Can eggs be vegan-friendly?

[g0rph]

Wild animals killed to protect crops are killed deliberately and in response to economic demand from consumers. I don't see how we can claim otherwise. The rooster in the situation I described is killed for the same reason, but without my economic demand driving it.

The cockerels are an annoyance to the farmer.
There is no absolute need to kill them, but it's almost certainly the cheapest way to be shot of them. So yes, it is economic demand.

 

[g0rph]

I think this is the big problem for me and often this happens with so-called ethical eggs. Someone gets killed. How can it be vegan-friendly if someone is killed? Yes, it's a significant improvement on factory farmed eggs, in the same way that stealing $10 from someone is a significant improvement on stealing all their money - but it's still only the lesser of two evils.

If you could fix this issue somehow you might be getting somewhere, but if paying $$$$ to keep some old birds alive is the only way to have ethical eggs you then have a problem that you create an incentive to secretly kill off some of these birds and lie about it. So how you can be sure that's not happening? Incentives creates outcomes.

It would be easier to eat a vegan food.

Even if the cockerels were not killed it would never be anywhere close to "vegan friendly". Breeding chickens to use their eggs is unnecessary exploitation pure and simple.
This farmer is just another cog in the evil machine of animal agriculture to be honest. Sure, slightly less evil than the guy next door in the factory, but claiming any vegan nature is ridiculous and insulting.
If people want to feel slightly better because the chickens are treated well (as long as they are not male), then have at it, but it's just "free range", "organic grass fed" BS regurgitated over and again to try and kid people that breeding animals for their coats, eggs and bodies is morally acceptable.

 

[Graeme M]

breeding animals for their coats, eggs and bodies is morally acceptable.

Yes, it is morally acceptable when alternatives do not exist. That is why it is not wrong of folk in developing countries to raise animals for food and hides, etc. It's also why many vegans accept the use of animals to ensure safe medicines. The definition of veganism agrees on this point.

Breeding chickens to use their eggs is unnecessary exploitation pure and simple.

My farmer friend is not breeding chickens to use their eggs.

The cockerels are an annoyance to the farmer.

They are a threat to the females and chicks and other roosters. They are killed only when their behaviour becoimes a problem. However, I'm not defending that, which is irrelevant to the fact that she gives away excess eggs.

But hey, we've been over this on the other thread so I won't engage further. My claim is that these eggs are "vegan-friendly", which is to say that their use fits within the scope of the aims of vegan ethical principles. I do not wish to suggest that actual vegans have to accept that use.

 

[g0rph]

Yes, it is morally acceptable when alternatives do not exist. That is why it is not wrong of folk in developing countries to raise animals for food and hides, etc. It's also why many vegans accept the use of animals to ensure safe medicines. The definition of veganism agrees on this point.


My farmer friend is not breeding chickens to use their eggs.


They are a threat to the females and chicks and other roosters. They are killed only when their behaviour becoimes a problem. However, I'm not defending that, which is irrelevant to the fact that she gives away excess eggs.

But hey, we've been over this on the other thread so I won't engage further. My claim is that these eggs are "vegan-friendly", which is to say that their use fits within the scope of the aims of vegan ethical principles. I do not wish to suggest that actual vegans have to accept that use.

1. Please edit your post.
You quoted me saying "breeding animals for their coats, eggs and bodies is morally acceptable."
When I said "it's just "free range", "organic grass fed" BS regurgitated over and again to try and kid people that breeding animals for their coats, eggs and bodies is morally acceptable."

This is totally misrepresenting me.

We can agree to disagree on the cockerels too. In your farmer friend's case, there are alternatives. They probably cost more in time and/or money. But they're just male chickens right?

And the argument in developing countries... I have zero issue with. Is your farmer in a developing country? I thought it obvious that my argument is for people living in modern societies.

And the claim of vegan friendly eggs is as you possibly realise, nonsense. No eggs taken from birds, especially ones that humans are breeding are "vegan friendly".

I don't have a major personal issue with you eating them. My friends and family are not even vegan, vegetarian or anything. What I have an issue with is claims that weaken the whole point of the vegan philosophy.

 

[Graeme M]

This is totally misrepresenting me.

My apologies, my intention was simply to quote those words because I am saying exactly that - animal use is morally acceptable when we do not have alternatives. If you really think veganism is the idea that regardless of every possible circumstance and context, we cannot use animals for any of those things, I cannot agree with you.

Your main concern appears to be that my friend is a farmer and I agree - she is not a vegan and there is nothing vaguely vegan about her profession. Her chickens however are nothing to do with that and just a passion she has for those birds. They are effectively backyard chickens. I also am well aware of the argument against backyard chickens (not rescued chickens) and further agree that it is not vegan to buy and own backyard chickens. But my original post was never about that.

 

[g0rph]

My apologies, my intention was simply to quote those words because I am saying exactly that - animal use is morally acceptable when we do not have alternatives. If you really think veganism is the idea that regardless of every possible circumstance and context, we cannot use animals for any of those things, I cannot agree with you.

