|
The argument that because animals kill each other then it's okay for us to kill them is a bit odd. Humans kill each other does that make it okay to shoot up a school because those kids might get murdered by someone else someday anyway? Obviously not. If you want to kill animals you should just argue that killing them is ethical because they don't have souls/thumbs/grammar/tools/sapience/whatever humans have that makes it wrong to kill them. Not make some illogical two-wrongs-make-a-right well-wolves-get-to-do-it argument.
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
XboxPants posted:Funny enough I did once know a very hard-line vegan who made the argument that I should never walk off the paved or beaten path when I can; for instance stepping onto grass or weeds would be bad, because I might kill a bug. I would argue that all beings have the right to exist, at the very least, and things that must come as a consequence of our existence (like maybe killing an underground beetle when stepping on dirt) are acceptable since we do have that right to exist. I do generally try to watch where I walk, but equally I think I have to accept that that's just going to happen, I do wonder sometimes how many things I kill every day just by existing, but part of the way I rationalize it is by thinking that I won't produce another human to have the same problem. The other part being "that seems like an endless line of thinking that is unlikely to produce a result beyond 'kill yourself' so I am not going to pursue it"
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:27
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:They are going to die one way or another, I have no objection to killing them humanely in a way that goes on to benefit humans, as human benefit is also good. Harold Fjord posted:Yeah we all agree with you about this why are you beating this dead horse? Me going vegan personally or not has no bearing on changing that reality I don't think you really agree because you're still fine with buying the product when you have an alternative options readily available. Acting ethically is living your values regardless on if the rest of society follows suit. Me not importing a child bride has no theoretical bearing on the human trafficking industry but if enough people get together and say this is wrong and boycott a practice then social pressure increases, laws get put in place, and things change. OwlFancier posted:I do generally try to watch where I walk, but equally I think I have to accept that that's just going to happen, I do wonder sometimes how many things I kill every day just by existing, but part of the way I rationalize it is by thinking that I won't produce another human to have the same problem. The other part being "that seems like an endless line of thinking that is unlikely to produce a result beyond 'kill yourself' so I am not going to pursue it" There is a difference between watching where you walk vs purposefully stomping on things. Animal agriculture is purposefully causing that harm. I accept that a certain percentage of people will die in car accidents but I'm not out here advocating for reckless driving even though some number of people will still die. I'm still going to try to reduce harm. DrBox fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The argument that because animals kill each other then it's okay for us to kill them is a bit odd. Humans kill each other does that make it okay to shoot up a school because those kids might get murdered by someone else someday anyway? Obviously not. I would argue that there is a difference between humans and animals in that I think humans have a sort of inner-world and can communicate that to other people even into advanced age most of the time and thus humans exist in a sort of... shared mental space? Not quite sure how to describe it but a human is usually a member of a community and their presence adds to that community and adds value to the lives of other humans who interact with them. Whereas I am far from sure that animals have either the inner world or the capability to form communities like humans do. I know they have some kind of social organization but I don't think I have good reason to believe the loss of any particular animal is equivalently devastating to their peers than the loss of a particular human may often be. So yes the "soul" argument is certainly a factor for me. But I would also stress that while I don't think animals have "souls" they are obviously capable of feeling pain and stuff, so we should generally try to avoid that. DrBox posted:No they are only going to die because we keep breeding more. You refuse to let go of this idea that it's cows killed by humans or cows running amok. Are you ok with me starting a puppy mill and killing them to make rugs? By your argument they get the benefit of living for a year relatively comfortable and I get some rugs! But the alternative would be just don't breed and kill the dogs at all. I mean if you keep the dogs in good conditions I don't see what the difference between that and any other form of agriculture would be other than I don't think puppy rugs would be very good commodities. Sheep are much better for that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:32
|
|
|
