Eating eggs from a rescued backyard hen?

[g0rph]

This question is covered by commandment #8.

Ah yes.
And the first 3

• I am the Lord thy God. Thou shall not have strange gods before Me.
• Thou shall not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
• Remember to keep holy the Lord's day.
  
  
  
  
  So if this entity that supposedly created these commandments did actually exist, we know that it would be a total power-mad narcissist as these 3 commandments are higher up the list than even murder...hmmm.
  
  Either way. Everything must be taken into consideration when evaluating the ethics of an action. If a million rescued hens produce a million eggs, and they are given to people who would otherwise buy eggs, that's a million less eggs sold from other, not so fortunate hens. And a million eggs less in demand. The hens don't care if the eggs are taken. So stealing is a reach.
  
  And I repeat. No, it is not vegan. And as I went vegan years ago now, I don't personally consume any eggs.
  But it is not "unethical" to do so rather than wasting them.

 

[hitty]

First, just because you can't see any harm, doesn't mean the hen doesn't.

Second, do you mean to say that being underpaid is worse than being a slave, albeit to a kind slave owner? Or that humans have a higher moral status than do the hens, if so on what grounds?

Third, the error you are making is the same in both cases you bring up, and that is to analyze the situations on population level, and making judgments in individual cases. The underpaid worker is free to turn down the offer. For them, being underpaid is apparently the best alternative. In a buyer's market, the laborer is at a disadvantage, especially those with no qualifications. If they are victims, they are victims of an economy or political system. And these systems are controlled top down, judged on a population level, while everyone living in them operate on an individual level, and that's why politics never work very well. We can't say in each individual case that the employer is unethical, or even that the worker is even underpaid. In relation to what? What you would like that individual to have, or what they are naturally entitled to on some grounds, or what other people in different circumstances are paid? Ought we to force his or her employer to be more charitable? That seems uncool, to force people to do things. Ought we to force the population to pay more taxes to give to poor workers? Taxation is very questionable too, and always done under a threat of violence. To treat individuals as mere tokens of a population does not make much sense, but this is what consequentialists do. And if you are a consequentialist, you can't really complain when consequentialist reasoning leads people to make decisions that feels bad. Just because you don't like the migrant workers being underpaid, someone else judged it conducive to the greater good.

To make comparisons of what is more or less ethical, you need to be very clear with what "ethical" means in the context, on what theoretical foundation you are making that judgment. But then your opponent can argue against your foundation, or the premises that on your foundation leads to your conclusions, or the logical structure of your argument. And the first problem with consequentialism is that the individual has the moral status of being a mere token of a population, a carrier of utiles, and the utiles are what matters. The individual is fungible. The end is the sum of utility, and the individual is nothing but a means to that end. Even good intentions with low utility outcomes are wrong on this foundation. Be careful when you choose a foundation, as a lot of strange conclusions may also follow from it's adoption, that you then also have to accept. The second is that it's impossible to calculate the utility of any action in the long run, globally, which is what the theory demands. We are doomed to guess and in every situation probably making suboptimal decisions, which is unethical on consequentialism.

 

[Graeme M]

If someone has a rescued hen that lives in good conditions—free, safe, well-fed, not forced to lay more than naturally, and not given hormones or chemicals—would it be ethically acceptable to eat her unfertilized eggs, as long as she hasn’t been “mounted” by a rooster?

Yes.

The idea is not to exploit her, but rather to avoid wasting something she naturally produces, as long as her well-being is fully respected.

That's not exploitation, which I would define as "unfair use".

I know this might not align with strict veganism, but I’m curious about your thoughts. Is it possible to hold vegan values while doing this, or would it still be considered non-vegan?

Veganism is a voluntary, personal stance. You can indeed hold vegan values while eating the eggs in this situation because after all, it's your choice. Whether it's "non-vegan" or not doesn't really matter unless for some reason you are bothered by failing a vegan purity test.

 

[deadknight]

I agree with a lot of what @gOrph is saying. It's defiantly not vegan, but vegan and ethical are not necessarily synonyms, even if a vegan diet is ethically superior in many ways. It does not harm the chicken, or anyone else, and you are not doing anything to perpetuate the abuses of the poultry industry.

