Eating eggs from a rescued backyard hen?

[hitty]

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).

Actions are not defined genetically. All thought is abstract. All animals have language, even plants and bacteria do. Why would they not have "directed episodic memory" or "a narrative sense of self"? If nihilism, then why the appeal to utility? Teach me your mind reading techniques, they are truly impressive!

 

[hitty]

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".

Do you think your brand of anthropocentrism is better than all other brands of anthropocentrism? Is your conception of anthropocentrism the 100% honest and accurate form of anthropocentrism? If our societies are to make any positive change on this earth it begins with abandoning anthropocentrism altogether. It is most likely that we are all doomed then.

 

[deadknight]

Actions are not defined genetically. All thought is abstract. All animals have language, even plants and bacteria do. Why would they not have "directed episodic memory" or "a narrative sense of self"? If nihilism, then why the appeal to utility? Teach me your mind reading techniques, they are truly impressive!

Everything you tried to react to here can boil down to what I heard some time ago from a severely indoctrinated carnist. She said "Maybe the animals are a little bit too primitive" (accompanied with an artificial smile she thought to be very polite and civilized).

I am pretty much baffled by the direction this debate has reached. This level of speciesism on a vegan forum is something I find quite shocking, actually.

 

[hitty]

Everything you tried to react to here can boil down to what I heard some time ago from a severely indoctrinated carnist. She said "Maybe the animals are a little bit too primitive" (accompanied with an artificial smile she thought to be very polite and civilized).

I am pretty much baffled by the direction this debate has reached. This level of speciesism on a vegan forum is something I find quite shocking, actually.

I quit r/vegan because it's like this.

 

[g0rph]

Everything you tried to react to here can boil down to what I heard some time ago from a severely indoctrinated carnist. She said "Maybe the animals are a little bit too primitive" (accompanied with an artificial smile she thought to be very polite and civilized).

I am pretty much baffled by the direction this debate has reached. This level of speciesism on a vegan forum is something I find quite shocking, actually.

Could you point out the alleged speceisism?
I am genuinely intrigued.

 

[deadknight]

I quit r/vegan because it's like this.

Did not even bother to be active on that subreddit, for the very same reasons.

 

[deadknight]

Could you point out the alleged speceisism?
I am genuinely intrigued.

I am truly sorry for having to say so, but if you do not notice anything speciesist in this thread, then pointing at it would be of no use. Also, if you have read my answers, you might get a slight impression of what I personally think to be speciesist attitudes. I would rather not repeat myself, I hope that's acceptable!

 

[g0rph]

I am truly sorry for having to say so, but if you do not notice anything speciesist in this thread, then pointing at it would be of no use. Also, if you have read my answers, you might get a slight impression of what I personally think to be speciesist attitudes. I would rather not repeat myself, I hope that's acceptable!

Well it would be interesting to know if I had written something in particular that you regard as speciesist?

Saying that, it does depend on how we define speciesism.

For me not being speciesist is giving all animal life moral consideration.
For some it's maybe giving all species equal moral worth...Which IMO is insane.

 

[g0rph]

All animals have language, even plants and bacteria do.

This is plainly wrong.

Comparing the "language" of humans and possibly whales and other highly sentient creatures to the "language" of plants is akin to saying that both the Sun and cement both set.
The meaning of any use of the word "language" of plants and bacteria is metaphorical.

Do you think your brand of anthropocentrism is better than all other brands of anthropocentrism? Is your conception of anthropocentrism the 100% honest and accurate form of anthropocentrism? If our societies are to make any positive change on this earth it begins with abandoning anthropocentrism altogether. It is most likely that we are all doomed then.

Straw man? Ad hominem. Either or.

There is no point continuing. I am putting you on ignore. Please don't respond.

 

[hitty]

For some it's maybe giving all species equal moral worth...Which IMO is insane.

This is the definition of speciesism, analogous to sexism and racism. Giving equal moral worth to beasts and womenfolk? To the lesser races? Even the sexual deviants? How profane!

 

[deadknight]

Well it would be interesting to know if I had written something in particular that you regard as speciesist?

Saying that, it does depend on how we define speciesism.

For me, it is giving all animal life moral consideration.
For some it's maybe giving all species equal moral worth...Which IMO is insane.