Should we be accountable for our own actions, even if we accept the premise that they will not create significant change? If for a given value the welfare of animals matters to you personally, is being vegan more ethical? It seems like a bunch of people feel it doesn't matter, either because their actions cannot bring about immediate noticeable change or they do not view animal welfare as an important factor. Parallels for the first issue exist with climate change. While acknowledging individual action is not enough to prevent a 1.5 degree rise, I see no negative consequences to doing the best where I have agency. I honestly find the second argument more understandable. If your premise is that you don't care about animal welfare, then any argument about their ethical treatment is invalid.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:33
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The argument that because animals kill each other then it's okay for us to kill them is a bit odd. Humans kill each other does that make it okay to shoot up a school because those kids might get murdered by someone else someday anyway? Obviously not. I think when, why, and how you kill them are all relevant when trying to assess the morality of an act and that the comparison to school shootings is absurd. Preferring ethical meat to veganism does not make someone a potential Pet Shop Shooter. But I agree with the latter part, even if I can't define it. We are God. quote:If your premise is that you don't care about animal welfare, I don't think this was anyone's premise. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:34
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Yeah we all agree with you about this why are you beating this dead horse? Me going vegan personally or not has no bearing on changing that reality This is the exact same argument that gets used against voting. Your individual vote has basically a zero chance of determining an election, but the aggregate vote does have an impact. The aggregate vote cannot exist without individual votes, and therefore individual votes matter. Your decision to go vegan (or not) is the same. You personally are not going to be the determining factor that shuts down a factory farm, but reducing the aggregate demand will shut down factory farms. Conversely, if you buy animal products, you contribute to an aggregate demand that sustains the animal industry. Saying "nothing I do matters" is a cop out to absolve you of personal responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:36
|
|
|
I feel like you could vote for better animal welfare but not be vegan and still be pretty consistent?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:
Right so that's your actual disagreement with vegans then. The whole "are you going to dive the oceans and save the shellfish from an octopus" thing is just a distraction and a gotcha. We are morally responsible for what we do, not what others do. There's no moral inconsistency between believing humans should not eat animals on ethical grounds and not feeling the need to save them from being eaten by other animals. If you think the ethical objections to eating animals are wrong just argue that imo
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Right so that's your actual disagreement with vegans then. I can disagree on both counts, I can find the natural infliction of extraordinary pain on wild animals to be objectionable while also thinking that humans can provide better conditions for them than nature can and that killing them humanely is only a quite minor wrong, which is offset by the use of their bodies for human welfare. I would have equally minimal objection if a wolf were to sneak onto a farm with a pistol and double tap a sheep and then drag it off to eat, but unfortunately wolves cannot do that. But humans can, and so I have no issue with humans killing animals to feed their pets, for example. And I would in fact prefer that to having animals run wild trying to kill each other with tooth and claw. I would argue that it is better for a dog to be fed farmed meat than it is for wolves to hunt deer. The conditions of the dog, the animal the meat came from, and the process of getting it all seem like they could be vastly improved over the natural state of affairs. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:42
|
|
|
Seph posted:
No one said that. But if you want to effect mass change the slow way, I bet people are generally more open to "Nice Farms" than veganism. We're gonna need a lot of animal products to make it through the apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I feel like you could vote for better animal welfare but not be vegan and still be pretty consistent? What does vote mean in this context? If I'm paying to go to bullfighting events but make some vague noises about wishing they didn't die so brutally it's not really consistent. If you say you want better animal welfare but you pay for factory farmed meat even when there are alternatives available it's not really consistent.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:43
|
|
|
Yes. Pay for cows you know the name of and can take treats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would argue that there is a difference between humans and animals in that I think humans have a sort of inner-world and can communicate that to other people even into advanced age most of the time and thus humans exist in a sort of... shared mental space? Not quite sure how to describe it but a human is usually a member of a community and their presence adds to that community and adds value to the lives of other humans who interact with them. Whereas I am far from sure that animals have either the inner world or the capability to form communities like humans do. I know they have some kind of social organization but I don't think I have good reason to believe the loss of any particular animal is equivalently devastating to their peers than the loss of a particular human may often be. Lots of animals have a subjective experience. Even species without a mammalian neocortex: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959438821001100