In my opinion, eating eggs from a from a rescued chicken is more ethical than many of the vegetables that we consume. These eggs are not obtained through the labour of underpaid migrant workers to collect and transport them, as is the case with many vegetables. They come without packaging that is damaging to the environment and without the environmental cost of transportation, not to mention a reduction in food waste if the chicken eats your scraps.

Enjoy the eggs, perfect morality is an impossible standard and I would argue that this is one of the least objectionable ways you could get food in a modern economy - second only to growing vegetables.

Being vegan is much more than just a diet that's in many ways ethically superior. I don't even find it superior, it just feels natural for me.

I agree, that very chicken is certainly not harmed by having her eggs taken. (Though I heard some people feed the eggs to the rescue hens so that they don't end up with Ca-deficiency after laying so many eggs in a row.) Yet this practice still does perpetuate this circle of abuse.
If you give the message "oh, eating eggs is okay", people in your environment are going to continue buying eggs. Please do believe me, they will not restrict their intake to accepting those eggs laid by the backyard hen (who would not even have come to life, had it not been for the chicken industry). So, in an indirect way, this is probably going to contribute to even more animal abuse.

While I do think employing underpaid workers at grocery gardens to be immoral - this is another question. We cannot compare one immoral thing to another.
Also, it's mostly underpaid migrant workers who have no other choices than accepting the job offers of slaughterhouses.

I used to be ovo-lacto, but after a certain time I stopped and wondered: what is so enjoyable about those eggs? For me, it is enough to think about where the eggs come from (they use the same route as the birds' excrement) and I don't even have a desire for eggs any more.

 

[g0rph]

Veganism is a voluntary, personal stance. You can indeed hold vegan values while eating the eggs in this situation because after all, it's your choice. Whether it's "non-vegan" or not doesn't really matter unless for some reason you are bothered by failing a vegan purity test.

I wish more "vegans" would realise this.

I went from eating steak once a week, meat or fish every day, eggs, milk every day, bacon, sausages BBQs flowing with burgers, pork chops, ribs etc...

to giving all that up.

And suddenly if I bought an energy bar, opened it and suddenly realised it was vegetarian as it had milk powder in it, eating it would make some people want me to give up my "vegan" badge.
In fact I did this last week, I often buy a noodle pot for lunch. I picked the wrong brand by mistake up and only later did I realise the big green V was for vegetarian. And yes, I ate it. That's it, my vegan badge is now handed in at the nearest Vegan Police station and I am the worst rape of cow enabler ever!

People go from almost full on carnivore to condemning people for eating honey from a neighbours hive as though they were monsters.

Life isn't black and white. And if I could just get my family to give up meat and dairy that would be a win for me.

This attitude is why I no longer show "vegan" in my profile, even if I've not touched meat, dairy, eggs, honey or bought leather, wool etc etc in 3 years (aside from a couple of mistakes).

 

[hitty]

I wish more vegans would realize that the egg belongs to the hen, and that it's her choice what to do with it. "It's my personal choice to kill and eat animals", "it's my personal choice to enslave those I conquer", "it's my personal choice to touch kids on the bus", or no? Accepting these statements leads to ethical relativism, or even nihilism. If we are to make any ethical arguments whatever, such ethical relativism renders the whole argument moot.

 

[Graeme M]

I wish more vegans would realize that the egg belongs to the hen, and that it's her choice what to do with it. "It's my personal choice to kill and eat animals", "it's my personal choice to enslave those I conquer", "it's my personal choice to touch kids on the bus", or no? Accepting these statements leads to ethical relativism, or even nihilism. If we are to make any ethical arguments whatever, such ethical relativism renders the whole argument moot.

I agree, our personal choices matter. But equally, maybe we shouldn't make claims about the world that aren't true. The egg doesn't "belong" to the chicken, a creature for whom such ideas are unknown. It's not her "choice", because she simply doesn't care. Most of vegan ethics ask that we transfer our own ideas about things onto other animals. That's OK, because veganism is about what we do, but taking it too far both sets us up to fail and leads us into a psychological space that is misleading. The number of so-called vegan advocacy pages that say dumb stuff because they want to pretend that other animals are really mini people doesn't help the cause.