If you really insist, this statement of yours is explicitly speciesist in my book:

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

I don't mean to be rude, but I did not say anything about the state o' mind of those who do not share my own opinions.

 

[g0rph]

If you really insist, this statement of yours is explicitly speciesist in my book:

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

I don't mean to be rude, but I did not say anything about the state o' mind of those who do not share my own opinions.

Okay, I am confused now.
How is it speciesist to suggest that many people ascribe traits to certain species that literally do not have them.
A pig doesn't "want" an iPhone. A zebra has no interest in politics. Etc. That's what I was getting at. It isn't controversial.

And sorry if I am being dumb here, but what do you mean by the last sentence?
"I did not say anything about the state o' mind of those who do not share my own opinions."

edit.
Ah, maybe you mean my flippant use of the word insane.
I think the idea of treating all animal life as having equal value is insane. Not the people who think that, although taken to its logical conclusion it might be.

I mean. I drive to work. It is almost certain I kill a number of bugs on the way. It's regrettable, but inevitable and I don't lose sleep over it.
If I killed 4 or 5 dogs on the way to work each day I would stop driving. And killing one would make me sad for days.
If I killed 1 person I would probably never get over it.

If that makes me speciesist in your eyes, then so be it.

 

[deadknight]

Okay, I am confused now.
How is it speciesist to suggest that many people ascribe traits to certain species that literally do not have them.
A pig doesn't "want" an iPhone. A zebra has no interest in politics. Etc. That's what I was getting at. It isn't controversial.

And sorry if I am being dumb here, but what do you mean by the last sentence?
"I did not say anything about the state o' mind of those who do not share my own opinions."

I have never heard anyone state that pigs are longing for iPhones, or zebras have interest in politics.

You seem to deliberately ignore what you've previously written - and you act like you don't get what the matter is. This is not how I prefer discussing things.

For some it's maybe giving all species equal moral worth...Which IMO is insane.

Debating something - anything - in this manner does not lead to any good results or conclusions, only endless and senseless flaming. I don't think any of us would gain anything constructive by this.

 

[g0rph]

I have never heard anyone state that pigs are longing for iPhones, or zebras have interest in politics.

You seem to deliberately ignore what you've previously written - and you act like you don't get what the matter is. This is not how I prefer discussing things.

Okay. Indeed. It was to do with use of the word "steal" when taking an egg from a rescued chicken or indeed "rape" when doing A.I. I disagree with the use because it exaggerates the effect and downplays the crime in our own world.

And with the egg, I don't see it as even unethical if taken from a chicken rescued from slaughter.
With the cow, I think it's unethical, but not anywhere near to the same degree as person to person rape.

Debating something - anything - in this manner does not lead to any good results or conclusions, only endless and senseless flaming. I don't think any of us would gain anything constructive by this.

I don't know why. I use the word insane, as that way IMO lies madness.
Let's say we get a majority vegan world.
Do you think all animals of all species should then have the same protection?
There are only so many preventative measures we can take against invasive species. I am thinking ants, mice, rats, roaches in houses for instance. Or wasps nests in roofs. Sometimes they need to be removed and it isn't always without harm.
Of course if I kill someone, or kill a horse, pig goat, dog, cat, needlessly, then punishment would be apt. But if I sweep some ants up from the kitchen, is that still the case?

All species can't sensibly ever have the same rights.

Or am I misjudging your own thoughts? If so, please accept my apology. You are not giving me much to go on.

 

[silva]

I'm a huge believer in live and let live, inflicting the least amount of harm possible
There was a time not that long ago, where persons with mental and/or physical impairments were treated as objects without any right or need to their own autonomy.
We don't place much thought of insects killed while driving because they're impossible to avoid. Animals can be avoided.
There are still places where hunting and fishing provide great needs for survival. They are also largely lifestyles that have far less impact on the environment compared to those where being vegan is easy
All these flippant attitudes on eating eggs from rescued hens are missing one important element. They only exist BECAUSE of factory farming and selective breeding. If you can see the injustice in their existence you certainly shouldn't see it as something to exploit by using their eggs, regardless of whether you feel the hens care or not. If someone had a true need to supplement their diet sure, but to simply dismiss the act without that need I do find unethical.