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
Time for a low blow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:53
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I think when, why, and how you kill them are all relevant when trying to assess the morality of an act and that the comparison to school shootings is absurd. Preferring ethical meat to veganism does not make someone a potential Pet Shop Shooter. The real issue is that you reject the premise, that's where the disagreement lies. You think killing animals isn't inherently unethical the way killing humans is, as long as it's done without inflicting cruelty. Which isn't unreasonable (I tend to agree fwiw, I am not vegan although I do try to eat more plants and less meat), I'm just pointing out that trying to gotcha vegans in that way is fruitless.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
DrBox posted:What does vote mean in this context? If I'm paying to go to bullfighting events but make some vague noises about wishing they didn't die so brutally it's not really consistent. As I said I don't really think that that my personal choice to eat or not eat animal products makes a great deal of difference in that regard, and I don't find it necessary to perform specific actions in this instance to attain a personal sense of moral superiority, nor really do I think any such actions are actually available to me, I would not think I was achieving anything if I became vegan, certainly not any more than just, I dunno, eating slightly less meat or whatever. The absolutist position holds no value to me on a personal level because I am fairly aware of all the myriad miseries I am complicit in anyway. It is not able to generate a sense of moral purity. I think my actions are consistent enough for my own satisfaction, they cannot be absolutely consistent nor do I expect them to be.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I can disagree on both counts, I can find the natural infliction of extraordinary pain on wild animals to be objectionable while also thinking that humans can provide better conditions for them than nature can and that killing them humanely is only a quite minor wrong, which is offset by the use of their bodies for human welfare. You certainly can disagree on both counts! But that's a separate argument, and it's not inconsistent for someone to disagree with you on both counts either. Vegans think that killing a cow is just as wrong as killing a human. Doing it humanely doesn't make it right, after all you wouldn't say it's okay to kill a human and take their stuff as long as you double-tapped them quickly and painlessly. It doesn't matter that someone else might torture them to death for their stuff later and so you may as well spare them that and get their stuff too. If killing is wrong, it's wrong. That's the disagreement between you and them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As I said I don't really think that that my personal choice to eat or not eat animal products makes a great deal of difference in that regard, and I don't find it necessary to perform specific actions in this instance to attain a personal sense of moral superiority, nor really do I think any such actions are actually available to me, I would not think I was achieving anything if I became vegan, certainly not any more than just, I dunno, eating slightly less meat or whatever. The absolutist position holds no value to me on a personal level because I am fairly aware of all the myriad miseries I am complicit in anyway. It is not able to generate a sense of moral purity. I think my actions are consistent enough for my own satisfaction, they cannot be absolutely consistent nor do I expect them to be. This is a weak argument you would not use for any other moral discussions. You can't avoid all harm so no choices matter?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I would argue that there is a difference between humans and animals in that I think humans have a sort of inner-world and can communicate that to other people even into advanced age most of the time and thus humans exist in a sort of... shared mental space? Not quite sure how to describe it but a human is usually a member of a community and their presence adds to that community and adds value to the lives of other humans who interact with them. Whereas I am far from sure that animals have either the inner world or the capability to form communities like humans do. I know they have some kind of social organization but I don't think I have good reason to believe the loss of any particular animal is equivalently devastating to their peers than the loss of a particular human may often be. Here's my problem. Let's say I accept you're right about cows. They're stupid beasts without souls. It's fine to kill them for my benefit. What about elephants? Gorillas, chimps? (which very much are killed for bush meat) Who draws the line of which animals have the right not to be killed, and how should they decide? You seem to me to be advocating a position that it's okay to draw that line somewhere, and it's just a matter of making sure you draw it at the