 

[shyvas]

The number of so-called vegan advocacy pages that say dumb stuff because they want to pretend that other animals are really mini people doesn't help the cause.

We are all animals and the 'dumb' stuff is only the way it's interpreted.

 

[g0rph]

We are all animals and the 'dumb' stuff is only the way it's interpreted.

I think I agree with Graeme here. Especially after any time on Reddit.

Yes, we are all animals, but too many people ascribe emotions, wants and needs to animals that simply don't understand them.

There is definitely too much anthropomorphism in arguments used, which in the long run is counter productive.

 

[hitty]

The egg doesn't "belong" to the chicken, a creature for whom such ideas are unknown. It's not her "choice", because she simply doesn't care.

Again with the mind reading? Animals defend their eggs, nests, territory, kids, food, social status, etc., what do you call that then? We are no different from them, we display the same kinds of behavior, we belong to the same animal kingdom. Nobody knows what goes on in their heads, we don't even know what goes on in our own heads! The rational compassionate thing to do is to leave them alone, and let them do whatever they do, and insofar as we err, we err in their favor, be they human or chicken or whatever.

 

[deadknight]

Again with the mind reading? Animals defend their eggs, nests, territory, kids, food, social status, etc., what do you call that then? We are no different from them, we display the same kinds of behavior, we belong to the same animal kingdom. Nobody knows what goes on in their heads, we don't even know what goes on in our own heads! The rational compassionate thing to do is to leave them alone, and let them do whatever they do, and insofar as we err, we err in their favor, be they human or chicken or whatever.

Gotta confess that I do like your attitudes. This is how a real unapologetical vegan thinks! Some people might call us militant vegan aggressors, but that's something that makes me proud.

I don't believe taking animals' feelings into consideration to be the same as antrophomorphizing 'em.
And if 'tis happens to be antrophomorphizing - so what? I would rather be "guilty" in taking animals for mini people than being guilty in exploiting them just because they probably don't understand the situation. That's called speciesism (the latter, I mean).

Yes, since we so often don't even know what goes on in our own heads, we just cannot judge other animals or claim to know what they feel or don't feel. Period.

 

[Graeme M]

Again with the mind reading? Animals defend their eggs, nests, territory, kids, food, social status, etc., what do you call that then? We are no different from them, we display the same kinds of behavior, we belong to the same animal kingdom. Nobody knows what goes on in their heads, we don't even know what goes on in our own heads! The rational compassionate thing to do is to leave them alone, and let them do whatever they do, and insofar as we err, we err in their favor, be they human or chicken or whatever.

An awful lot of what animals do is instinct. They don't have complex language and human abstract thought, so concepts like ownership and choice don't exist for them. But that wasn't really what I was getting at. For the chicken, the egg ONLY matters in any way it can matter for her if it hatches. If it doesn't it's irrelevant. Beyond that, she doesn't even care if she's free or being exploited, all that really matters is being able to do what comes naturally and not being in pain or suffering. The whole exploitation thing is something we made up for our ethics, it's not really for the animal itself.

I watch the sheep on my friend's farm - they are entirely happy, as are her chickens. The chickens eat their own eggs if fed back to them, but they will eat whatever else they are fed. They don't care. They have exactly zero idea that Yolanda is giving me the excess eggs.

Gotta confess that I do like your attitudes. This is how a real unapologetical vegan thinks! Some people might call us militant vegan aggressors, but that's something that makes me proud.

That's perfectly fine, just don't expect very many people to agree with you. This is you exercising the very same choice and abstract thought the other animals are not.

Bottom line for me is that commercial chicken and egg farming is wrong for all the usual reasons, eating the non-fertilised eggs of a rescued hen is not.

 

[hitty]

Gotta confess that I do like your attitudes. This is how a real unapologetical vegan thinks! Some people might call us militant vegan aggressors, but that's something that makes me proud.