 

[g0rph]

I'm a huge believer in live and let live, inflicting the least amount of harm possible

Absolutely

There was a time not that long ago, where persons with mental and/or physical impairments were treated as objects without any right or need to their own autonomy.

Thankfully we have moved past that.

We don't place much thought of insects killed while driving because they're impossible to avoid. Animals can be avoided.

I don't believe this is the only reason.
In many situations, taking a bike would be better both for ourselves, and for small creatures around us. Ultimately we often don't for simple convenience.
Insects, whilst fully deserving of moral consideration, do not, and should not have the same moral value.

There are still places where hunting and fishing provide great needs for survival. They are also largely lifestyles that have far less impact on the environment compared to those where being vegan is easy

I agree, although it's a separate discussion.

All these flippant attitudes on eating eggs from rescued hens are missing one important element. They only exist BECAUSE of factory farming and selective breeding. If you can see the injustice in their existence you certainly shouldn't see it as something to exploit by using their eggs, regardless of whether you feel the hens care or not.

I agree. I don't personally ever use these eggs. But whilst most of the world still does, I don't think it is unethical to do so.
And yes, the farming should IMO stop. But right now at this moment in time, it hasn't. So if some rescued hens produce eggs, I personally think making use of them is more beneficial than not. But I understand that this divides people.

If someone had a true need to supplement their diet sure, but to simply dismiss the act without that need I do find unethical.

Again, I am not talking personally. But I don't know any other vegans. Passing them on (if I had such hens) is a net win IMO.

 

[silva]

Absolutely


Thankfully we have moved past that.

I don't believe this is the only reason.
In many situations, taking a bike would be better both for ourselves, and for small creatures around us. Ultimately we often don't for simple convenience.
Insects, whilst fully deserving of moral consideration, do not, and should not have the same moral value.


I agree, although it's a separate discussion.


I agree. I don't personally ever use these eggs. But whilst most of the world still does, I don't think it is unethical to do so.
And yes, the farming should IMO stop. But right now at this moment in time, it hasn't. So if some rescued hens produce eggs, I personally think making use of them is more beneficial than not. But I understand that this divides people.


Again, I am not talking personally. But I don't know any other vegans. Passing them on (if I had such hens) is a net win IMO.

My point is that by giving eggs a pass of being ethically acceptable you're advocating the egg industry as a whole.
Whether the hens someone has "rescued" acknowledges any ownership or not, and regardless of how well she is treated, she, and her eggs, are a product of the egg industry. It's not as like you foraged eggs on a nature walk.
This really has the same reduced guilt as pasture raised beef

 

[Graeme M]

My point is that by giving eggs a pass of being ethically acceptable you're advocating the egg industry as a whole.
Whether the hens someone has "rescued" acknowledges any ownership or not, and regardless of how well she is treated, she, and her eggs, are a product of the egg industry. It's not as like you foraged eggs on a nature walk.
This really has the same reduced guilt as pasture raised beef

It's not saying that eggs generally are fine, it's saying some eggs are. Veganism isn't about establishing whether chickens employ abstract concepts in living their lives, it's about us making choices that respect the value of autonomy and freedom from our cruelty to other animals. That's pretty much it. Chickens don't care, I don't see why this is controversial. You can go watch them - they aren't worrying about the things we worry about.

 

[g0rph]

My point is that by giving eggs a pass of being ethically acceptable you're advocating the egg industry as a whole.

Advocation is an often used argument. And I would agree if the world was 50%+ vegan. But it isn't. Until that time, nobody cares. Just like people saying "No you shouldn't wear your old leather shoes because it advocates that they are okay"...Nobody but vegans care.

Whether the hens someone has "rescued" acknowledges any ownership or not, and regardless of how well she is treated, she, and her eggs, are a product of the egg industry. It's not as like you foraged eggs on a nature walk.

This really has the same reduced guilt as pasture raised beef

Not even close. You are literally killing the animal in this case. The hen has been prevented from being killed.

 

[hitty]

Chickens don't care, I don't see why this is controversial. You can go watch them - they aren't worrying about the things we worry about.

"No she wanted it, she never said no". This is a very suspect line of reasoning.