correct place. As long as you sort the living beings into the correct hierarchy, then it's ethical to exploit and kill those below you that you have power over. What I'm arguing is that this thinking is extremely dangerous, because if you don't happen to get the hierarchy right it's gonna result in large-scale slaughter of thinking, feeling beings. So then, it's better to treat all feeling beings with the same respect that we would want ourselves, even if we personally believe them to be lower beings. Because a mistake will cost a person their life, but playing it safe, when possible, costs me very little. That's what the whole question comes back to, for me: how should society treat beings that are perceived to be lesser? Exploit them as is our right, or treat them with the same compassion and respect we would want, just in case? It's an easy answer for me, and one that applies to a lot of situations beyond just animal rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:06
|
|
|
I don't think that me eating, say, honey, makes a difference to the world one way or another, no. I do not think there is a signficiant moral dimension to that decision, and the only reason I can think is if you believe you can go for like, any% no animal consumption speedrun of life and that you get points for achieving that specifically. I do specifically have trouble understanding the absolutism, which is why I bring up the wild animal welfare argument. The inherently absolutist nature of veganism to me invites that sort of thinking. The idea that you not consuming any animal products ever is improving the world in a signficiant way over and above eating less meat sometimes, just... doesn't make much sense to me? Unless it is specifically for that very personal sense of accomplishment which as I say, I simply do not experience. If you do then that's great but at that point, to me it feels more like you are asking me to adopt your ethics flavoured hobby rather than actually make an ethical decision.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:Here's my problem. Let's say I accept you're right about cows. They're stupid beasts without souls. It's fine to kill them for my benefit. What about elephants? Gorillas, chimps? (which very much are killed for bush meat) Who draws the line of which animals have the right not to be killed, and how should they decide? You have to draw a line somewhere right. Plants are living beings.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You certainly can disagree on both counts! But that's a separate argument, and it's not inconsistent for someone to disagree with you on both counts either. You don't have to consider everyone the same in order to grant them enough moral consideration to not cut their throat for a burger. VitalSigns posted:Isn't everyone? i draw the line at conscious beings with a subjective experience of the world and the capacity to suffer. DrBox fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:But humans can, and so I have no issue with humans killing animals to feed their pets, for example. And I would in fact prefer that to having animals run wild trying to kill each other with tooth and claw. I do wonder about this, personally. Does the cat who lives with me want to spend its entire life living in a small apartment with no plants, no other animals, no natural environment of the type she would enjoy? She sure seems curious about the outside world. I'd bet she'd like to go check it out. But, then, I picked her up off the street as a stray kitten during winter. She probably would have died, otherwise. Is it better for cats to be living difficult, but free, lives, where they constantly fight hunger, cold, other cats, and illness, and end up living only an average of 2 years? Or better to live a pampered life inside with perhaps a friend or two, living an addition decade of life? What's the vegan answer to this? I'm genuinely not sure. "Pets" are a bit of a questionable idea for me, even though I've always had them and still do today. There may not be a universal answer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:As I said I don't really think that that my personal choice to eat or not eat animal products makes a great deal of difference in that regard, and I don't find it necessary to perform specific actions in this instance to attain a personal sense of moral superiority, nor really do I think any such actions are actually available to me, I would not think I was achieving anything if I became vegan, certainly not any more than just, I dunno, eating slightly less meat or whatever. The absolutist position holds no value to me on a personal level because I am fairly aware of all the myriad miseries I am complicit in anyway. It is not able to generate a sense of moral purity. I think my actions are consistent enough for my own satisfaction, they cannot be absolutely consistent nor do I expect them to be. Entirely out of curiosity, do you eat much meat? You've raised that reduction is nearly as good multiple times. I think that for those who view it as the 'right' thing to do there is a mental health benefit in consistency that isn't about feeling superior to others. I agree that complete moral purity is a lie as there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:16
|
|
|