I don't believe taking animals' feelings into consideratios to be the same as antrophomorphizing 'em.
And if 'tis happens to be antrophomorphizing - so what? I would rather be "guilty" in taking animals for mini people than being guilty in exploiting them just because they probably don't understand the situation. That's called speciesism (the latter, I mean).

Yes, since we so often don't even know what goes on in our own heads, we just cannot judge other animals or claim to know what they feel or don't feel. Period.

It is not anthropomorphism, that is to make assumptions about their internal states, which are not accessible. What one ought to do is simply to get out of their way as much as possible, as though they had a full range of intense emotions and whatever else we can imagine or not imagine. That's not to say that such is the case, just allowing for them to have that experience, without causing them any unnecessary grief. Making positive or negative assumptions about others and using that to use and abuse those others is how the problem arose in the first place. We can't use the same line of reasoning that got us into the problem to get us out. This is racism, speciesism, sexism, etc; "they must be in that way, thus I can treat them in this way, for some greater good."

 

[hitty]

An awful lot of what animals do is instinct.

Everything we animals do is instinct.

They don't have complex language and human abstract thought, so concepts like ownership and choice don't exist for them. But that wasn't really what I was getting at. For the chicken, the egg ONLY matters in any way it can matter for her if it hatches. If it doesn't it's irrelevant.

Beyond that, she doesn't even care if she's free or being exploited, all that really matters is being able to do what comes naturally and not being in pain or suffering. The whole exploitation thing is something we made up for our ethics, it's not really for the animal itself. I watch the sheep on my friend's farm - they are entirely happy, as are her chickens. The chickens eat their own eggs if fed back to them, but they will eat whatever else they are fed. They don't care. They have exactly zero idea that Yolanda is giving me the excess eggs.


That's perfectly fine, just don't expect very many people to agree with you. This is you exercising the very same choice and abstract thought the other animals are not.

Bottom line for me is that commercial chicken and egg farming is wrong for all the usual reasons, eating the non-fertilised eggs of a rescued hen is not.

Extraordinary, how did you come to these conclusions?

 

[Graeme M]

Everything we animals do is instinct.

Rubbish.

Extraordinary, how did you come to these conclusions?

What I think is more concerning is that you haven't...

 

[deadknight]

An awful lot of what animals do is instinct. They don't have complex language and human abstract thought, so concepts like ownership and choice don't exist for them. But that wasn't really what I was getting at. For the chicken, the egg ONLY matters in any way it can matter for her if it hatches. If it doesn't it's irrelevant. Beyond that, she doesn't even care if she's free or being exploited, all that really matters is being able to do what comes naturally and not being in pain or suffering. The whole exploitation thing is something we made up for our ethics, it's not really for the animal itself.

I watch the sheep on my friend's farm - they are entirely happy, as are her chickens. The chickens eat their own eggs if fed back to them, but they will eat whatever else they are fed. They don't care. They have exactly zero idea that Yolanda is giving me the excess eggs.


That's perfectly fine, just don't expect very many people to agree with you. This is you exercising the very same choice and abstract thought the other animals are not.

Bottom line for me is that commercial chicken and egg farming is wrong for all the usual reasons, eating the non-fertilised eggs of a rescued hen is not.

It's indeed true: animals do obey their instincts (just like, on some level, we humans do). Of course they don't have the same system of abstract thoughts and definitions as humans have, but their communication is surprisingly complex.

Sorry, now I am unsure if I really get your point. I wonder if you are trying to lecture me? Or, do you try to spare me from some disappointments? If so, none of these options are necessary, since I have been vegan for about 10 years now, so I am not that naive.
However, I find it very much ironical that a fellow vegan tells me not to expect too many people to agree with me.

Yes, having the morals that tell me not to exploit others is just me exercising what I am able to do (taking these things into consideration). I find it quite sad that this is not "the" norm.

I just wonder if those people who accept the surplus eggs from backyard hens never buy eggs that are originated from factory farming?

