E. Relativism, freedom and evasions

12 arguments in Part DIR.

Underlying question: Is it just a matter of choice?
Dominant error: Epistemological and metaethical

Personal choice ends where there is a victim; every rule against harm "imposes"

Self-refuting and applied selectively; it confuses taste with a claim about harm to others

Switches from "is it wrong?" to "should it be banned?"

False middle ground: moderation doesn't make an unjustifiable harm acceptable

True in general, but used to avoid doing what is easy

Willful ignorance: avoiding the information to avoid the obligation

A contradiction between stated values and practice (the meat paradox)

The dominant norm is invisible to those who follow it (carnism, Joy 2009)

No moral position is "just science", including eating meat

Disagreement isn't a tie; there is strong convergence against factory farming

Admitted weakness of will: concedes the moral point and refuses its consequence

Equal consideration is a formal principle accepted by rival theories; knocking down utilitarianism doesn't rescue speciesism