XboxPants posted:I do wonder about this, personally. Does the cat who lives with me want to spend its entire life living in a small apartment with no plants, no other animals, no natural environment of the type she would enjoy? She sure seems curious about the outside world. I'd bet she'd like to go check it out. But, then, I picked her up off the street as a stray kitten during winter. She probably would have died, otherwise. If you let your cat outside it will kill birds and mice for no good reason. So I would suggest that this is a quite good example of humans doing better than nature. It would certainly be nice if your cat could have an endless world to explore in safety, but that is not how the world is, and I think it is quite clearly better for it to be inside. Content to Hover posted:Entirely out of curiosity, do you eat much meat? You've raised that reduction is nearly as good multiple times. I like to include some in most meals, and I would struggle to remove things like butter and animal fat because that forms an important component in a lot of things I like to eat. Also eggs and dairy generally. Have tried subbing with vegetable oils but they just don't work as well, and food is one of the few things I really enjoy so it is important to me that I get to eat things I like. I do like vegetables too but I think if I cooked removing all animal products it would be extremely unpleasant for me. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you let your cat outside it will kill birds and mice for no good reason. So I would suggest that this is a quite good example of humans doing better than nature. It would certainly be nice if your cat could have an endless world to explore in safety, but that is not how the world is, and I think it is quite clearly better for it to be inside. Which is not an argument for breeding more cats.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:21
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Which is not an argument for breeding more cats. I don't think they need our help. Should we be spaying ferals?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Which is not an argument for breeding more cats. I mean if you think cats can be happy as indoor pets it kind of is unless you adopt the position that a happy life is not worth initiating under any circumstances which is even more antinatalist than I am, I certainly have objections to most forms of reproduction at this current time but in the event that we figured out a way to reliably give people lives as happy as cats I think I would reassess that. If animals have experiences as valuable as humans and we are to take the premise that well lived lives are inherently worth living, and initiating, then I would be hard pressed to come up with a better example than a housecat for something we should desire more of. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
DrBox posted:
XboxPants posted:"Pets" are a bit of a questionable idea for me, even though I've always had them and still do today. There may not be a universal answer. I'm sure he would prefer it if there were no fences or gates and he could roam the neighborhood and return as he pleased, but that would be dangerous so I choose to make that decision for him for his own good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:26
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Minor quibble to an otherwise great summary, but not all vegans vegans think its "just as wrong". In a contrived desert island situation where I had to save forum user OwlFancier or a cow I would probably save the human. But by the same token I would save my girlfriend over a human I didn't know. I like the term "nociception". Plants don't seem to have that capability. https://mercyforanimals.org/blog/he...feeling%20pain. If we later find that, because of the underground mass of mycelial network between tree roots, that trees have feelings and communities then I suppose I'd have to rethink my position but until then, I'm comfortable saying it's preferable to kill a cabbage over a cow. Mostly just because it would be so extremely difficult to live without using ANY plant products. Which leads into: OwlFancier posted:I do specifically have trouble understanding the absolutism, which is why I bring up the wild animal welfare argument. The inherently absolutist nature of veganism to me invites that sort of thinking. I believe the absolutism argument is a bit of a strawman. There is no perfect vegan in modern society. Asphalt and tires are made with glycerol from cows. Anyone who uses roads, cars, or any product or service that uses roads or cars - i.e., all of them - is not an "absolutist" vegan. Vegan does not mean never using any animal product. It means avoiding it merely when "possible and practicable". Those two words do a lot of heavy lifting. XboxPants fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:28
|
|
|
Raising alpacas for wool seems perfectly ethical if you are nice to your alpacas. That's another particular where I would agree with calling veganism absolutist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