Can you not edit that post?
But indeed. I may have not been clear enough. I also think it is morally acceptable if there is no alternative.
That is definitely not the case in modern societies such as the USA, UK, here in Sweden and in Australia for a start.
When I express my thoughts and opinions on animal exploitation, it is with these places in mind.
I simply do not know enough about life in the types of country where it often becomes "morally acceptable"

Your main concern appears to be that my friend is a farmer and I agree - she is not a vegan and there is nothing vaguely vegan about her profession. Her chickens however are nothing to do with that and just a passion she has for those birds. They are effectively backyard chickens. I also am well aware of the argument against backyard chickens (not rescued chickens) and further agree that it is not vegan to buy and own backyard chickens. But my original post was never about that.

My main concern is language and its use.
Eggs can never be described as vegan friendly. The closest would be eggs from rescued chickens, and I have no ethical qualms with their use. But they still are not vegan.

Language changes over time and I don't really want to see the use of the word vegan soften too much - even if some of my own opinions clash with its definition.

 

[Graeme M]

Can you not edit that post?

There doesn't seem to be an edit option - I think after a while you cannot go back and edit a post.

Eggs can never be described as vegan friendly. The closest would be eggs from rescued chickens, and I have no ethical qualms with their use. But they still are not vegan.

OK, I lied - here I am continuing to engage!

I appreciate your point, but when I made my original post it was to illustrate something I find infuriating about veganism. Sure, it's easy to take the view that veganism just is "no animal products", but for me that's both inflexible and irrational and doesn't really illustrate the reasons for veganism.

If the aims of veganism are to keep animals free (ie to object to treating animals as chattel property) and to protect them from unfair use and unnecessary cruelty when we can, then accepting eggs from my farmer friend does not go against those goals. Nothing about my acceptance of those eggs encourages my friend to do anything at all - as a competent adult she is free to make her own choices and the eggs are a gift. However, by eating her eggs I might reduce the quantity of food I buy, leading to a very small but non-zero reduction in cruelty and death of wild animals for my food.

 

[g0rph]

There doesn't seem to be an edit option - I think after a while you cannot go back and edit a post.


OK, I lied - here I am continuing to engage!

I appreciate your point, but when I made my original post it was to illustrate something I find infuriating about veganism. Sure, it's easy to take the view that veganism just is "no animal products", but for me that's both inflexible and irrational and doesn't really illustrate the reasons for veganism.

If the aims of veganism are to keep animals free (ie to object to treating animals as chattel property) and to protect them from unfair use and unnecessary cruelty when we can, then accepting eggs from my farmer friend does not go against those goals. Nothing about my acceptance of those eggs encourages my friend to do anything at all - as a competent adult she is free to make her own choices and the eggs are a gift. However, by eating her eggs I might reduce the quantity of food I buy, leading to a very small but non-zero reduction in cruelty and death of wild animals for my food.

I think we are finally on the same page.
No, you accepting those eggs changes nothing. From a utilitarian perspective it's fine...As long as they are free.

I also have issues with pure veganism.
For me, reduction of suffering is No1 priority. So, for instance, I would happily eat cultured meat, even if it means taking cells from living animals (as long as they are not ill-treated).
Many vegans, especially those over on reddit, would say this is completely wrong.
Another example. Impossible meats tested on rats...to follow US guidelines and get the product out faster. They will do no more animal testing.
For me they are vegan. And from a utilitarian perspective, that testing quite probably had a reductive effect on suffering...many Impossible burgers were consumed, that might well have been beef.
Anyway...

Happy New Year.

 

[Graeme M]

Yes, Happy New Year to all, though I guess it will be a while yet for our US and European members.

For me, reduction of suffering is No1 priority. So, for instance, I would happily eat cultured meat, even if it means taking cells from living animals (as long as they are not ill-treated).

Yes, and that is what I think most people who adopt veganism are aiming for. I guess when I think about it, I believe that the objection to chattel property status is the main priority. That takes care of the suffering/cruelty in all possible animal-using industries where the animals are owned and used as a means (once animals are not owned and do not exist, there is no suffering to worry about - only the living can suffer).

If "reducing suffering" is the totality of our aims, good welfare will do that. I don't think, for example, that the cattle and sheep on my friend's farm suffer very much. Mostly they look perfectly happy. Going off to be "processed" is likely not pleasant, but to be honest I'm not sure that is "suffering". But it's absolutely inconsistent with vegan principles because they are chattel property. People can say, let's improve welfare and reduce suffering and all's right with the world, but there's no half-measure when it comes to property status.

But that's just me, I guess.

 

[g0rph]

Yes, Happy New Year to all, though I guess it will be a while yet for our US and European members.

It was 20 mins ago here

 

[allindogecoin]

Few vegans would argue that it's OK to kill 20 or 30 itinerant humans on every hectare of croplands, but we accept that for animals every time we buy food at a shop. The bottom line is that animals can be pests, they can be threats, they can be resources and they can be food. And any time we don't have all the benefits of a modern Western society, they are resources and food.

Indeed we don't live in a vegan world and the supply chain includes a lot of animal suffering, and it also includes human suffering as well. Modern slavery laws attempt to mitigate the harm caused to humans.

What I am trying to say is that when looking at the problem of hierarchy, it's good to look at both animals and humans because both humans and animals are victims of hierarchy.

As for unpleasant people being nasty towards me because I eat some eggs, that illustrates the fundamental failure of vegan advocacy. For some reason, vegans (like a lot of people, I guess) fall back onto nasty personal insult when their cherished notions are challenged.

Try to remember not all vegans are the same, and many try not to resort to ad hominems, and to suggest they all do is in itself an ad hominem.