- We place moral value on agents with consciousness that have the ability to generate well-being ie. pain/pleasure. In this case, bivalves are probably not sentient.
- VG's position is that violence against carnivores is acceptable, for example a Xenomorph (from the Aliens franchise). WH argued against this with a strategical and a philosophical argument. Firstly, as a proponent of strategic non-violence, taking the life of an animal must be very carefully considered, if at all, counteracting the "arrogance" that humans have. But wouldn't you create less violence if you committed violence? Correct, but you can never be confident that is what you are doing, because if you start committing violence and ignore the suffering of one being on the "ends justify the means" basis, it's hard to create a limiting principle. For example, history is filled with events that caused the slaughter of animals and humans for the idea of creating a more peaceful world. Even if you were 100% confident this would reduce the violence, it changes society, if you create institutions structures like this it is hard to limit these powers due to human nature. WH is a consequentialist, or what matters to him are outcomes. He believes that moral views are like physical laws of the universe, they change based on your perspective. For example, in an individual case of a rape of a woman in a coma, the utilitarian model isn't the right framework to think about the problem. For big picture problems like motor vehicles killing 40,000 people a year, or policies, utilitarianism matters, and for individual cases, usually some rights based framework matters. If humans are seen as the Xenomorphs of other species, would it be okay for the other animals to wipe out humans? Erica Chenoweth's research on nonviolent resistance concluded that nonviolent resistance is twice as effective as violent resistance.
- WH states that there is a difference of directly killing an animal and buying the product. The supply and demand effect of consuming an animal product is not as linear and directly linked to the suffering and violence against animals. In his essay "Boycott Veganism," WH states that there are many ways to support violence, what we do economically is just one of them. Ultimately, what matters is our net support of violence and not our particular action. For example, during slavery, the "free produce society," an organisation that was against products made from slavery, did not free any slaves or stop the suffering. What was more effective was political activism and not economic. This is backed up by Robert Fogel, who also stated that slavery was ended by a political movement. When we buy or not buy animal products, the causal impact whether the animal suffers or dies is very attenuated. Therefore, WH believes that consumer activism is not effective, and is not interested if animal activists are vegan or not. If the political system changes everyone will be vegan, including non-vegan animal activists. The question is not are they a hypocrite, but more so are they contributing to the movement to build political power to alleviate the suffering of animals. A movement that excludes and condemns non vegans who are advocating for animals with a culture of purity politics is not successful, for example Douglas Adams showed that the civil rights movement, when it condemned white people for being racist, wasn't successful. But when it had a more inclusive culture, accepting that most people were going to be racist, it was more successful. We should focus on condemning violence against animals, not specifically eating of meat.
- Confidence comes from presence, warmth, and curiosity - not inherent charisma. Presence is the ability to turn off your internal doubts, instead of asking "what does this person think of me?" rather, being present in the moment. Warmth is the habit of showing goodwill to the people around you. People like and trust others more when they are liked and trusted themselves. Curiosity is the genuine interest in other people. People who are secure in themselves feel more safe and comfortable to be curious about others.
- Listening is far more important than talking, especially when it is an emotional story and you can feel the same emotions they are. Listening like a trampoline means that you are bouncing back and forth, with high energy, a hallmark of a good conversation.
- R v Dudley and Stephens was a case in 1884 involving killing for survival during a shipwreck and whether it was murder. In a 4 man crew of Dudley, Stephens, Brooks, and Parker, Dudley and Stephens decided to kill and eat Parker. They were found guilty and sentenced to death with a recommendation for mercy. The decision showed that necessity does not justify taking an innocent person's life.
- James Ozden Social Change Lab.
Humane Hancock
- According to the sociologist Doug McAdam, social movements require two key ingredients: shared grievance and feelings of collective impact. Shared grievance refers to the recognition of a common injustice, while collective impact is the belief that group action can create change. When these two factors combine, they lead to cognitive liberation, a psychological shift that empowers people to act. In the context of veganism, the movement faces challenges in generating both widespread grievance and collective impact. While it addresses important issues such as environmentalism, health, and ethics, the movement's focus on individual dietary choices may not resonate with the broader public. As a result, it struggles to inspire the collective anger or hope needed for large-scale social change. To broaden its appeal, the movement could shift to its focus from personal identity to direct action against animal cruelty. By engaging larger communities, such as animal lovers and pet owners, and highlighting their potential role in ending cruelty, this approach could create a stronger sense of shared grievance and collective impact. Unlike veganism, this narrative has the potential to mobilise a wider base and foster the emotional urgency necessary for meaningful change.
- While some research suggests that leafleting and impersonal outreach may have limited effectiveness, particularly in promoting long-term behaviour change, the results remain inconclusive. For example, a 2017 study by Animal Charity Evaluators found no measurable effect of leafleting on participants' dietary habits. Controlled experiments in social science are often challenging because human behaviour is influenced by numerous factors, making it difficult to isolate the impact of interventions like leafleting. The "endogeneity problem," where it's hard to distinguish between causality and correlation, further complicates this. For example, people already inclined toward reducing their animal product consumption may be more responsive to leafleting, leading to potential reverse causality or omitted variable bias. Given these challenges, it's essential to critically evaluate studies that are not conducted by independent researchers or lack replication, as confirmation bias can influence results, even within the scientific community."
- Drawing on the 'small-world' network model from Watts and Strogatz's research, the veganism movement could shift its focus to the interactions between individuals and systems. By targeting key influencers and institutions, the movement could more efficiently spread vegan ideals across social networks. For example, the environmental movement's focus on systemic change, such as influencing corporate and governmental policies, has led to widespread shifts in public norms. Similarly, vegan activists can prioritise system-level changes in schools, corporations, and governments to normalise plant-based living, reinforcing these changes through public discourse. One tactic that further advances this systemic approach is the strategy of open rescue. By rescuing animals that are in the most dire and sympathetic circumstances, documenting the living conditions, and publicly releasing the footage, open rescue shifts the conversation from individual consumption to broader ethical and legal questions. These actions force the legal and political systems to grapple with whether animals should be treated as sentient beings with rights or merely as property. For instance, open rescue has played a key role in challenging ag-gag laws and fur farming regulations, leading to legal reforms in various countries.
- Liberation pledge, or what to say when eating with other people:
- I do this thing, it's very weird, but I don't eat at a table where other people are eating animals, so we can go out and have vegan food, or meet for drinks, or I'll cook you a meal at my place!
- Relational literacy: Understanding of and ability to practice healthy ways of relating.
- The common factor in problems in society and personal lives is the dysfunctional ways of relating to other people, as social groups, as ourselves, to other animals, to the environment, etc.
- Infighting in the animal justice movement is the result of relationship dysfunction.
- Relational literacy is made up from one key factor: healthy relating. In an healthy interaction, we practice integrity and honour dignity. Practicing the values of compassion and justice and dignity is the sense of inherent self-worth.
- Shame causes emotional dysregulation. Highlight the contradiction of someone's actions and behaviour with their empathy.
- Benjamin Lay: the first anti-speciesist.
- Ravenous 1999 film about cannibalism.