I fear that position runs into the danger of solipsism where I identify as vegan despite eating a burger for dinner because I was out and the burger place was there and it was practical for me to get it and I had to eat something because I had work to do. I would generally hew more to the idea that words have, like, collectively defined meanings, and vegans at least to me appear to be far more absolutist about the concept of avoiding animal products than I think it is necessary to be. They may not achieve it but their concept of practical swings well into my concept of exceptional. If you have a better word to describe the length they go to to avoid animal products I could use that instead though. I suppose I do not strictly mean absolutist in reality, but rather absolutist in ideal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I fear that position runs into the danger of solipsism where I identify as vegan despite eating a burger for dinner because I was out and the burger place was there and it was practical for me to get it and I had to eat something because I had work to do. I'm not a vegan out of technicalities, I'm a vegan because I know it's the right thing to do. There's nothing exceptional about eating beans instead of beef.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
Eating beans instead of beef most of the time I might agree, but never eating beef ever seems somewhat exceptional to me, and certainly some of the other exclusions seem moreso.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
no (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:Raising alpacas for wool seems perfectly ethical if you are nice to your alpacas. Yeah from what I understand this is probably the case. Or at least possibly. Some vegans are against any animal use ever, but I think it's at least open to debate whether alpaca wool, or chicken eggs, etc, are really harming those animals. The most compelling argument to me is: "would this animal choose this, if given the choice? do chickens want you to take their eggs, do they want to be penned in? and if not, then we're essentially imprisoning them." There's a long-standing human idea that we can make choices for animals about their lives because we know better than them. Largely driven, in my understanding, by the general idea that it is man's domain as God's child to shepherd the earth and all of her creatures. But, what if, we simply don't accept that as axiomatically true? Then, it becomes a harm to capture an animal and restrain it. In that narrative, alpaca farms are no better than zoos or, as OwlFancier brought up earlier, national parks. I dunno. If it's not intentionally, physically harming the animal, I think there's room for discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Eating beans instead of beef most of the time I might agree, but never eating beef ever seems somewhat exceptional to me, and certainly some of the other exclusions seem moreso. Really? You don't see why people might be absolutist about an ethical principle? Surely you have some principles you're absolutist about no? Would you eat a humanflesh-burger if the restaurant were right there and you were hungry and had to get to work and it's not like they'd stop killing humans to make burgers if you skipped it. You're making this a lot more complicated than it needs to be. You think killing animals is fine sometimes. They don't under all but the most dire circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:46
|
|
|
Also by the extreme form of that logic you should not hold your child's hand when crossing the street because if the child wants to get hit by a car that's their choice. We routinely accept that some beings are less capable of maintaining their own welfare than we are, and we routinely restrict their freedom out of the very reasonable observation that if we do not, they end up hurt or dead. In some cases this is because we have built environments that depend upon their inhabitants being able to undertake average human level assessments of the world, understand average human communication methods, and make average human level decisions based on that as well as often having prior experience in navigating those environments. And in those environments you either have to keep animals contained, or keep them out, and both are limiting their freedom. You can also adapt the environment to make it less inhospitible to animals, hedgehog tunnels under roads, making sure animals can climb out of pits or pools etc, but I don't know that it is practical at the moment to completely adapt human environments to be universally safe for all animals. VitalSigns posted:Really? You don't see why people might be absolutist about an ethical principle? I mean yes there are some things I am more absolutist about than others, or rather that I think it is good to take exceptional measures to adhere to, sorry I thought that was implied, I am not taking an issue with all forms of absolutism but I do think that this one is an odd issue to be absolutist about. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Sep 8, 2022 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:23 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Eating beans instead of beef most of the time I might agree, but never eating beef ever seems somewhat exceptional to me, and certainly some of the other exclusions seem moreso. I don't know your circumstances so I'm happily willing to concede that eating mostly beans with occasional beef would be the most vegan lifestyle you can lead. Vegans understand that people around the world have very different conditions, in many places it may not be reasonable to eat a mostly or even partially meat free diet. Or because of health reasons, for instance, it can be perfectly possible to occasionally eat beef or fish and still claim to be vegan. As I said earlier, there is no way to be a vegan that doesn't use any animal products. So the definition of vegan cannot be one that succeeds at never using animal products. It must merely be one who tries. Who, when presented with the choice, chooses not to harm.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2022 23:51
|
|