u/Cool_Balance_2933

In 2007, Sam gave a talk at the Atheist Alliance conference where he argued against embracing atheism as an identity. He later posted an edited transcript of that talk on his blog under the heading ‘The Problem with Atheism.’ Below is an excerpt.

“Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And atheism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as ‘non-racism’ is not one. Atheism is not a worldview — and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not believe in God are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.”

I think as similar case could be made for veganism. Consider:

“Attaching a label to something carries real liabilities, especially if the thing you are naming isn’t really a thing at all. And veganism, I would argue, is not a thing. It is not a philosophy, just as ‘non-racism’ is not one. Veganism is not a worldview — and yet most people imagine it to be one and attack it as such. We who do not eat animals are collaborating in this misunderstanding by consenting to be named and by even naming ourselves.”

Can it really be said that veganism is not a thing? Not a worldview? Not a philosophy? Much of it will depend on one’s idea of what these terms mean. But if one accepts that atheism (or anti-racism) ought not to be considered as such, then the same could go for veganism. And when it comes to the problem of labels, you’d be hard-pressed to witness the phenomenon more fully realised than when it comes to veganism. If someone says that we shouldn’t eat dogs, most people agree. But if you take it a few animals further, you’re dismissed as an ideologue. Why? Because of veganism.

Sam has often argued that every Christian knows what it is like to be an atheist in relation to other Gods — Zeus, Poseidon, etc — and that he just goes one god further. Similarly, most meat eaters know what it’s like to be vegan in relation to cats and dogs; vegans just go a few animals further. The analogy may not be perfect (analogies rarely are), but I’d love to get people’s thoughts on it.

It feels like Sam's moral curiosity has diminished over the past few years. For example, there have been a few podcasts related to animal welfare, where counterintuitive topics like wild animal welfare or shrimp welfare have come up, and he's been pretty dismissive of them. If one thing his early writing has taught me, it is to challenge my moral intuitions. We cannot rely on salience to be our moral guide (see his past conversations with Paul Bloom and Will MacAskill). I'd love for him to grapple with more niche ethical issues in future episodes. There are lot's of interesting topics out there: wild animal welfare, designer babies, radical life extension, AI pornography, transhumanism. I understand these topics are less consequential than politics, but I don't need constant PSAs. Let's get into some philosophical and ethical weeds again!

Update: Let's mention this -- and upvote it -- the next time he asks for questions on his substack for a More from Sam ep.

I know he can be frustrating at times, but he's also one of the few players we have who can create chances. Yes, he's maybe not world-class, but how many world class players would be keen to join Juve at the moment? Let's get real. We're lucky to have Chico. Selling him would be absolute madness.