 

[deadknight]

It is not anthropomorphism, that is to make assumptions about their internal states, which are not accessible. What one ought to do is simply to get out of their way as much as possible, as though they had a full range of intense emotions and whatever else we can imagine or not imagine. That's not to say that such is the case, just allowing for them to have that experience, without causing them any unnecessary grief. Making positive or negative assumptions about others and using that to use and abuse those others is how the problem arose in the first place. We can't use the same line of reasoning that got us into the problem to get us out. This is racism, speciesism, sexism, etc; "they must be in that way, thus I can treat them in this way, for some greater good."

Cannot say anything else than what I've already said to your post before this one.
The idea of doing no harm, leaving animals alone - getting out of their way as much as possible. This is what I am trying to do.

This is why I keep saying these cruel things all have the same origin. While we have speciesism, we will continue to have racism, sexism and many more excuses to discriminate against - and harm - those who are not just like us.
Taking these assumptions for absolute truth is really dangerous. IMHO, this kind of "oh, it's okay to treat 'em like this, since they are intellectually - or otherwise - inferior so they don't even understand what we are doing to them" absolutely contradicts everything I know of chivalry.

 

[hitty]

Rubbish.


What I think is more concerning is that you haven't...

This armchair animal psychology I expect from carnists, and r/vegan lol. Instinct doesn't mean anything in this context. It's like arguing that animals don't have free will and humans do. It's a cop out pulled right out of the thin air. You can't define it, let alone demonstrate it empirically. If it matters at all, ethically, we are all automatons, and whatever consciousness we have is merely as observers or passengers, and we end up in nihilism where ethics is merely an abstraction of our feelings as observers with delusions of being in control of anything at all. Are you sure you want to go down that rabbit hole?

 

[Graeme M]

This armchair animal psychology I expect from carnists, and r/vegan lol. Instinct doesn't mean anything in this context. It's like arguing that animals don't have free will and humans do. It's a cop out pulled right out of the thin air. You can't define it, let alone demonstrate it empirically. If it matters at all, ethically, we are all automatons, and whatever consciousness we have is merely as observers or passengers, and we end up in nihilism where ethics is merely an abstraction of our feelings as observers with delusions of being in control of anything at all. Are you sure you want to go down that rabbit hole?

Of course we can define it - instincts are stored action programs defined genetically, while learned programs that can be amended according to contextual cues are not. Humans, with abstract thought and language, do the latter far better than nearly all other animals. Heck, animals aren't even capable of directed episodic memory so it's doubtful they even entertain a narrative sense of self over time.

Nihilism is fine, and probably the true state of affairs, but so what? Once we decide we want to play in the ethical space, some things do get to count. And those are the things we think, not what chickens think (because they don't).

 

[g0rph]

My problem with this idea is that we are exaggerating otherwise solid arguments against animal exploitation.

It's fine to say
"Chickens are selectively bred to produce far more eggs than is natural and that is detrimental to their health"
or
"Chicks that are male simply get ground up live or put in gas chambers"

Both demonstrably true.

But ascribing human-level thoughts to them is not just dumb anthropomorphism, it's quite clearly counter productive...Anyone who holds an anti-vegan stance can simply point out those exaggerations as ridiculous, and people on the fence will mostly agree.

It's like the anti-pet arguments that some vegans use... "Your dog basically a prisoner" or "You are exploiting the dog for your own selfish wants".
I mean, there is a sliver of truth, but its also a counter productive narrative to push, at least until the world is well on the way to becoming plant-based... Billions of people have animals at home. Many would be definitely inclined toward veganism especially if we take a leaf out of Ed Winter's playbook with our arguments.
Tell them they are holding Rex prisoner and exploiting him for their own selfish reasons...Instant off-switch.

Same with the use of the word "rape" when discussing artificial insemination. It isn't "rape" and claiming that, is quite offensive to people who have been through that ordeal.
Sure, we all here think it's "morally wrong" in general. But there is no cow crying themselves to sleep about it years later. No, that cow is probably munching on grass 30 minutes later in exactly the same mental state she was in an hour earlier.

If we want to be serious about ending animal exploitation we need to be 100% honest and accurate. Not act like the world is a reflection of "Chicken run" or "Babe".